May Have to Start OCing - Page 7

May Have to Start OCing

This is a discussion on May Have to Start OCing within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by since9 I see. So your dogma, agenda, whatever, trumps statistically verifiable reality. Good luck with that. Same thing over, over, over again....

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 107
Like Tree274Likes

Thread: May Have to Start OCing

  1. #91
    VIP Member Array SatCong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    7,272
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I see. So your dogma, agenda, whatever, trumps statistically verifiable reality.

    Good luck with that.
    Same thing over, over, over again.
    OD* likes this.
    NRA PATRON LIFE
    AzCDL Life Member
    BROWN WATER NAVY

  2. #92
    Member Array since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    Your statistics are actually assumptions based on numbers not in evidence. In fact, those numbers are more like outright fabrications.
    I see. You can't refute squat so you resort to the simplest and most common logical fallacy in existence. A quick review reveals you just committed more than seven others.

    Enjoy you day, Mike, but your 32,557 posts indicate you'd rather play games than engage in any sort of fact-based, rational, logical discourse.

    Sorry, Mike, but I'm not gonna waste my time. Do feel free to use the following graphic as a learning map on what not to do.

    Adios.

    May Have to Start OCing-venn-fallacies.jpg
    "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor

  3. #93
    Senior Member Array CreedDryrot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    OREGON
    Posts
    683
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I see. You can't refute squat so you resort to the simplest and most common logical fallacy in existence. A quick review reveals you just committed more than seven others.

    Enjoy you day, Mike, but your 32,557 posts indicate you'd rather play games than engage in any sort of fact-based, rational, logical discourse.

    Sorry, Mike, but I'm not gonna waste my time. Do feel free to use the following graphic as a learning map on what not to do.

    Adios.
    You're doing what you always do... making up numbers to fit your argument while at the same time telling people with actual verified/verifiable information that there information isn't good enough.

    You're an internet expert that spouts nonsense most of the time.
    Fizban and OD* like this.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #94
    Member Array since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by CreedDryrot View Post
    You're doing what you always do...
    And you're doing what you always do - badmouthing others (ad hominem) with whom disagree because you either refuse to or can't scratch together a counter-argument.

    Let me know when you're ready to discuss the matter intelligibly.
    "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor

  6. #95
    VIP Member Array Fizban's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southern State USA
    Posts
    3,944
    Some people are perfectly fine with using a completely random set of circumstances which are not controlled by any measurable means relating to "cause" but then use some manner of perceived observational results to represent an "effect" simply because they share 1 common factor. Open carrying 200 million times to the public library (at noon) which happens to be next door to a police precinct is not the same as someone open carrying 200 million times to the bowling alley on the bad side of town at midnight. Open carrying at a laction which criminal activity is not occurring is not the same as OCing in a location that criminal activity is occurring. My point is that [if] the carrying condition are not controlled, you cant really construct an intellectually honest overview of risk. I live in an open carry State, I'll tell you where I see open carriers. I have seen them at the golf pro shop, the coffee shop across from a police precinct, the book store and the local gun shop/range. I see them in all the places that have the lowest potential for crime and villainy known to man. I do not see them down town or in any place where crime is considered commonplace. Im not saying or suggesting that people should OC in questionable places, I suggest that people avoid the potential for problems as much as possible but my basic point remains the same.
    forester58, Cypher and G-man* like this.
    Think like a man of action - Act like a man of thought

  7. #96
    VIP Member Array Fizban's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southern State USA
    Posts
    3,944
    I see. You can't refute squat so you resort to the simplest and most common logical fallacy in existence. A quick review reveals you just committed more than seven others.

    Enjoy you day, Mike, but your 32,557 posts indicate you'd rather play games than engage in any sort of fact-based, rational, logical discourse.

    Sorry, Mike, but I'm not gonna waste my time. Do feel free to use the following graphic as a learning map on what not to do.



    Adios.
    Cant refute squat? Sure we can.. We can refute a theory which is seemingly based on issues which have not been qualified, have no controls regarding "cause" and no discernible data regarding the presumed "effect". Its like bubble-gum string theory.

    The graph is interesting as well as entertaining but it does not negate anything that Mike has said.

    Sorry to see you leave the discussion. We shall carry on without your continued input.

    Adios
    G-man* likes this.
    Think like a man of action - Act like a man of thought

  8. #97
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion county, Ohio
    Posts
    32,669
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I see. You can't refute squat so you resort to the simplest and most common logical fallacy in existence. A quick review reveals you just committed more than seven others.

    Enjoy you day, Mike, but your 32,557 posts indicate you'd rather play games than engage in any sort of fact-based, rational, logical discourse.

    Sorry, Mike, but I'm not gonna waste my time. Do feel free to use the following graphic as a learning map on what not to do.

    Adios.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	venn-fallacies.jpg 
Views:	29 
Size:	383.4 KB 
ID:	304186
    Which ones, specifically?
    Fizban, OD* and G-man* like this.
    "Stop being dangerous, and you become edible." William Aprill

    "Slaves, enjoy your freedom." Chuck Klosterman

  9. #98
    Member Array since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    My point is that [if] the carrying condition are not controlled, you cant really construct an intellectually honest overview of risk.
    When I moved here, I ran the statistics (violence, crime, location, etc.). Based on where I live and the places I go, I have a 50% chance of encountering a situation where I would need to draw during a roughly 37-year span of time.

    Or rather, I should say "did have," as I've modified my habits to be safer. Too many nuts in this world.

    I live in an open carry State, I'll tell you where I see open carriers. I have seen them at the golf pro shop, the coffee shop across from a police precinct, the book store and the local gun shop/range. I see them in all the places that have the lowest potential for crime and villainy known to man. I do not see them down town or in any place where crime is considered commonplace.
    Sounds to me like they modified their habits to be safer, too.

    Im not saying or suggesting that people should OC in questionable places, I suggest that people avoid the potential for problems as much as possible but my basic point remains the same.
    That's a very good suggestion. Avoiding trouble beats the snot out of battling trouble. :)
    "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor

  10. #99
    VIP Member Array Fizban's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southern State USA
    Posts
    3,944
    When I moved here, I ran the statistics (violence, crime, location, etc.). Based on where I live and the places I go, I have a 50% chance of encountering a situation where I would need to draw during a roughly 37-year span of time.

    Or rather, I should say "did have," as I've modified my habits to be safer. Too many nuts in this world.
    Brother.. your methods for qualifying any of your opinions remain unknown. I will say that based on the snipits of information that I can glean from your commentary, I submit that it doesn't sound like anything I have heard of. If you want to offer a merited assessment, I will be glad to thoughtfully consider your conclusions. Until then, I simply cant.

    Perhaps you and I simply have different ideas about how such determinations and conclusions are made. Crime stats are one thing and a properly constructed and examined risk matrix is something else. You are tossing around a bunch of numbers but based on what prescribed calculus and what multivariate element? Its much more than simply crunching numbers. Generally speaking, you cant come up with such complex conclusions with just scratch paper and a calculator. It doesn't work that way.
    G-man*, CreedDryrot and Cypher like this.
    Think like a man of action - Act like a man of thought

  11. #100
    Senior Member Array CreedDryrot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    OREGON
    Posts
    683
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    And you're doing what you always do - badmouthing others (ad hominem) with whom disagree because you either refuse to or can't scratch together a counter-argument.

    Let me know when you're ready to discuss the matter intelligibly.
    No, that doesn't sound like me at all. I don't need to 'scratch together' any kind of counter argument when your numbers are grounded firmly in fantasy. I haven't even argued against anything you've said. All of your numbers are created in your head. I'm just calling you out for spouting nonsense and making up stats.

    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Whether you have three or thirty anecdotal pieces of evidence matters not.

    How many times a day does someone open carry? Let's do the math:

    Roughly120 times in our medium city.
    Times 5 medium cities per state
    Time 50 states
    Times 365 days per year
    Times 10 years per decade

    Result: 109.5 million OCs per decade.
    OD* likes this.

  12. #101
    Member Array since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    Brother.. your methods for qualifying any of your opinions remain unknown.
    Why would you think they should somehow be readily apparent? Probability and Statistics aren't exactly intuitively obvious subjects, facts used by casinos, card sharks and lotteries the world over to separate people from their money.

    I will say that based on the snipits of information that I can glean from your commentary, I submit that it doesn't sound like anything I have heard of.
    You've never heard of probability?

    If you want to offer a merited assessment, I will be glad to thoughtfully consider your conclusions.
    Are you a statistician? If so, run the numbers yourself and share your own conclusions.

    Until then, I simply cant.
    Then you're not a statistician?

    Perhaps you and I simply have different ideas about how such determinations and conclusions are made. Crime stats are one thing and a properly constructed and examined risk matrix is something else. You are tossing around a bunch of numbers but based on what prescribed calculus...
    Calculus is rarely involved in statistics. Sure sounds swell as a buzz word, though, huh?

    ...and what multivariate element?
    Pretty much every situation in life requires multiple variables to model, and even seemingly simple situations can be very complex to model.

    Its much more than simply crunching numbers.
    Define "its."

    Generally speaking, you cant come up with such complex conclusions with just scratch paper and a calculator. It doesn't work that way.
    I use the Data Analysis toolpak for the simpler stuff and my own statistics spreadsheets I created in multiple graduate level statistics courses for the heavy stuff. See bottom sheet tabs. I modify them as required to perform whatever analysis is required. I've dabbled in R, but it's overkill for my needs.

    Why do people like you feel some sort of incessant need to challenge others every time they post conclusions from properly conducted data analysis? I've been in this business more than 30 years. It's what I was doing before headed off to the Air Force. I used statistics throughout my career in the Air Force. Last week I finished a four-week contract analyzing some 3.7 million recording containing just over 50 fields per record.

    You offered, "I will be glad to thoughtfully consider your conclusions." No, I don't think you can. Don't take that the wrong way. It's just that exceedingly few people know how to properly calculate probabilities and conduct statistical analyses.

    So, thanks for your offer, but respectfully, declined.

    In the meantime, I'll continue doing what I've done for a long time and will continue posting results, with or without your approval, thank you very much.

    May Have to Start OCing-stats-worksheets.jpg
    "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor

  13. #102
    VIP Member Array Fizban's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southern State USA
    Posts
    3,944
    Calculus is rarely involved in statistics. Sure sounds swell as a buzz word, though, huh?
    English is not my first language but when I said "by what perscribed calculus", I was simply asking [by what set of values, from where and put together by what means]. I guess its just easier to say.... what information did you use, where did it come from and how did you put it together?


    Why do people like you feel some sort of incessant need to challenge others every time they post conclusions from properly conducted data analysis? I've been in this business more than 30 years. It's what I was doing before headed off to the Air Force. I used statistics throughout my career in the Air Force. Last week I finished a four-week contract analyzing some 3.7 million recording containing just over 50 fields per record.
    I am sure you were good at your job but if you are going to talk about threat assessments regarding predatory criminals, please go learn about it( if you haven't). I don't challenge everyone or everything, I simply challenge those things that stand contrary to my training, knowledge and experience dealing with crime and criminals. I have already highlighted my issues regarding your method. Think what you want Bro.. its ok with me.

    In the meantime, I'll continue doing what I've done for a long time and will continue posting results, with or without your approval, thank you very much.
    That sounds great.. content fosters fruitful discussion.


    ps

    What I will offer to those participating in this thread is that statistics are only [part] of the process by which we can competently assess or predict the potential for danger. Many conditions and elements can easily move the pendulum in one way or the other and by varying degrees. Its not all about pecking a few numbers into a program and pressing go. In my opinion, statistics are important and are commonly used as part of these types of consideration by many professionals around the globe. The main point I am trying to make is that stats are not the domineering force, they are but one element. That's said, statistics do not rule and statistics are not an absolute indicator when considering exceedingly dynamic conditions associated with human behavior. Since9 is correct, I am no statistician.. I am simply a ole country boy who has had the occasion to conduct risk and threat assessments and also profile varying classifications of criminals. I do not outright dismiss any of the mathematical computations referred to in this thread but if that is all there is, I simply cannot call it adequate as the process is substantially more involved than that. Ultimately we all have a choice to make in regards to mode of carry. If a person is not sure if OC is a good or BAD condition for them, I don't think the best place to find the answer is solely within a calculator. If that is how a person makes their decision regarding personal safety and self defense, I suspect they may find themselves deficient.
    Last edited by Fizban; November 2nd, 2019 at 07:09 PM.
    Wavygravy likes this.
    Think like a man of action - Act like a man of thought

  14. #103
    Member Array since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    I guess its just easier to say.... what information did you use, where did it come from and how did you put it together?
    Fair enough. I threw together the following table. It's not definitive, but it's very similar to the definitive one I calculated back in 2009 when I first moved here.

    Please review the key notes, below the table. The 17 years point is for the raw probability.

    May Have to Start OCing-do-i-need-gun-raw-p.jpg

    Key Notes:

    1. Rates per 100,000 for both the US as well as COS were obtained from the sources provided in the table.
    2. COS stands for Colorado Springs, the city in which I live.
    3. We're significantly higher than the national average in motor vehicle theft/damage, larceny, and aggravated assault, but almost 4 times higher than the national average in rape.
    4. The COS POP RAW numbers are actual number of crimes as reported by local law enforcement.
    5. COS per 100,000 values are calculated by: 100,000*RAW/POP (population).
    6. Raw Prob is simply the RAW divided by the total population.

    Without consideration of any other factors, the cumulative number of 3.855% says that, on average, there's a 3.855% probability that a citizen in Colorado Springs will encounter one of these four crime situations in any given year. Based on that probability, without considering any other factors, the odds are 50% that you'll need a firearm around the 17 year point.

    Here's where the calculations consider some of the factors you mentioned:

    7. The Pers Adjust allows for an adjustment in the Raw Prob commensurate with factors including location, physical security, electronic security, and behavior choices. For example, I do not go out and hang around in bars or leave anything in my vehicle while hiking or visiting any park, open space, etc.
    8. Thus, the Adjust Prob reflects my personal 2.46% likelihood of encountering any of the eight violent or property crimes on an annual basis.
    9. Gun Need is my personal assessment as to how often I would either want or need a firearm to deal with the eight crimes. You'll notice all four violent crimes receive a 100% rating. I'm no longer a young man. Why risk life and limb engaging in hand to hand combat when you have a gun? Those committing property crime, however, are more intent on stealing value, not harming someone else, and are often chased off by yelling or even just showing up.
    10. The final column, Gun Prob, represents the actual probability I would either definitely want or need a firearm in that situation.
    11. The cumulative for all situations comes to 0.94%. Thus, the chances are 0.94% I would NEED a gun in any given year.
    12. It's often useful to calculate what's known as the LD50 point. In medicine, it's the dosage that results in death (lethal dosage) 50% of the time. In radiation, it's the amount of radiation that results in death 50% of the time.
    13. The 50% point in this quick, napkin-back, non-definitive study is calculated via cumulative probability, the Failure Success table on the right. For 3.855%, that was 17 years. For 0.9385%, that's 73 years. Thus, we can state, "Given my personal location, physical and logical security, and behavioral habits, there's a 50% probability I would need a firearm at least once during 73 years of living in Colorado Springs."

    This assessment, while not definitive, is close to the 1 in 37 years value I calculated in 2009. I suspect the difference between them is largely attributable to the fact that these days I'm rarely out after dark, whereas back in 2009 I hung around downtown nightspots with friends on a regular basis.

    Is this making more sense to you now, Fizban?

    If you're seriously interested in learning statistics, have at least a high school background in math, and consider yourself to be able of learning things on your own, I suggest you do two things:

    1. Buy a copy of Barron's EZ-101 Study Keys Statistics by Dr. Martin Sternstein.

    2. Run through the 67 videos of Kahn Academy Probability and Statistics on YouTube. They're quite good, albeit fast-paced, but you can hit pause.

    If you're more motivated or find that simple guides and online study are not your style, you can take a year of statistics as an undergrad and three more at the graduate level.

    What I will offer to those participating in this thread is that statistics are only [part] of the process by which we can competently assess or predict the potential for danger. Many conditions and elements can easily move the pendulum in one way or the other and by varying degrees. Its not all about pecking a few numbers into a program and pressing go. In my opinion, statistics are important and are commonly used as part of these types of consideration by many professionals around the globe. The main point I am trying to make is that stats are not the domineering force, they are but one element. That's said, statistics do not rule and statistics are not an absolute indicator when considering exceedingly dynamic conditions associated with human behavior. Since9 is correct, I am no statistician.. I am simply a ole country boy who has had the occasion to conduct risk and threat assessments and also profile varying classifications of criminals. I do not outright dismiss any of the mathematical computations referred to in this thread but if that is all there is, I simply cannot call it adequate as the process is substantially more involved than that. Ultimately we all have a choice to make in regards to mode of carry. If a person is not sure if OC is a good or BAD condition for them, I don't think the best place to find the answer is solely within a calculator. If that is how a person makes their decision regarding personal safety and self defense, I suspect they may find themselves deficient.
    I think you'd be surprised at how many of your "non-statistical conditions and elements" can be estimated and incorporated into a statistical analysis. Accountants may get their hands slapped for estimating, but analysts use estimates all the time, and include the variability of their estimates. Navigators, for example, begin celestial computations with an "assumed position," then adjust that position based on celestial observations and the resulting calculations.

    Even then, however, we only arrive at an MPP, or Most Probable Position. We continue to navigate from that position. Even a GPS position, however, is estimated. It's just that the error of the estimate is measured in feet, not miles.
    "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor

  15. #104
    VIP Member Array ColoradoDiablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    Why not just get a CCW sash?
    Silicone keyboard protector saves the day again. This time...orange juice.
    U.S. Army, Retired (1986 to 2014)
    Life Member, Veterans of Foreign Wars

  16. #105
    VIP Member
    Array Pete63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Magnolia, Texas
    Posts
    3,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Rabbit212 View Post
    Come on Red Safety enlighten us please!!!!
    Wow never thought I would be saying that.
    NRA Benefactor Life Member
    Live Well, Laugh Often, Defend Yourself
    Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
    This land abounds in ruffians and varmints. Their numbers are legion, their evil skills commensurate.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •