David Armstrong said:
And thus we have yet another reason why providing citations and sources is usually a complete waste of time.
I must admit that your earlier reticence to provide citations makes a lot more sense in light of this comment. It's an interesting perspective--"I don't want to cite my source because someone might demonstrate that the source is flawed."
I guess that makes sense if your goal is solely to win the argument. If, on the other hand, the goal is to provide sound advice based on hard evidence then it's hardly a waste of time to actually examine and discuss the evidence.
If you don't like the results or disagree with the findings, then just talk about how the researchers themselves are bad.
Again, this seems to be spoken from the standpoint of someone whose main motivation is to win an argument. If the goal is to inform then it's very important to understand the source of the "information" being used. An anti-gun researcher is unlikely to provide data that directly contradicts his views--and even if he tries to be objective it's likely that the results are still going to be somewhat skewed. As I pointed out in my last post, it doesn't mean you dismiss the study results, only that you take their source into account. That makes it all the more important to study the study, as it were, to make sure there are no hidden surprises like the under-representation I mentioned.
It makes it more important to actually see the actual data rather than just the hashed over conclusions provided by the "researcher".
David Armstrong said:
Yet I don't see you using the same set of standards for those "research results" that you agree with, even though they are from noted pro-gunners.
I made no secret of my sources and if anyone here doesn't know that Kleck is considered pro-gun then it would greatly surprise me. I set exactly the same standards for my sources as for yours--the difference is that because Kleck provides hard numbers instead of just hashed over paraphrases or summaries it makes it possible to make rational assessments of his data, just as you have demonstrated.
David Armstrong said:
You mean just like Kleck did when he did not differentiate between unarmed and armed BGs? Or BGs armed with guns and those armed with other instruments?
Exactly, I hoped you would point that out--it's ironic that you did so in a post where you accused me of setting a double standard.
Since it's clear that you understand the concept (of unarmed vs armed) when applied to Kleck's data it's a bit disturbing that you cited an article that makes exactly the same failure to differentiate between the two categories but you chose not to point out the problem in this case because the researcher supported your position. Again, that seems to indicate that winning the argument takes precedent over providing information to allow people to make their own informed decisions.
Like it or not, even the FBI data is pro-compliance, as Double Naught Spy pointed out.
I believe you will agree that, as quoted, the data indicates that while complying is likely to get you out of the situation uninjured, it does not indicate that compliance is the BEST strategy. In the situations covered, compliance works 87% of the time but the point is that if there's a strategy that is more likely to get you out uninjured (for example, one that works 93% of the time) then that's a better strategy. Not to say that compliance is a bad strategy since it clearly works most of the time, just that perhaps there's a better one that will work even more often.
Again, that's exactly why I think it's important to see the actual data.
Just to be clear, I agree that a person needs to evaluate the particular situation and determine a reasonable strategy based on the circumstances realizing that as the circumstances change the strategy may need to change too. It would be ridiculous to advise someone
always to resist violent crime just as it is to advise someone
always to comply with an armed criminal. In either case, depending on the situation, that could be exactly the wrong response.