Re: Gun control and rape - The myths and the facts


John P wrote:
> "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in a message
>
> > WRONG. AGAIN. Why do you continue to ignore the possibility of ZERO
> > cases? Why is that so hard to acknowledge?
>
> I guess it's just my acceptance of reality and the facts.
> Why do you think it is difficult for you to accept the facts stated in your
> own cite?

I DO accept them, my cite stated 0.0% and I accept that.

>
> >> 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.
>
> I understand. There is some psychosis here which blocks your brain from
> dealing with any number of victims or potential victims greater than zero. I
> wonder what would cause such a mental block. You're not a rapist, are you
> Phil? I am not accusing you, but it is one reason I can concieve of as to
> why this is a problem for you.
>
> So... 10 + 0 = 0, or 200 + 0 = 0
> Is that new math?

It appears to be only your math. You talk about dealing with "any
number of victims". Well I am. As published, I'm using 0.0%. What gives
me the right to just change that to something more amenable to you? If
you have data to disprove it then let's see it. Oh, that's right, you
don't have any such data do you? Pity.


>
> Let's forget statistics for a second here. Lets, for the sake of discussion,
> assume the number is not zero. Lets say it is something between 1 to 200 per
> year.
>
> What number of potential victims you are willing to disarm?
> What number of women WILL use a gun to thwart a rape in 2006? 2007? 2008?
> 2009? 2010?

Based on current data the same as 2003, 0.0%. You simply don't get it
do you? You can invent all the scenarios in the world, that won't
change the published figure. And guess what, the 2002 data is also
0.0%, but you'd probably feared that.

>
> > As you begin with "If so" and there is no "If so" because you had
> > wrongly interpreted my claim your point is moot.
>
> So, something is blocking you from being able to answer the question?
> Let me restate it without the "If so"
>
> 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?

Your statement is STILL a classic strawman. You begin by stating "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." There is no
reason to think that being "uncaring" equates to "make decisions based
on statistics as to what others may feel they need to be safe and
secure." In fact that happens all the time where politicians, health
professionals, military commanders etc. Yet those people would surely
that that they were caring.

You apperar to have a pathological desire to want to state my case for
me, and you get it wrong all the time. My VERBATIM words seem to throw
you, eg "effectively never".

>
> > 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?
>
> Well, in regard to #1, my evidence would be the report you continue to cite
> where the researchers indicate their belief that victimization is
> underreported. In regard to #2, I suggest you might actually click on the
> links provided in other posts in this thread indicating studies that show
> data that contradicts the 0.0% figure, as well as the DOJ report which
> indicates the 0.0% figure is just an estimate based on a random sampling.

"Your" evidence? What evidence? You keep on with this mantra but
conveniently fail to actually produce it. Here's your big chance, lets'
see it.

As to point 2, the other cites quoted DO NOT contradict the US DOJ
figure. NONE of those quotes includes any evidence of gun defense
against rape/sexual assault in 2003. For you to say that stuff
contradicts the US DOJ number shows that you will happily lie to argue
your case.

.

Relevant Pages

  • computer politely progresss Melvins tribute
    ... That's because Government tends to exaggerate the violent nature of crime. ... According to the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, ... Only 1 percent of the victims were hurt seriously enough ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • A NEW publication: "Finnish Statistics for Dummies".
    ... Anon O'Hara forgot to mention -- ALWAYS, ... the data is -- that intercept will ALWAYS be zero. ... since I had already a version "Portuguese Statistics for Dummies". ... The content of the posts may or may not contain verbatim ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: DO NOT BELIEVE IN WHAT Jack Tomsky say
    ... nothing will ever penetrate until he takes a class in Statistics 101. ... significance level, Type I risk, or alpha risk is the ... zero do not prove that the difference is zero. ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: DO NOT BELIEVE IN WHAT Jack Tomsky say
    ... nothing will ever penetrate until he takes a class in Statistics 101. ... significance level, Type I risk, or alpha risk is the ... zero do not prove that the difference is zero. ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: Gun control and rape - The myths and the facts
    ... >> than zero, except for the few incidents where such women are armed. ... let me clarify your response to be sure I am not confuse. ... >> are willing to disarm them. ... >> uncaring and to make decisions based on statistics as to what others may ...
    (talk.politics.guns)