Statistics, Social “Opinion,” and Self-Defense
Jul 29, 2019 9:45:34 GMT -6
Post by Todd on Jul 29, 2019 9:45:34 GMT -6
Concerning the use of Statistics as support for inductive reasoning, it is important to note the following: Arguing from statistics is the mental equivalent of climbing a waterfall. Statistics do not depend on facts nearly so much as they depend on interpretation and subjective preferences, yielding a thin, evaporative material that can support very little weight indeed. By analogy, statistics, as witness to truth or “facts,” are subject to something like legal “cross-examination” in which the lawyer attacks the credibility of the witness. With statistics the same two outcomes prevail; first those who know nothing about statistics, polling practices, representative samples and random sample selection, and leading questions, have no choice but to believe the interpretation with which they are most comfortable, or second, to succumb to the sense of doubt created by the opposition’s “cross examination” and reinterpretation of the “facts.” Happily, neither of these matter to deductive arguments.
A quick survey of a Google search of “concealed carry laws and the rate of crime,” presents just such a debacle. Meanwhile, real people are still dying. It is not unlike the pro-life efforts that seek to change the abortion law; meanwhile people are still being butchered in wholesale lots by one of history’s most bloodthirsty, uncaring, dishonest industries. So let us proceed using only blunt facts and deduction.
1. All sentient creatures need self-defense.
2. God has provided most creatures with fight or flight mechanisms and other means for their protection.
3. Man alone is unable to rely extensively upon fight or flight mechanisms, being too weak and too slow to survive relying on these alone.
4. Therefore, all people, being sentient creatures, have the right to a greater (efficient) means of self-defense than mere “fight or flight” mechanisms, as is recognized in the American Constitution.
5. No person or group can guarantee another person’s safety and freedom from aggression.
6. No sane person wants to be murdered or otherwise physically victimized.
7. Criminals, would-be criminals, and those who would not scruple to do us harm or violence are to be found everywhere, yet generally without warning.
8. Therefore, a person must at all times be responsible for his own protection against aggression.
9. The aggressor almost always has the advantage of “first action.”
10. First action is enough of an advantage that no more advantage can reasonably be given.
11. Therefore, to even have a chance of survival, one’s means of self-defense must generally be greater than or equal to the instruments of harm possessed by an aggressor. Even foreign policy and national defense recognize the value of having superior weapons.
12. Human beings are aggressive by nature. This tendency to aggression can be curbed only by a preternatural self-discipline such that one’s trust that all others have availed themselves of such self-discipline is, and must remain, a fantasy. This is why governments have historically enforced strict punishments on those who have not curbed their natural desires to harm others. However, it should be remembered first and foremost that punishment is not about its deterrent value, but about justice.
13. Neither law nor policy can alter human nature.
14. Therefore, neither law nor policy should be enacted that depends on the attempt to alter human nature. Since the instruments of aggression and defense are generally of the same sort, to outlaw their possession and use is deliberately prejudicial to the law-abiding citizens and favorable to the lawless, who will not scruple to have and use weapons in the pursuit of their own aims, regardless of the laws. In fact, such laws provide carte blanch for the lawless to feed on the law-abiding at will. That is, to disallow the instruments of self-defense guarantees that such instruments can only be (and therefore will be) used as a means of unlawful aggression, without so much as a vague fear that such aggression will be successfully met by the victim.
15. Those who would deny law abiding citizens their means of self-defense and self-protection place an unreasonable faith in society and the mythical “perfectability of men.”
16. Gun control, by the nature of the case, should only be exercised on aggressors.
17. But gun control will not be exercised on would-be aggressors in our society.
18. Therefore, those who would deny men their means of self-defense and self-protection would set people up to be an aggressor’s “victims at large,” as well as potential victims of government overreach and tyranny.”
19. Any attempt to correct a social problem by curtailing the rights of those who are not a part of the problem is unjust. Any measure that punishes, or jeopardizes the law abiding to the benefit of the lawless is precisely backward.
20. Punishment should be exercised only on the guilty.
21. Deprivation of rights or possessions should be exercised only on those who pose a greater than normal risk, as decided by law. That is, law cannot change human nature, but it may be able to justly determine who poses a greater risk, act accordingly, and punish infractions of the rights of others.
22. Therefore, only when the guns have been removed from ALL high risk people, gang members, organized crime figures, the mentally imbalanced, and so forth can society even approach safety.
23. And therefore, the weapons need NEVER be taken from the law-abiding. To do so is the exact opposite of sanity, and makes of those who would do so, accomplices of the aggressors.
If we believe or say that civilization has somehow made self-defense unnecessary, we have only to look at a newspaper to disabuse ourselves of such a silly notion. For every day there are reports of violent crimes. It is not in the nature of man to put aside his self-interest. We may, with the proper, rigorous, religious and philosophical education lessen the effects of the harmful aspects of human nature, or curb or somewhat curtail its violent expression in some people. But the impulse never dies until the person dies. In the mean time only the certain knowledge of at least the possibility of a potential victim’s possession of superior self defense might deter crime. What little deterrent effect severe (or capital) punishment used to have has long since disappeared with the false and failed notion of “rehabilitation;” now, more than ever, we must be prepared to defend ourselves. Society has been able to effect only modest restraint in the use of violence, and then only when very strict penalties were in place for violent crimes. Even these had more effect on the law-abiding than on those who, by definition, could be deterred by nothing at all. Such people will always be with us.
The argument that “America has more murders than other countries is because we have more guns” is a non sequitur. The real reason is that man is aggressive, and guns are a quick, easy fix for archiving personal goals. The very same argument applies to skiing. There is more snow skiing in Colorado than there is in Bermuda because 1) Colorado has more snow-capped mountains than Bermuda has, and 2) people like to ski. Do you want to get rid of skiing in America? It’s simple; just remove all the snow capped mountains and it’s a done deal. Or is it so simple? Won’t people just find another way to ski?
We can no more rid our country of violent crime by taking all the guns than we can eliminate skiing by pounding down the mountains. Man will always find a means of entertaining himself and of killing his fellow man, and putting a band-aid on the issue will not reach the real cause, i.e., the nature of man himself.
If it is true that deduction, particularly the use of syllogisms, adds no new knowledge, but merely redistributes old qualities to new subjects, we should be sure we know the full scope of the weakness of statistics. For the use of statistics in induction hides the truth and may make it unavailable. That is why dopey ideas are so often justified with a patina of statistics.
-Todd
A quick survey of a Google search of “concealed carry laws and the rate of crime,” presents just such a debacle. Meanwhile, real people are still dying. It is not unlike the pro-life efforts that seek to change the abortion law; meanwhile people are still being butchered in wholesale lots by one of history’s most bloodthirsty, uncaring, dishonest industries. So let us proceed using only blunt facts and deduction.
1. All sentient creatures need self-defense.
2. God has provided most creatures with fight or flight mechanisms and other means for their protection.
3. Man alone is unable to rely extensively upon fight or flight mechanisms, being too weak and too slow to survive relying on these alone.
4. Therefore, all people, being sentient creatures, have the right to a greater (efficient) means of self-defense than mere “fight or flight” mechanisms, as is recognized in the American Constitution.
5. No person or group can guarantee another person’s safety and freedom from aggression.
6. No sane person wants to be murdered or otherwise physically victimized.
7. Criminals, would-be criminals, and those who would not scruple to do us harm or violence are to be found everywhere, yet generally without warning.
8. Therefore, a person must at all times be responsible for his own protection against aggression.
9. The aggressor almost always has the advantage of “first action.”
10. First action is enough of an advantage that no more advantage can reasonably be given.
11. Therefore, to even have a chance of survival, one’s means of self-defense must generally be greater than or equal to the instruments of harm possessed by an aggressor. Even foreign policy and national defense recognize the value of having superior weapons.
12. Human beings are aggressive by nature. This tendency to aggression can be curbed only by a preternatural self-discipline such that one’s trust that all others have availed themselves of such self-discipline is, and must remain, a fantasy. This is why governments have historically enforced strict punishments on those who have not curbed their natural desires to harm others. However, it should be remembered first and foremost that punishment is not about its deterrent value, but about justice.
13. Neither law nor policy can alter human nature.
14. Therefore, neither law nor policy should be enacted that depends on the attempt to alter human nature. Since the instruments of aggression and defense are generally of the same sort, to outlaw their possession and use is deliberately prejudicial to the law-abiding citizens and favorable to the lawless, who will not scruple to have and use weapons in the pursuit of their own aims, regardless of the laws. In fact, such laws provide carte blanch for the lawless to feed on the law-abiding at will. That is, to disallow the instruments of self-defense guarantees that such instruments can only be (and therefore will be) used as a means of unlawful aggression, without so much as a vague fear that such aggression will be successfully met by the victim.
15. Those who would deny law abiding citizens their means of self-defense and self-protection place an unreasonable faith in society and the mythical “perfectability of men.”
16. Gun control, by the nature of the case, should only be exercised on aggressors.
17. But gun control will not be exercised on would-be aggressors in our society.
18. Therefore, those who would deny men their means of self-defense and self-protection would set people up to be an aggressor’s “victims at large,” as well as potential victims of government overreach and tyranny.”
19. Any attempt to correct a social problem by curtailing the rights of those who are not a part of the problem is unjust. Any measure that punishes, or jeopardizes the law abiding to the benefit of the lawless is precisely backward.
20. Punishment should be exercised only on the guilty.
21. Deprivation of rights or possessions should be exercised only on those who pose a greater than normal risk, as decided by law. That is, law cannot change human nature, but it may be able to justly determine who poses a greater risk, act accordingly, and punish infractions of the rights of others.
22. Therefore, only when the guns have been removed from ALL high risk people, gang members, organized crime figures, the mentally imbalanced, and so forth can society even approach safety.
23. And therefore, the weapons need NEVER be taken from the law-abiding. To do so is the exact opposite of sanity, and makes of those who would do so, accomplices of the aggressors.
If we believe or say that civilization has somehow made self-defense unnecessary, we have only to look at a newspaper to disabuse ourselves of such a silly notion. For every day there are reports of violent crimes. It is not in the nature of man to put aside his self-interest. We may, with the proper, rigorous, religious and philosophical education lessen the effects of the harmful aspects of human nature, or curb or somewhat curtail its violent expression in some people. But the impulse never dies until the person dies. In the mean time only the certain knowledge of at least the possibility of a potential victim’s possession of superior self defense might deter crime. What little deterrent effect severe (or capital) punishment used to have has long since disappeared with the false and failed notion of “rehabilitation;” now, more than ever, we must be prepared to defend ourselves. Society has been able to effect only modest restraint in the use of violence, and then only when very strict penalties were in place for violent crimes. Even these had more effect on the law-abiding than on those who, by definition, could be deterred by nothing at all. Such people will always be with us.
The argument that “America has more murders than other countries is because we have more guns” is a non sequitur. The real reason is that man is aggressive, and guns are a quick, easy fix for archiving personal goals. The very same argument applies to skiing. There is more snow skiing in Colorado than there is in Bermuda because 1) Colorado has more snow-capped mountains than Bermuda has, and 2) people like to ski. Do you want to get rid of skiing in America? It’s simple; just remove all the snow capped mountains and it’s a done deal. Or is it so simple? Won’t people just find another way to ski?
We can no more rid our country of violent crime by taking all the guns than we can eliminate skiing by pounding down the mountains. Man will always find a means of entertaining himself and of killing his fellow man, and putting a band-aid on the issue will not reach the real cause, i.e., the nature of man himself.
If it is true that deduction, particularly the use of syllogisms, adds no new knowledge, but merely redistributes old qualities to new subjects, we should be sure we know the full scope of the weakness of statistics. For the use of statistics in induction hides the truth and may make it unavailable. That is why dopey ideas are so often justified with a patina of statistics.
-Todd