Summations Only

Yes. And we often ignore the fact that the gains aren't worth the risks.People citing statistics need to realize that they are nice tidbits of information but that they don't usually have much impact on human behavior.

Just as facts about endogenous retroviruses don't usually have much impact on human beliefs.Again, what's your point?

If you knew how to follow a line of discussion you wouldn't have to ask such stupid questions. NoNukes said:

quote:

---

NoNukes in Message 3468:

​

But it turns out that guns in the house is are more likely to hurt and kill people who belong in the house than they are to hurt and kill criminals. We cannot say the same thing about a car.

​

Not thinking about the consequences is exactly what people are saying is wrong.

---

I'm saying that if ignoring consequences is wrong, then we are all guilty of being wrong in pretty much everything we do.And we can take that position, or we can acknowledge that calling certain people wrong for behaving just like everyone else doesn't move the debate anywhere and is, instead, probably counter productive to creating open dialogue.Now I know you hate open dialoguepreferring witless, irrelevant one-liners to meaningful conversationbut it's actually a good thing and worth giving a try.

And I'm suggesting that this generalization is a complete overstatement. Overlooking the consequences associated with keeping a gun in the house is a pretty foolish thing to do. That's particularly the case if your rationale is improving safety. Or we could just acknowledge that not pointing out the folly of doing what people do is what Jon chooses and is not what everyone else must do. Some behaviors simply do not have much of an upside. I see nothing wrong with pointing that out in a debate.

I think what you're trying to say is that everyone accepts a degree of risk, but that's not the same thing as ignoring consequences. What actually takes place is a balancing of risks and benefits.Concerning guns, the purchase of a gun is hopefully being made while balancing the risk of injury and death to you, your friends and loved ones against the benefit of providing protection. Those deciding to purchase a gun believe the risk/benefit balance favors improved safety. That's what the gun advocates in this thread have been arguing. This is the first I'm aware of someone arguing that gun owners know guns diminish safety but want them anyway.--Percy

But that's not what 'actually takes place'. If it were, no one would drive to get supper.Instead, we would all wait and travel to purchase groceries only as often as necessary. Supposing our risk of dying in a car accident is 1% per trip and our risk of dying from starvation increases by .25% for each day we go without food. It would make sense, based on these statistics, that we should buy no less than four days' worth of food for each drive we make to the store,and preferably more if we want to decrease our risk of death in a car accident even further.That would make a drive for only one day's worth of food (or worse, only one meal) a statistically foolish thing.Yet we all get in the car Saturday night and head on down to the restaurant. Even you and I do it, though we know the risks and are perfectly capable of avoiding them.We aren't 'wrong' in doing this, of course; we're just human. Gun owners perhaps know guns statistically diminish safety but, much like you and I when we go to pick up supper, don't believe they will end up on the bad side of those statistics.And the conversation doesn't go anywhere by calling such people 'wrong' or implying they are stupidly making their decision out of some irrational love affair with firearms.They might after all just be humans.

The upside is all the people who successfully protect themselves with a firearm who would have otherwise perished.Just like the statistical upside of all the people who die in car accidents on their way to pick up supper is all the people who don't die of hunger who otherwise would have (zero, unfortunately).Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Can you actually defend the statement that the risks involved with getting supper outweigh the gains?If not, then your example is not equivalent to what we are saying is the case for guns. Even a person who has bothered to consider the risks associated with getting dinner will rationally make the decision to get dinner.

Yes.The risk involved in dying from not eating a single meal is zero.The risk involved in driving a car to a restaurant is greater than zero. Sure; because they don't care. People rarely make such calculations. And when they do, they often assume they won't end up on the bad end of the statistics.And if you consider them to be rational, then you can only describe someone who buys a gun for protection likewise.I personally think both are irrational, but accept that irrationality is a part of being human.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

The statistics you're using for your example are off by a very large amount. The fatality rate for vehicles in the US is one per 100 million vehicle miles. If the round trip drive to dinner is around 10 miles then the risk of being killed is around 0.00001%, not 1%. While riding in a car is probably most people's activity of greatest risk, it's still a very, very small one. For comparison, in the US the odds of being struck by lightening in any given year are about the same as driving to dinner ten times.You go on to say: But the risk of dying while driving to dinner is far, far less than you thought, and it isn't an example of people foolishly ignoring serious consequences of perceptible probability. There's been no indication of that in this thread. All the arguments from the gun advocates have been about how gun possession makes them safer.--Percy

No. In the real world, people's actions are motivated by their assessment of the likelihood of the consequences of their actions. Sometimes they get that assessment wrong. Providing them with facts is the only way, or at least the only honest way, to help them to do it right.

Aside from the fact that you're doing a statistical apples to oranges comparison (starvation requires an accumulation of missed meals that increases the risk of death exponentially, while driving a car has nothing analogous - the fact that you drove yesterday has no impact on the risk of death from driving today), this wasn't even your argument. You weren't arguing that the risk of starving to death from missing one meal is less than being killed while driving to dinner, something that no one would dispute (ignoring that some people are diabetic or have other health issues).You were arguing something different, that people were foolishly ignoring dangerous risks by driving to dinner, and that that was an example of the same thing gun advocates do when they ignore risks they probably understand by purchasing a gun.But driving to dinner is not risky, and gun advocates have not exhibited any indication of accepting that guns decrease safety.--Percy

You'll notice I said 'supposing'. I was just making up numbers to illustrate my point. Sure. Lots of things have risks and many times people put themselves at risk unnecessarily. It's not just the risk of dying while driving, it's the risk of dying while driving compared to the risk of dying from skipping a single meal.Our odds of living are better skipping the meal than getting in the car. You know it. I know it.Yet we're both gonna get in that car, aren't we? That's possible.I haven't paid attention to their arguments much.Personally I don't own a gun. And I understand the statistics quite well.But if I lived in an area where I felt I might need protection (or had dangerous enemies, etc.) I may still consider getting a gun.

But using invalid statistics makes the point invalid.Do you understand risk analysis at all? Using your arguments no one could ever get insurance. If you cannot understand the magnitudes difference in risk between driving a car and the risk of owning a gun then I wonder how you exist day to day. You arguments have gone from silly to ridiculous.