bad statistics.
Mar. 29th, 2008 06:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kengrJust 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).
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).
