Problems? We got problems

Yet another story idea hit me the other day (like I don't have enough that aren't started/finished)

The basic idea was a school/shelter/refuge for TG and gay kids.

Stories could involve things like the kids who get thrown out by their parents and how they eventually get help from the folks running it. How the people running it find ways to make the kids understand that nobody their is going to be on their case for being different. And of course, the weird stuff that is apt to happen anyplace with "weird" kids. :-)

It's that last that lead to this post's title.

It's pretty obvious that most of the kids are going to be living in dorm type housing. And I realized that figuring out who to put where gains *several* new dimensions when all the kids involved are at least *thought* to be gay or TS....

( Read more... )

Arghhh!

I've just been Rule 34'ed. ( http://i.thefairest.info/funniest_thumbs/0s5FXs.jpeg )

I've encountered a toon of Mr., Peabody & Sherman.

Oh, my poor childhood...

bad statistics.

Just ran across another repeat of the tired old bit about "if you carry a gun or knife you are more likely to get shot/stabbed".

Thing is, the usual take is *incredibly* simplistic.

Consider this, yes, it could make you over confident or reckless (a common take on the figures). And yes, there *are* people who think that a weapon is some sort of magic wand. Wave it around and you'll end the problem.

Sorry, but if you don't know how to *use* it, you are better off not having it.

On the other hand, another explanation for the stats is this:

Why are these people carrying in the first place? Gee. Maybe because they feel they are in danger?

And that *alone* means they'll be more likely to get attacked.

There are no doubt other factors as well.

Anybody know if there have been any studies that actually tried to *cross check* this sort of thing to see to what extent the figures are due to this (self-selected!) group actually *being* at higher risk and thus the carrying of weapons is an *effect* of them being higher risk, not the *cause* of it?

If so, I expect that those would be a *great* example for teaching folks that "correlation is not causation"(and that even if it is, which way the causation goes isn't necessarily clear).