disturbing

[calimac]

I'm not sure how much play this story got outside the local area.

Ten years ago, a local woman mysteriously disappeared and has not been seen since. The man she was on a date with that evening, the last known person to see her, was eventually arrested and charged with her murder, but after two years in jail without trial, his charges were dropped for lack of usable evidence.

But a lot of people still think he did it, and one of them was the victim's brother. Apparently by happenstance, the brother saw the suspect in a local restaurant on Saturday evening, had words with him, and then went out and got a gun (probably either from his car or his nearby home), confronted him again at a coffee vendor in the same shopping center, shot him dead, and then went out to the parking lot and killed himself. (Tell us again how widespread gun ownership makes us safer?)

What brings it up close to me is that, while I've never been in either of those particular establishments, I walk right past them all the time. It's the shopping center I visit probably more often than any other. It has a branch of my bank, it has my usual office supply and greeting card stores, it has the movie theatre where I saw both Fair Game and True Grit within the last month, it has a lunch place I do visit frequently and which is almost adjacent to Peet's, so I really do walk past its front door often.

Not my only close encounter with a crime scene, but disturbing.

Comments

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

Tell us again how widespread gun ownership makes us safer?

Now, now, David, "anecdote" is not the singular of "data," as I am sure you would be quick to tell anyone who pointed to the recent cold winter as disproof of global warming. Whether you're right or wrong, your ability to make snarky comments about single incidents is not evidential.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Data, however, are the sum of observations. The answer to random disavowals of global warming is a mass of data showing temperature increases, and also showing that those increases lead to increased precipitation, which makes snow when it happens to be cold enough, which it still can be.

The relevant data concerning violence are the sum of a lot of reports of violent incidents. If violence is going up, or down, how do we know this? From studying the number of reports of violent incidents, which you can call "anecdotes" if you don't like them.

The usual response to calls for gun control is "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Fine, then, we need people control. As neither Mr Sanchez nor Mr Loughner could have accomplished quite as much if they'd been wielding, say, lawn furniture, how do we keep guns out of the hands of such people?

Lastly, if the answer - as often suggested - to such incidents is "more people with more guns," we need concrete discussion of how that would have helped in specific incidents, which again you can dismiss as "anecdotes" if you'd rather ignore the question. Because too often the answer is, no, it wouldn't help at all.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

Nonetheless, you need careful statistical analysis of critically assessed data. And, ideally, causal models to guide the choice of which statistics to look at. Single cases don't refute a theory, whether the theory is anthropogenic global warming or "more guns, less crime." In Aristotle's terms, they're rhetoric (based on enthymeme and striking examples) rather than demonstration (based on syllogisms and inductive generalizations).

Note that I am not attempting to argue for or against either theory in saying this. My concern is only with method.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

My concern is also with method. You suggest that using one shooting to imply that guns are dangerous is like using one snowstorm to imply that the globe is not warming. Very well, let's take the comparisons.

Remaining on the anecdotal level for a moment: As I indicated above, properly understood, a severe snowstorm can be anecdotal evidence for, rather than against, global warming. Can this shooting be used, equally anecdotally, to show that we are safer with guns?

Now, turning to statistics. Rebuttal of global warming denials is performed with reams of scientifically valid research to which virtually the entirety of the relevant scientific community assents. Where are the equally conclusive reams of scientifically valid research to show we are safer with guns? Remember that Mr "More Guns Less Crime" Lott has no scientific credibility.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I notice there's been no reply here. So, is there valid anti-gun-control evidence equivalent to the vast body of scientific evidence confirming global warming? If not, then wasn't a comparison to global warming denialism an ill-chosen example?

[ladylaetitia.livejournal.com]

As neither Mr Sanchez nor Mr Loughner could have accomplished quite as much if they'd been wielding, say, lawn furniture, how do we keep guns out of the hands of such people?

What if he had used:
A knife?
A ball point pen?
A baseball bat?
A car?

A gun is a tool, just like a baseball bat, a kitchen knife or a car. Tools are only harmful if people use the tool in a harmful way.

And also anecdotal - I lived in a country where all the law abiding citizens had their guns confiscated - and all that happened was violent criminals got more violent and more people got shot because, surprisingly, criminals don;t care if they are breaking the law by having a gun.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Some tools are more harmful than others. To try to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

I notice you don't name the country. Can you prove your statistical correlation?

[voidampersand.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I feel so much safer knowing that each killing is an isolated incident. It would be very worrisome if it were otherwise.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

I thought the topic was "does widespread ownership of guns lead to an increase or a decrease in violent crimes?" The strip you link to seems to be about "is political violence, including but not limited to violence with guns, distinctively associated with the right rather than the left, the middle, or other political groups?" That's not the same issue.

But if that's what you want to focus on, I will point out that the sort of list you provide can show that such events do occur. But it can't show that they are more frequent in one group than in another. That's a statistical statement about a population, and such statements require statistical evidence, not striking examples.

In either case, my position was not one for or against the conclusion. It was against the readiness of political partisans to resort to unsound arguments quite cheerfully when those arguments support the positions they already favor for emotional reasons, even if they would be quick to point out that similar arguments from other factions were devoid of merit. I certainly have my own political opinions, often strongly held, but I try to remember that what I find it appealing to believe and what the evidence would show to someone with different preferences are not the same.

[kip-w.livejournal.com]

If somebody with a gun had seen him kill that guy, they could have shot him before he killed himself.