Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
I'm new here and to cc
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sam Shoun" data-source="post: 2596200" data-attributes="member: 15489"><p>I'm not making a distinction between gun-grabs related to OC vs CC, or between a gun-grab and a gun fully lost to an attacker. I'm simply addressing the implication that, since one is personally aware of only a few gun-grabs in recent years, the probability of the OP encountering one is zero.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I realize your verbiage may have been selected casually, without the intent of a technical risk diagnosis. But this error, while minor, is a common one that leads to unconscious exposure to risk in many arenas of life, self-defense included.</p><p></p><p>To know the probability of a gun-grab, say for a given year, we would need every detail, with complete accuracy, of each of that year's defensive gun uses (DGU's). We could derive from that, with 100% certainty, two sets of information--the DGU's that definitely included a gun-grab, and the DGU's that definitely did <em>not</em> include a gun grab.</p><p></p><p>Instead, what we have largely amounts to a handful of news reports across several years of recent history. Most of us here feel confident in a few assumptions--that the media are biased against reporting on DGU's, that the media are biased against reporting on some types of crimes that are likely to result in DGU's (a number of political agendas feeding this), that the coverage of DGU's we get usually lacks relevant detail and fails to achieve nationwide news distribution. So based on these assumptions, we can believe we are missing detailed reports of <em>most</em> DGU's. In this case, we have three sets of information: DGU's which definitely include a gun-grab (because it's reported, shown on video, etc), DGU's that definitely did <em>not</em> include a gun-grab (mostly those cases caught on video), and DGU's that may or may not have included a gun-grab (due to lack of detail, or total lack of media coverage).</p><p></p><p>Consider an analogy: imagine we randomly pull sets of ten birth records from a hospital's records. We know that, in total, the hospital must deliver about 50% boys and 50% girls. But within each set of ten, what would you expect the most skewed percentage to be? Would you believe one set could be 9 girls and 1 boy? If we knew only that limited sampling, we would be tempted to make some very inaccurate conclusions.</p><p></p><p>Now imagine I've studied the news coverage for 200 of the 3.5 million cases of DGU's in the last five years (based on Kleck's low-side estimate of 700,000 per year). How skewed would you believe my data could be?</p><p></p><p>Based on the marginal data quality and limited sampling, all we can say statistically is that gun-grabs happened sometimes. We don't know how much.</p><p></p><p>I hope this is still relevant for the OP. If not, I apologize for the derailment.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sam Shoun, post: 2596200, member: 15489"] I'm not making a distinction between gun-grabs related to OC vs CC, or between a gun-grab and a gun fully lost to an attacker. I'm simply addressing the implication that, since one is personally aware of only a few gun-grabs in recent years, the probability of the OP encountering one is zero. I realize your verbiage may have been selected casually, without the intent of a technical risk diagnosis. But this error, while minor, is a common one that leads to unconscious exposure to risk in many arenas of life, self-defense included. To know the probability of a gun-grab, say for a given year, we would need every detail, with complete accuracy, of each of that year's defensive gun uses (DGU's). We could derive from that, with 100% certainty, two sets of information--the DGU's that definitely included a gun-grab, and the DGU's that definitely did [I]not[/I] include a gun grab. Instead, what we have largely amounts to a handful of news reports across several years of recent history. Most of us here feel confident in a few assumptions--that the media are biased against reporting on DGU's, that the media are biased against reporting on some types of crimes that are likely to result in DGU's (a number of political agendas feeding this), that the coverage of DGU's we get usually lacks relevant detail and fails to achieve nationwide news distribution. So based on these assumptions, we can believe we are missing detailed reports of [I]most[/I] DGU's. In this case, we have three sets of information: DGU's which definitely include a gun-grab (because it's reported, shown on video, etc), DGU's that definitely did [I]not[/I] include a gun-grab (mostly those cases caught on video), and DGU's that may or may not have included a gun-grab (due to lack of detail, or total lack of media coverage). Consider an analogy: imagine we randomly pull sets of ten birth records from a hospital's records. We know that, in total, the hospital must deliver about 50% boys and 50% girls. But within each set of ten, what would you expect the most skewed percentage to be? Would you believe one set could be 9 girls and 1 boy? If we knew only that limited sampling, we would be tempted to make some very inaccurate conclusions. Now imagine I've studied the news coverage for 200 of the 3.5 million cases of DGU's in the last five years (based on Kleck's low-side estimate of 700,000 per year). How skewed would you believe my data could be? Based on the marginal data quality and limited sampling, all we can say statistically is that gun-grabs happened sometimes. We don't know how much. I hope this is still relevant for the OP. If not, I apologize for the derailment. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
I'm new here and to cc
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom