Re: Gun control and rape - The myths and the facts
- From: ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:10:46 GMT
On 23 Oct 2005 05:07:47 -0700, "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
>John P wrote:
>> "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in a message
>>
>>
>> OK Phile I agree with everything you said. You are 100% correct.
>>
>> Now. With that out of the way, I'd like to pose a new question. Since we
>> have cleared up all other aspects of this conversation, allow me to ask you
>> something related to that which we have discussed an agreed upon.
>>
>> >> What number of women you are willing to disarm based on statistics and
>> >> your
>> >> opinions of what anyone else might need to feel secure or safe?
>>
>> Also, I am curious what your opinion may be in regard to another new
>> question I am introducing in order that we may continue to discuss this
>> point.
>>
>> >> What percentage of women WILL use a gun to thwart a rape in 2006?
>> >> 2007? 2008? 2009? 2010?
>>
>> > It's EXACTLY as I've said all along, the US DOJ reported 0.0% which was
>> > effectively never in 2003. Even you agree with this, so why are you
>> > still arguing about it?
>>
>> I am no longer arguing it. 0.0% means "effectively never", which does not
>> mean "never", but just what it says "effectively never" which means that it
>> *does* happen some number of times, but not enough to statistically impact
>> the 0.0%. Knowing that it happens a number of times, but few enough to fall
>> under "effectively never". Disarming a statistical 0.0% of women who
>> "effectively never" are armed would not disarm any number of women greater
>> than zero, except for the few incidents where such women are armed.
>> Depending on the total size of the group making up the study figures,
>> "effectively never" may involve anywhere from 1 to several hundred women,
>> but when speaking of disarming them, they can only number zero.
>
>WRONG. AGAIN. Why do you continue to ignore the possibility of ZERO
>cases? Why is that so hard to acknowledge?
How about because it isn't true?
>
>>
>> How could I possibly argue with that logic Phil? I was a fool for not being
>> able to see the clarity sooner.
>
>
>>
>> >> Either way, are you willing to disarm any number of future victims based
>> >> on
>> >> the 2003 DOJ statistics?
>>
>> > I'd concentrate more on disarming future rapists. If 5% of the rapists
>> > who used a gun did not rape because they couldn't get a gun, that would
>> > be 150 less rapes using US DOJ data. If 5% more victims used a gun to
>> > defend themselves that would still be zero as per US DOJ data.
>>
>> See? An answer. Very good.
>> So, let me clarify your response to be sure I am not confuse. Specifically,
>> in your last sentence, you are stating that even if 5% of the victims were
>> armed, as long as that number could still arrive statistically at zero, you
>> are willing to disarm them. Is that correct?
>
>WRONG, as you accept above you cannot disarm those not shown to be
>armed. An increase of 5% is still 0.0% as far as we know.
>
>>
>> If so, I would have to reiterate my thought that I am unwilling to be
>> uncaring and to make decisions based on statistics as to what others may
>> feel they need to be safe and secure. I am unwilling to disarm even a single
>> woman, and I prefer to count them as individual people with real lives
>> rather than diminishing them to a single statistic from one year of data.
>>
>> Am I correct that you disagree with this position?
>
>As you begin with "If so" and there is no "If so" because you had
>wrongly interpreted my claim your point is moot.
>
>>
>> > WRONG, again. I wrote "efectively never" to cover all possibilities of
>> > 0.0%. Unfortunately you appear to be completely unaware of the most
>> > obvious possibility, ie zero. Back to school I'm afraid for you.
>>
>> Oh. Looks like I was confused again. So... are you saying then that it is
>> your position that the most obvious answer is that such events *never*
>> happen, even while throwing "effectively" in there to cover the possibility
>> that you are wrong?
>
>I agree, you are confused, again. Your assumption is laughably
>incorrect. If you want to know what I meant I suggest you look a few
>lines above and see what I actually wrote.
>
>>
>> Is it safe then for me to respond that the statistics indicate that such
>> events "probably happen" regularly but "likely go unreported", thus 0.0%
>> shows up as a statistic? ... do the CYA terms "probably" & "likely" allow
>> me to have it both ways - to agree and disagree at the same time?
>
>The stats DO NOT allow you to assume "that such events "probably
>happen" regularly but "likely go unreported", nothing remotely like
>that. That can only be deduced 2 ways; 1) if the DOJ numbers
>significantly underestimate the numbers reported to police or 2)
>another survey specifically targetting this situation provides data
>showing that. Care to produce anything to support your claim?
.
- References:
- Re: Gun control and rape - The myths and the facts
- From: John P
- Re: Gun control and rape - The myths and the facts
- From: Phil Smythe
- Re: Gun control and rape - The myths and the facts
- From: Phil Smythe
- Re: Gun control and rape - The myths and the facts
- From: John P
- Re: Gun control and rape - The myths and the facts
- Prev by Date: Re: World of statistics rocked by pro-gunner claim
- Next by Date: Re: Gun Crackdown May Lead to Lawsuits Against US
- Previous by thread: Re: Gun control and rape - The myths and the facts
- Next by thread: Re: Gun control and rape - The myths and the facts
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
