🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1994Oct25.030020.9582@rpp386>,
John F. Haugh II <jfh@rpp386.cactus.org> wrote:
>In article <Cy6qxy.9x2@txnews.amd.com> ricks@dvorak.amd.com (Rick Shank) writes:
>>I believe that is exactly what I meant.  The way it was originally written,
>>it was stated as an absolute rather than a likelihood.  The other problem
>>with statistics is that they are almost always used to state as fact, things
>>which are not valid due to the test/sample/data.  For example:  If a survey
>>showed most crimes were committed with a handgun, removal of handguns would
>>eliminate crime.  What would really happen is the criminal would find another
>>weapon.  Also, statistics only show trends.  They are not absolutes.
>
>Sorry, I over-reacted.  I ready your "PROBABLY" as "more likely to be
>PROBABLY NOT".  In the cited study, odds are the number of felonies
>prevented annually by gun ownership is somewheres near 2,000,000.  It is
>very likely that the number is off by a few hundred thousand either way.
>
>Statistics provide information about the likelyhood of events.  They may even
>show possible cause and effect relationships.  But you are wrong in your
>statement about statistics only showing trends, or the attempted relationship
>between guns and crime in your example.  You've committed the usual mistake
>that correlation and causation are linked.  This is why people don't
>understand how "crime" and "guns" have the relationship they do -- they
>don't know what the statistics mean.
>
>For example, if all of the crimes in this country are committed with a gun
>it doesn't follow that removing guns will reduce crime.  Even if the real
>outcome would be that criminals found another weapon.  Without knowing if
>the crime required a gun, or even if a crime required a weapon, you cannot
>predict what would happen if guns or knives or sticks were outlawed.  The
>reason is that you've not begun to address the role of the "thing" in the
>outcome.  Consider for a moment how guns in the hands of non-criminals
>might "behave".  Does the gun "cause" the behavior, or does the criminal
>use the gun as a tool, much as anyone beyond homo habilis uses tools?
>




Once again John, that is exactly what I just said.  Let me rephrase it as
I can see where the misunderstanding is (my writing)


 For example:  If a survey showed most crimes were committed with a handgun, 
 some would come to believe removal of handguns would eliminate crime.  This
 is not true.  What would really happen is the criminal would find another
 weapon.  Also, statistics only show trends (where the bulk of the sample 
 lies).  They are not absolutes.@�\ Newsgroups: tx.general,dfw.general,austin.general
Subject: Re: GUN CONTROL Re: I'd just like to say I support Ann for Gov