[Vision2020] Hmmm . . .

Fri Feb 22 10:49:20 PST 2013

Nicholas F. Gier, Professor Emeritus
Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho
"The Palouse Pundit" on Radio Free Moscow, 92.5 FM
President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFT/AFL-CIO www.idaho-aft.org/ift.htm
208-301-1278

A society grows great when old men plant the seeds of trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in. 

-Greek proverb

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com on behalf of lfalen
Sent: Fri 2/22/2013 10:41 AM
To: Art Deco; Joe Campbell
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .

iw_mail p{margin:0;padding:0;}
Joe
Part of your second paragraph is inaccurate. There are vary few people who think that the 2nd amendment gives blanket protection . I am in favor of background checks. Those with a history of violence and most of those who are mentally ill(depends of the nature of the illness) should be denied the right to own a gun. I favor concealed carry permits, but only with strict safety training.
Roger

-----Original Message-----
From: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
To: "Art Deco" <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: 02/22/13 07:14
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .

This is great Art. I was a math major but probability theory has always stumped me. As I said, I have no problem with Gary owning a gun. Roger and Paul might be a different matter. Just kidding! I think in the end, it is reasonable to let folks like Gary, Roger, and Paul own guns for home protection. Not a big issue for me, though it might be for others.

But it strikes me that a lot of the claims that these folks offer in support of their "right" to own guns are just plain false. For instance, it is false that the 2nd amendment gives a blanket protection against all gun control.

Another example would be the supposed "safety" of owning a firearm. Note that I might think the safety level (however you wish to measure that) is much less than say Gary thinks it is but still agree with Gary that it is safe enough for the government to not get involved.

My claim, then, if I understand your terms below, is about general risk since I couldn't possibly calculate the specific risks for Roger, Paul, or Gary. Besides, I concede the use of guns for protection of one's family (though I won't speculate on the kinds of guns needed for this usage). My claim is that there is a greater general risk of owning a gun IN THIS LOW CRIME AREA than not. Maybe I'm wrong about that. But I feel relatively certain that, in general, a gun is more likely to be used to harm someone who is not a criminal than it will be used to protect anyone from harm. And in this area the chances of using a gun for protection are so low, I'm not sure how much this last claim would be undermined were we to switch to a discussion about specific risk or the expected value of specific risks. I concede that owning a gun for protection, even in this area, might be a rational decision
(understood in some way).

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com> wrote:
I am reposting this because there was a calculation mistake, and other feedback has shown that it needs to be explained much clearer.

@Joe,

Empirical evidence is important, and especially some general estimate of the risk.

However, the general risk is different from a specific risk, and more important is the expected value of the risk

If for example, I propose to ay you $100  if a throw of a die is greater than 1, but you pay me $100 if the throw equals 1.

EV = (5/6)*100 - (1/6)*100 = $87.560, normally a very good bet for you in the long run, and little but some risk in a single trial.

Social scientists, including economist generally recommend a course of action x if the EV(x) > 0.

Unfortunately, this is not always correct, and in fact, can lead to a disastrous decision which a rational person would not make.

First, in the analysis of risk it is important to distinguish weighing the EV for a single instance (trail) and over many instances.

Second, although an EV(action x) maybe very high, in a single instance the possible loss may not make the risk worthwhile.

Suppose we change the game above to the following.

Assume Joe's total asset - all liabilities including his home are $600,000.

Joe is offered the following game to be played only once:

If a die is thrown and the result > 1, then Joe gets $2,400,000.

If the die thrown = 1, then Joe loses all his assets and agrees to resign his job immediately.

Should Joe play the game - x?

EV(x) = (5/6)(2,400,000) - (1/6)($600,000) = $2,000,000 - $100,000 = $1,900,000

Although the reward is great even for a philosopher, should Joe take a 1/6 of losing everything and becoming homeless and losing his job?

Most of us, though not all, would not play a similar game since the improbable result of losing everything is to much pay.

[Note: that if Joe were given the opportunity to play the game 100 times instead of once, and the results averages, it would be rational to play the game.]

The same is true of playing Russian Roulette for a reward of $1,000,000.  To see the relevancy of this to the present issue: 

EV = (5/6)($1,000,000) - (1/6)(Death) = ?

Given someone's life's situation, like owing millions of debts to the Mafia, for example, the choice to play may be a rational decision; for most of us it would not be a rational decision.

The difference between the above examples and real life is that in real life the probability of the outcomes and even the nature of the outcomes are difficult to accurately estimate.

Nick presents statistics/probability of the downside of gun ownership.  First, it is not clear how accurate these numbers are, how they vary over different locations, conditions, gun ownership knowledge and practices, etc. In addition, obviously there are numerous kinds of outcomes of various degrees of seriousness.  Hence, it is not clear at all how to calculate the the EV of gun ownership for protection in the home.  The risk assessment is different in Moscow with a low crime rate than in a ghetto with a high rate of violent crime.

The dialogue between Paul and Donovan illustrates among other things such as individual values, the difficulty of calculating the EV of gun ownership in particular situations and how it apples to single trial instances as opposed to over the long run.

Gary Crabtree with his large knowledge of firearm his skill, and hopefully carefully applied safety practices will have a different EV than someone who buys a Saturday Night Special, and takes little or no training in its use.  The EV for someone without a firearm is different yet.

In the absence of perfect knowledge (which characterizes most of life) different people assess risks differently, and not always rationally, and hence disputes about gun ownership in the home arise, and are not likely to be resolved easily or at all.

Second, as shown above, decisions for a one trial outcome are not the same as that of betting over the long run.

w.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:

My stuffed animals were as utilitarian in protecting me from the monsters under my bed, in my closet and trying to get into my bedroom window at night as guns are in keeping  rapists out of your bed, robbers out of your closest and murders coming through your window. It is just a security blanket. In reality, stuffed animals and guns prevent neither. They are utilitarian only in the psychology of the possessor.

Guns have one utilitarian function, to effectively kill. I don't need to kill anyone, so it serves no utilitarian function for me. I generally have a prevention or alternative action in mind other than killing someone in most scenarios of life. I'm sure there are instances where a gun might be handy, but for me, the odds of an accidental death or injury outweighs the odds of it coming in handy for me to keep one on my person at all times in a civilian setting.

You want to own a firearm you can. But don't pretend owning a gun makes you bullet proof, or safe, or it is as practical to carry even as a screwdriver or hammer. Your odds of running into a loose screw is much higher then a person you can shoot. You want to be a utilitarian carry a screwdriver or a hammer, nor a gun.  

Donovan J. Arnold

From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
Cc: Gary Crabtree <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com>; Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:19 PM

Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .

Which would you rather have if your life were on the line?  A gun or a stuffed animal?

Which would you rather have if your house was on fire?  A fire extinguisher or a stuffed animal?  I mean, don't get me wrong, I like stuffed animals as much as your normal middle-aged man, but don't you think you'd rather have a smoke detector in case of a fire, a poncho if you're stuck out in the weather while hiking, a donut tire if you get a flat, an air bag if you get in a head-on collision, etc, etc?  I mean, maybe if you were being attacked by a band of rabid Japanese schoolgirls having a stuffed animal with you that you could throw as a diversion might actually be handy.  I just can't think of too many other scenarios where I'd need one.

Seriously, don't you think there's a utilitarian use to having a firearm around?

Paul

On 02/21/2013 05:27 PM, Donovan Arnold wrote:

People want guns for the same reason children want stuffed animals. They serve no practical use in most instances but it gives them a sense of security that nothing else can. Feeling secure and having a sense of some control is a necessity for many people. Some people don't or cannot control their environment and so are in constant danger or feel they are. A gun, returns some of the feeling back. It doesn't do anything for my sense of security. However, I still do have a couple of stuffed animals from my childhood and as gifts, so who am I to judge.

Donovan J. Arnold

  From: Gary Crabtree mailto:moscowlocksmith at gmail.com
To: Art Deco mailto:art.deco.studios at gmail.com

Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .

I agree (I think) I rationally choose not to discard a potentially valuable tool based on how unlikely it is that I will need to apply it in any one specific application and as such refuse to play russian roulette.

Likelihood of firearm as useful tool in home defense scenario    <1/6   (doubtless far less given our community) but not =0
Likelihood of firearm as useful tool when not available                =0

g

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com> wrote:

@Joe,

Empirical evidence is important, and especially some general estimate of the risk.

However, the general risk is different from a specific risk, and more important is the expected value of the risk

If for example, I propose to ay you $100  if a throw of a die is greater than 1, but you pay me $100 if the throw equals 1.

EV = (5/6)*100 - (1/6)*100 = $500, normally a very good bet for you in the long run, and little but some risk in a single trial.

To see the relevancy of this to the present issue, just change the above game to Russian Roulette. 

The owner of a gun for protection despite the odds, rationally chooses not to pay Russian Roulette.

w.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Gary Crabtree <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com> wrote:

In and of itself, no. If he grins, pulls a knife and advances, most likely the answer will be a reluctant yes.

I realize full well how unlikely it is that a home defense scenario is, living on the sleepy Palouse and own firearms for reasons that go beyond protection. I simply do not want my rights curtailed based on the shaky statistical argument of lack of need.

g

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:50 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:

So if the intoxicated college student who wanders into your home says "Or what?" your plan is to shoot him?

You keep missing this point: the scenario that you imagine is improbable. There are other more probable scenarios where you end up harming yourself or an innocent victim rather than protecting yourself.

On Feb 21, 2013, at 5:43 AM, "Gary Crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:

The point that you and most of the other anti-firearm respondents continually miss is that I, nor Paul or Roger are not advocating the Fearless Fosdick/LAPD tactic of firing a warning shot into the back of the head of our lovable and slightly confused/intoxicated intruder. What I, and I believe the others are saying is that a weapon can be a usefull tool in certain situations and while some may elect to not have that tool at their disposal, I would like to be able to have it as one of my options. Any sane person would prefer that an intruder in their home simply leave when told. Having a weapon forestalls the intruders potential response of "or what."

g

From: Donovan Arnold 
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 11:28 PM
To: Gary Crabtree ; Art Deco 
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .

I guess that would work if you sat behind your door with a gun waiting for an unexpected guest. The smartest thing to do if you suspect people are trying to get into your house would be to exit through the nearest door or window. Then call the police. When they exit the house the police will be there to nab them, or you can slash their tires and have fun watching them trying to escape with your insured television.

Keep in mind, if you shoot an unarmed person that is not 100% in your house you are in legal trouble. A dead body in your house will be cleaned up and removed at your expense, and it isn't cheap. And you will have to disclose the death on the sale of the home, which will cost you $10,000s. You will have to live with the fact that you probably killed an innocent person. Chances are someone that entered your home unexpectedly in Moscow would be an intoxicated college student whose biggest threat would be vomits on your living room carpet.

There are countless risks for getting into a gun battle with an unknown person, the risks of insuring your belongs and beating feet at the sign of danger are much less and have far better outcomes. I'm not against owning a gun, but that scenario is a stupid reason to use a gun. I would use a gun if I was out of the immediate reach of the police and there was a clear and present danger to my life or the life of another. With the possible exception if I was robbed constantly with no help from the police or insurance companies.  

Donovan J. Arnold

 From: Gary Crabtree <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com>
To: Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .

The problem does not seem at all insurmountable.

Problem, person(s) force entry to ones home without invitation.

Solution. Point weapon in general direction of intruder and request (insist) they leave.

Outcome. They comply or they do not.

Compliance equals positive resolution to problem.

Noncompliance results in negative outcome for intruder.

The real problem stems from not having the proper tools to affect the desired outcome.

g

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com> wrote:

The problem of dealing with intruders involves sometimes a dangerous lack of information.

Is the intruder armed?

Is there more than one?

What are the intentions of of the intruder?

Who is the intruder?  Is she/he someone known?  What is the relevant history of the intruder?

Are there effective/non-lethal ways of neutralizing the intruder?

How can those intruded upon calculate the the risk to themselves, and decide upon the action to be taken?

w.

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:

These are empirically claims. Could be that pulling out a gun increases your risk. It depends on a lot of factors.

The big question is: does the potential for help outweigh the risk of harm?

And I hate to tell you that in a region with a low incidence of gun violence, the answer is 'No.' Paul's weapons are more likely to cause him harm than they are to protect him.

On Feb 20, 2013, at 8:05 AM, Gary Crabtree <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com> wrote:

Once "he" becomes aware of said gun it becomes a powerful deterrent to staying in your house much less helping himself to your belongings or continued good health.

g

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:

This is what listening to pop music can do to you! 

Paul: If he's in your house, then the gun was not a deterrent.

On Feb 20, 2013, at 6:12 AM, Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:

But not in a judgmental way. I'm too busy singing to put anybody down.

sr

From: jampot at roadrunner.com
To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 06:02:11 -0800

Now you're just monkeeing around.

g

From: Sunil Ramalingam 
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:07 PM
Cc: vision 2020 
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .

The premise of your post was that he was breaking into homes when people were there. Now you're inventing his motive to kill you. No, if he saw your face, he'd be a believer, not a killer.

Sunil

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:56:57 -0800
From: godshatter at yahoo.com
To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .

It didn't say he was.  If he did, though, I'd want to be able to protect myself if he ran across me in a home he thought was empty and he got it through his head that I had to die because I'd seen his face.  Or maybe he's desperate, and now he's willing to try hitting a house that is occupied but looks like he could rob it regardless.

It's a tool of preparedness.  I'd rather not assume that he's harmless if he's breaking into houses and robbing them.  If my assumption is wrong, I could die.  I'd rather not throw away my chance at survival because "OMG!  Guns are bad!"

It doesn't mean, by the way, that I'd just shoot this guy for breaking into my house.  But a loaded weapon is a good deterrent, and if it turns out my life is at stake, I'd rather have a gun than a shoe I could throw at him, or whatever I happened to have at hand.

This isn't rocket science.  Be prepared.  It's the good old Boy Scout motto.   I also have a smoke detector and a fire extinguisher.

Don't let the "guns are killing our kids!" narrative drive your views.

Paul

On 02/19/2013 10:43 PM, Sunil Ramalingam wrote:

Paul,

Where does it say he's breaking into homes when people are in? I had a lot of burglary cases, and my mistakenly charged clients were usually alleged to have entered homes when no one was there. Lots easier to leave with stuff that way, said the authorities.

Sunil

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:02:25 -0800
From: godshatter at yahoo.com
To: thansen at moscow.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hmmm . . .

What's paranoid about locking up when you're out and being ready to defend yourself when you're at home when there is a known burglar in the area?  Being prepared is not the same thing as being paranoid.  If someone is crazy enough to break into your home while you are there, you can go ahead and classify that as a situation fraught with danger, in which case having some means to protect yourself might be called for.  There are plenty of reasonable scenarios where a would-be burglar happens upon a member of the household when he thought the place was empty that could end up very badly for the person he stumbled upon.  If the burglar knew you were at home and invaded the home anyway, then you've definitely got a problem if you are happily unarmed.

Better to have that gun when you need it than not.  If guns frighten you, which I find hard to believe because of your military background, then at least pick up a good aluminum baseball bat.

Do you think I'm paranoid because I keep a set of jumper cables in my trunk in case my battery dies and I need a jump from a kind stranger?  Are you one of those people that joyously flit from situation to situation relying on the gods to keep you out of trouble?

Paul

On 02/19/2013 01:18 PM, Tom Hansen wrote:

<ATT00001>

Paranoia . . . self-destroya.

Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .

"Moscow Cares"
http://www.moscowcares.com/

Tom "Proud to be a Filthy Liberal Scum" Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"There's room at the top they are telling you still  
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill 
If you want to be like the folks on the hill." 

- John Lennon

=======================================================  List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.                http://www.fsr.net/          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com=======================================================

======================================================= List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net/ mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com =======================================================

=======================================================  List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.                http://www.fsr.net/          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com=======================================================

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net/
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net/
         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
======================================================= 

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net/
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net/
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

--
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net/
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net/
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net/
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net/
         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
======================================================= 

--
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net/
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net/
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================  List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.                http://www.fsr.net/          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com=======================================================

--
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com

Hi Roger,

Most of the mentally ill are NOT a danger to others.  That's widespread misconception, and amounts to a smear on a little understood community.

Nick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130222/d6612128/attachment-0001.html>