The laws of Probability and guns

[haymarket]

One of the first things you notice on your first trip to Las Vegas in the amazing display of money that the famous strip provides. Mile after mile of lavish giant buildings of such size and scope and amazing detail that few other places have - let alone one after the other each trying to outdo the previous one in sheer balls to the walls ostentation. You can go to a restaurant where you are surrounded by actual Picasso originals and eat a meal that is the food budget for an average family of four for a week. Throw in wine and make it a month or a year for most families.

What built Las Vegas is mathematics. They understand the basic laws of probabilities and the machines and games are run strictly on that principle. The house will always win in the end.

One of my favorite films is THE DEERHUNTER. One of the scenes that first got it a lot of attention was the infamous Russian Roulette scene in which two American prisoners take turns nearly blowing their brains out. One of the prisoner - played by Robert De Niro - shocks his captors by insisting he will play with two bullets instead of one. This is a shock because this game is also based on mathematics and he just doubles the odds that he will die.

So tell me something please. Why is it that we all can understand the laws of probability and how they apply to things in our world but people on the far right of the gun issue somehow live in the delusion that they do not apply to the number of firearms owned in our nation?

To pretend there is not a cost for 300 million guns in our nation is to play ostrich and live in denial.

If there were half of that number - say only 150 million guns in America - would we have the same murder rate and same suicide rate and same accident with guns rate?

What about if there were only 50 guns in the entire land. Would the stats change?

What if there were only a single gun in our nation - would the stats change?

Anybody who says NO is obviously either lying preferring to live in denial or is just plain ignorant of how probabilities work.

If the subject of guns is too close to your own personal politics or values and you cannot be objective about it giving an honest answer - lets use cars. If there is an island of fifty square miles with 25,000 people on it and there is one motor vehicle on that island - what do you think are the chances of that motor vehicle being in an accident which harms a person?

Now change that situation to fifty motor vehicles. Now change it to 1,000 motor vehicles. Now change it to 10,000? What happens to the chances of a motor vehicle being in an accident which harming a person?


So tell me why a nation which now has an estimated 300 million or more guns also does not have both the attached benefits of the ownership and use of firearms as well as the negative aspects of it as well like its misuse, criminal use and accidental tragedies? Why is there not a price we pay for the proliferation of guns in our society?

Why can gun supporters go to Vegas and understand the laws of mathematics when they play the slots at Caesars Palace but are blind to the same reality when it comes to discussing guns?

 

[KevinKohler]

You are trying to apply mathematics to something for which you don't understand all the variables.

Let's use your island car hypothetical.


In the various scenarios, you are failing to account for the wild card...the single most important piece of information needed to answer your question. WHO'S driving that one car? Who's driving those 1,000 cars? Who's driving those 10,000 cars?

There are fewer cars in FL, and yet, somehow, despite your flimsy understanding of odds and mathematics, FL has a higher auto accident rate per capita than, say, CT, or NY. As evidenced by crappy FL no fault insurance, lol.


Pick a better angle, and try try again.

 

[haymarket]

You are trying to apply mathematics to something for which you don't understand all the variables.

Let's use your island car hypothetical.


In the various scenarios, you are failing to account for the wild card...the single most important piece of information needed to answer your question. WHO'S driving that one car? Who's driving those 1,000 cars? Who's driving those 10,000 cars?

There are fewer cars in FL, and yet, somehow, despite your flimsy understanding of odds and mathematics, FL has a higher auto accident rate per capita than, say, CT, or NY. As evidenced by crappy FL no fault insurance, lol.


Pick a better angle, and try try again.

The law of averages and probabilities accounts for wild cards and assumes that the odds will even out eventually once enough come into play with the greater number that are not wild cards.

Vegas is no different. They assume that just like there are better and more skilled drivers who can avoid some accidents, there are more skilled players who can slightly alter the odds more to their favor. But in the end, with so many different people involved - the probabilities come into play and determine the bottom line.

So I ask again - To pretend there is not a cost for 300 million guns in our nation is to play ostrich and live in denial.

If there were half of that number - say only 150 million guns in America - would we have the same murder rate and same suicide rate and same accident with guns rate?

What about if there were only 50 guns in the entire land. Would the stats change?

What if there were only a single gun in our nation - would the stats change?

 

[KevinKohler]

The law of averages and probabilities accounts for wild cards and assumes that the odds will even out eventually once enough come into play with the greater number that are not wild cards.

Vegas is no different. They assume that just like there are better and more skilled drivers who can avoid some accidents, there are more skilled players who can slightly alter the odds more to their favor. But in the end, with so many different people involved - the probabilities come into play and determine the bottom line.

You're still not accounting for the primary factor, a factor that can't be mapped or determined by mathematics.


Explain how, in SPITE of your theory, a MORE congested area has fewer traffic accidents per capita than a LESS congested area?



And when we're done with that, explain how, using those two SAME areas, NY and FL, NY has FEWER guns per capita, but HIGHER gun crime, than FL, which has MORE guns per capita, but much, MUCH lower gun crime?

 

[haymarket]

You're still not accounting for the primary factor, a factor that can't be mapped or determined by mathematics.


Explain how, in SPITE of your theory, a MORE congested area has fewer traffic accidents per capita than a LESS congested area?



And when we're done with that, explain how, using those two SAME areas, NY and FL, NY has FEWER guns per capita, but HIGHER gun crime, than FL, which has MORE guns per capita, but much, MUCH lower gun crime?

Which is exactly why insurance companies - professionals who survive just like Vegas does on pure mathematical numbers and probabilities - adjusts their rates and numbers for different areas. In other words - they do take into consideration the very things that you claim cannot be determined.

So I ask again - To pretend there is not a cost for 300 million guns in our nation is to play ostrich and live in denial.

If there were half of that number - say only 150 million guns in America - would we have the same murder rate and same suicide rate and same accident with guns rate?

What about if there were only 50 guns in the entire land. Would the stats change?

What if there were only a single gun in our nation - would the stats change?

 

[KevinKohler]

Which is exactly why insurance companies - professionals who survive just like Vegas does on pure mathematical numbers and probabilities - adjusts their rates and numbers for different areas. In other words - they do take into consideration the very things that you claim cannot be determined.

So I ask again - To pretend there is not a cost for 300 million guns in our nation is to play ostrich and live in denial.

If there were half of that number - say only 150 million guns in America - would we have the same murder rate and same suicide rate and same accident with guns rate?

What about if there were only 50 guns in the entire land. Would the stats change?

What if there were only a single gun in our nation - would the stats change?

Explain the FL vs NY comparison, then?



Let me boil this down for you, since you seem intent of avoiding the REAL issue.


We don't have a gun problem, in this country, we have a CRIMINAL problem in this country.

Remove every gun, all of them. By some magic force, you remove ALL fire arms. Guess what? The KNIFE violence will skyrocket, to closely mirror the current gun violence. Getting rid of guns only gets rid of gun related violence, not the violence itself.


Insurance companies adjust their rates based on the previous years numbers, not by mapping driver skill of any particular area. Because mapping driver skill on a large scale is impossible. And you still haven't answered a single question I have asked.


Either answer the questions, or admit you're wrong on this one.

 

[ttwtt78640]

OK lets use your odds in this scenario: A 200 lb. young adult male wishes to rape/rob a 100 lb. young adult female. Do the odds change if they are both armed as opposed to if neither are armed?

 

[TurtleDude]

the entire premise is silly because the real issue is armed criminals and that won't change. All the bans Haymarket supports only disarms the people not causing crime

 

[haymarket]

Let me boil this down for you, since you seem intent of avoiding the REAL issue.

Your questions are a dishonest attempt to steer the discussion to the same old same old that dominate these gun threads and I will not be part of that.

You wanna rip on me for not answering your diversionary questions - go for it.

The issue behind this thread is a simple one that you do not want to recognize as valid because it upsets the gun lobby agenda: does the proliferation of millions of guns in America also produce negative effects as those numbers grow?

Or are we back to the far right delusional fantasy I head once that there is no down side to guns - they are some sort of pure good.

 

[haymarket]

the entire premise is silly because the real issue is armed criminals and that won't change. All the bans Haymarket supports only disarms the people not causing crime

no Turtle - the issue in this thread that i started is what I said it was - not what you want it to be.

 

[haymarket]

OK lets use your odds in this scenario: A 200 lb. young adult male wishes to rape/rob a 100 lb. young adult female. Do the odds change if they are both armed as opposed to if neither are armed?

I would expect that the odds of the lady being able to better protect herself would indeed change as she is armed.

 

[TurtleDude]

no Turtle - the issue in this thread that i started is what I said it was - not what you want it to be.

The issue you raised is silly. someone previously corrected your error

 

[ttwtt78640]

I would expect that the odds of the lady being able to better protect herself would indeed change as she is armed.

That is correct. Does making it more difficult or expensive to get a gun help those odds?

 

[haymarket]

The issue you raised is silly. someone previously corrected your error

No one corrected any error since no error was made. But some of you are doing an excellent job at doping just what I expected. Again, from my OP:

Why is it that we all can understand the laws of probability and how they apply to things in our world but people on the far right of the gun issue somehow live in the delusion that they do not apply to the number of firearms owned in our nation?

Even when I do not try to hide my intent and lay it out in plain English, some here cannot restrain themselves from stepping right where I said they would step.

 

[haymarket]

That is correct. Does making it more difficult or expensive to get a gun help those odds?

Good question. I guess that depend on a number of other issues as well. Since guns are such an emotional issue with so many here, lets leave guns fora moment and use a different example.

Cars help people move around and do great things like get to work and assist in running errands and other necessary things. So why then do we want laws which increase the cost of cars and make them harder to get?

If you can honestly answer that - and its really a rather simple and obvious answer - you can also see the answer to your question regarding guns.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Good question. I guess that depend on a number of other issues as well. Since guns are such an emotional issue with so many here, lets leave guns fora moment and use a different example.

Cars help people move around and do great things like get to work and assist in running errands and other necessary things. So why then do we want laws which increase the cost of cars and make them harder to get?

If you can honestly answer that - and its really a rather simple and obvious answer - you can also see the answer to your question regarding guns.

Driving is a privilege that also happens to require a very large gov't provided infrastructure to make it practical. Those user fees, to help support that infrastructure, do not limit any constitutional right since we have no right to keep and drive cars.

 

[haymarket]

Driving is a privilege that also happens to require a very large gov't provided infrastructure to make it practical. Those user fees, to help support that infrastructure, do not limit any constitutional right since we have no right to keep and drive cars.

I am not disputing that. But really - so what? I have a right to get married but the government charges for that. I have a right to own property but there are government charges for that. I have a right to a jury trial but that can cost me a lot of money paid to the government. There are government fees and taxes on my cable bill - does that violate my first Amendment Rights? The same with taxes I have to pay on printed material.

 

[Muhammed]

Why can gun supporters go to Vegas and understand the laws of mathematics when they play the slots at Caesars Palace but are blind to the same reality when it comes to discussing guns?

Your question implies a false assumption and lacks relevancy.

Learn to think logically.

 

[KevinKohler]

Your questions are a dishonest attempt to steer the discussion to the same old same old that dominate these gun threads and I will not be part of that.

You wanna rip on me for not answering your diversionary questions - go for it.

The issue behind this thread is a simple one that you do not want to recognize as valid because it upsets the gun lobby agenda: does the proliferation of millions of guns in America also produce negative effects as those numbers grow?

Or are we back to the far right delusional fantasy I head once that there is no down side to guns - they are some sort of pure good.

It's not valid because it's not valid. We could have 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 guns in this country, and it wouldn't change the fact that the only factor that matters are the owners. Something you can't direct with simple odds.

Sure, if we indescriminately handed out guns to every single person....like, we set up little booths at every street corner, and anyone who wants a gun, gets one...then yeah, obviously, gun violence WILL increase, because criminals will get hold of them proportional to non criminals...100%, or better.

Is that your argument, lol?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I am not disputing that. But really - so what? I have a right to get married but the government charges for that. I have a right to own property but there are government charges for that. I have a right to a jury trial but that can cost me a lot of money paid to the government. There are government fees and taxes on my cable bill - does that violate my first Amendment Rights? The same with taxes I have to pay on printed material.

In your mind the government's right to tax supersedes all other rights. In my mind it does not.

 

[haymarket]

Your question implies a false assumption and lacks relevancy.

Learn to think logically.

The only false assumption is the one that gun lovers apply pretending that the laws of probability which apply to all things do not apply to guns.

And this exposes their fraud as well as their ideological intransigence. Which I guess is why they do not like it.

 

[haymarket]

In your mind the government's right to tax supersedes all other rights. In my mind it does not.

No - I never said that. All I did was relate the simple fact that government already taxes things which are part of rights. So guns are nothing special nor exempt.

 

[haymarket]

It's not valid because it's not valid. We could have 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 guns in this country, and it wouldn't change the fact that the only factor that matters are the owners. Something you can't direct with simple odds.

Sure, if we indescriminately handed out guns to every single person....like, we set up little booths at every street corner, and anyone who wants a gun, gets one...then yeah, obviously, gun violence WILL increase, because criminals will get hold of them proportional to non criminals...100%, or better.

Is that your argument, lol?

Of course the owners and users and people who pull the trigger are part of that same number. To pretend that they never were is silly in the extreme.

No - that is your argument.

Mine was simple - there is a cost - and a negative cost paid by many - for a society which has as many guns as they do adults.

Do you deny that?

 

[KevinKohler]

Of course the owners and users and people who pull the trigger are part of that same number. To pretend that they never were is silly in the extreme.

No - that is your argument.

Mine was simple - there is a cost - and a negative cost paid by many - for a society which has as many guns as they do adults.

Do you deny that?

By cost, do you mean, the fees required with owning a gun, the cost of buying one, the price of bullets, the annual membership fees of shooting ranges?


Or are you saying that gun violence is a cost of gun proliferation?

I believe the latter, yes?

So, remove guns. And now look, no more gun violence, yes? And now america is violent crime free...oh, wait, no, it won't be...

Your fixation is on the GUN, in the gun violence, rather than the violence, in the gun violence.


Why is that?

 

[jet57]

Explain the FL vs NY comparison, then?



Let me boil this down for you, since you seem intent of avoiding the REAL issue.


We don't have a gun problem, in this country, we have a CRIMINAL problem in this country.

Remove every gun, all of them. By some magic force, you remove ALL fire arms. Guess what? The KNIFE violence will skyrocket, to closely mirror the current gun violence. Getting rid of guns only gets rid of gun related violence, not the violence itself.


Insurance companies adjust their rates based on the previous years numbers, not by mapping driver skill of any particular area. Because mapping driver skill on a large scale is impossible. And you still haven't answered a single question I have asked.


Either answer the questions, or admit you're wrong on this one.

If you remove all guns - you don't have a gun problem anymore. How do you deal with that truth?

Adn; is it possible that Florida has more old people percapita than any other state?