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]

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?