3 ms·
You're overcomplicating the methodology. Let's map out a few numbers: A: Number of crime victims armed B: Number of crime victims unarmed C: Victims of ones ow
by DoctorOW 4y ago
You're overcomplicating the methodology. Let's map out a few numbers:
A: Number of crime victims armed
B: Number of crime victims unarmed
C: Victims of ones own gun (who don't already fall into category B)
D = B-A+C means D is the number of people who were not the victim of violence and those only difference is that they were armed. This is because D is goes up as A gets smaller than B, provided guns don't simply lead to self-harm. D/(A+B) gives us a handy percentage we can use to contextualize this difference.
- ghostoftiber 4y agoNo. But you are making my point - There exists an unaccounted group where the firearm (or really threat of a firearm) prevented the crime.
- DoctorOW 4y agoIt's not unaccounted.
- viridian 4y agoIt is unaccounted. I know two people total who have ever drawn in self defense, neither reported the incident, they just got the fuck out of the area. I myself have never actually had to draw but I have had to back up deescalate with a man aggressively demanding I tell him the time from a weak side stance with my hand in my pocket on a concealed handgun, and I doubt he was ignorant of that fact. Why would I report that?
- DoctorOW 4y agoThe reason you aren't reporting being the victim of a crime is because, given only what you've told me so far, you weren't. You came close sure, but altering the statistics to reflect the emotions of you and your friends would actually make them less accurate than keeping them strictly objective. As such, I stand by my previous comment.