figures never lie, but liars figure

Over the years, my parents raised me with a healthy respect for and suspicion of polls, statistics, and other such number-crunching exercises. They can be remarkably powerful when applied properly, but all it takes is an erroneous process, or a dishonest operator, and the same set of numbers can yield drastically different results, sometimes capable of supporting both sides of the same argument. Yeah, it takes careful control of the numbers, and care in discarding outliers, examining trends, and applying distributions, but it is possible. Then, once I made it to Georgia Tech and started working on a degree program that all-but specialized in probability and statistics, I learned, first hand, just how that kind of manipulation is possible. I cannot replicate it myself – both because I forgot a lot of the stuff I learned back in college, and because my inherent (and occasionally quite problematic) honesty would preclude me from doing so – but there are those who can.
The true problem these days, however, is when people simply misuse numbers, without the benefit of trying to hide them behind complicated statistical schemes or the like. This is problematic because it is so inherently simple – people immediately buy off on straightforward numbers, because those are something they can understand. Complicated distributions or arrangements are beyond most people’s level of effort they are willing to put forward to understand something, but a raw, straightforward number? That they can grasp with a minimum of effort, so there you go.
A perfect example of this can be found on a weblog I am somewhat loathe to link to, but it is necessary. In this post, the author links to a study indicating that approximately 500,000 firearms are stolen each year. The author notates these numbers as “quite large”, and uses it as an indication that the odds of a gun owners firearms being stolen are far from being “infinitely small”, as some other weblogger tried to point out to him.
I will not deny it – half a million does sound like a rather large number, especially when you are considering very expensive pieces of metal, wood, and synthetics capable of lobbing little slugs of metal at high velocities. But what, exactly, makes it a large number? The zeros? So where is the cutoff? 50,000? 5,000? 500? 50? How about just five? I know what you are thinking – “How could five be a large number?” Well, imagine this: five knife-wielding goblins facing you down in a dead-end alley… or, even worse, five rapists doing the same to your wife/girlfriend. At that point, even one appears to be a massive number.
So how do we solve this conundrum? Easy: Put the number in context. In this case, the statistic of approximately 500,000 firearms stolen a year can be put in the context of just how many firearms there are in the United States. Thankfully, there was a study recently executed indicating that America is “the most heavily armed society in the world” with “90 guns for every 100 citizens” (I wonder why they could not have just said 9 guns for every 10 citizens?). The article continues to illustrate that Americans own approximately 270 million firearms.
Alrighty, time for the math. 500,000 firearms stolen a year in America, with 270 million firearms total. If you do the crunching, that comes out to approximately (especially since those two previous numbers are very approximate) 0.18519% of firearms are stolen every year. In case you are having difficulties comprehending that number, it is effectively (rounding up a little, just to be generous), two tenths of a single percent.
If that is not statistically insignificant, I honestly do not know what would be.
Please do not misunderstand me – I am not saying that we should not pay attention to those firearms being stolen. But using the numbers of firearms being stolen as leverage in any argument spanks of emotional ploys at best, intellectual dishonesty at worst.
Unfortunately, in the case of the author in question, I do believe it stems from an inherent, unwaverable sense of the latter. That, or intentional ignorance, and while that seems plausible, I am trying to give the individual the benefit of the doubt. How can I come to this conclusion, you ask? Well, if you were to read to the bottom of the article to which I linked (I would advise against it – it really is not worth your time, effort, or increased blood pressure), you would find this particular gem:

What we want is a better effort as a society to make sure that a) the kinds of guns available to the public are appropriate for self-defense and hunting uses (and so no weapons that are about killing the maximum number of people in the shortest possible period of time); b) people who purchase guns have to undergo SERIOUS background checks and are held accountable for reporting the theft of their guns, for keeping their guns appropriately stored, etc.; c) people who sell or trade guns to people without legal background checks are given REAL criminal penalties instead of the slaps on the wrist they currently tend to get; and d) available technological fixes for some of the most serious public health problems that stem from guns are required by law.

So let us examine each of these individually. First, name one firearm that is not appropriate for either self-defense or hunting uses? The fact of the matter is that any firearm could be used for either purpose. It is certainly true that some are better suited for those roles than others – I certainly would not use a Barret 82A1 as a home defense weapon, nor would I use a Derringer to hunt buffalo – but any firearm is capable of discouraging or stopping either goblins or game. All that clause boils down to is an implied attack against the concept of “assault weapons” – a phrase that as aesthetically, not logically, applied. This conclusion is only subsantiated by his parenthetical phrase. I do not know about the firearms he has access to, but the guns I and about 99% of the rest of America can buy can only go bang once with each pull of the trigger. Trust me, I have tried holding down the trigger on both my Baby Eagle and my M1A, and the darned firing pin will only move forward that once. So considering that semiautomatic firearms all fire at effectively the same rate – as fast as you can pull the trigger – which ones, exactly, are “about killing the maximum number of people in the shortest period of time”? Or is he suggesting we go back to exclusively bolt-action rifles… or muzzle-loaders? Given the author, I would not put it past him.
Second, people who purchase guns do have to undergo serious background checks. I know. I have purchased two. The full list of what NICS checks can be found here, but suffice it to say that it is comprehensive enough that copying it here would take up most of the post. As for being held accountable for our firearms being stolen, that would be about the same as holding the firearm manufacturers accountable… or holding car manufacturers accountable for accidents… or car owners for car thefts… or alcohol manufacturers for drunks… or any number of other analogies. How about holding the criminals accountable – you know, the people who did the actual crime of stealing the firearm? I guess it is easier to find the law-abiding firearm owners, what with the growing number of quasi-registrations out there, than actually expending the police effort to track down the actual bad guys.
Third, why is it that firearms are treated differently from any other piece of hardware? I can sell a car to someone without verifying whether or not they have a driver’s license, insurance, or even feet. And whether hoplophobes want to admit it or not, I am firmly of the belief that vehicles are almost as dangerous as firearms… hell, if nothing else, that is one massive bomb hidden away in their guts, and if you do not like that angle, they sure do make a great blunt-force instrument. How about we give the people who use firearms in the commission of a crime REAL criminal penalties instead of the slaps on the wrist they currently tend to get? And, for clarification, I am talking about something along the lines of “If you commit a crime with the assistance of a firearm, the sentence is, at minimum, life imprisonment.” But the same hoplophobes that would strip us law-abiding citizens of our God-granted and Constitutionally-protected right to self defense would also, no doubt, object to that being cruel and unusual. And, again, that nasty little bugger of actually having to find, prosecute, and imprison the criminals rears its cute little head. Of course, that would require a law enforcement arm more interested in pursuing criminals than persecuting law-abiding citizens, a judicial system that actually puts criminals in jail, and a people willing to support both. Fat chance of that, eh?
Fourth… well, I would address it, if it made logical sense. The only “public health problems that stem from guns” tend to be holes in people. The only “technological fixes” to help that “problem” is either removing the firearm, or removing the ammunition. Now, that is undoubtedly the end goal of most hoplophobes out there, whether they tell you otherwise or not, but that is about the only conclusion I can draw. And, yes, it is unfortunate that people are accidentally wounded and killed with firearms. But people are accidentally wounded and killed with vehicles, shop tools, construction cranes, pets, sports, and so many other things. Accidents happen. It is a matter of life, unfortunate though it may be. And we can certainly do all we can to minimize the risks and chances, but they will still happen. Hate to break it to you.
What we have here, people, is a classic case of hoplophobia – a person being governed by his or her fears, and not anything even approximating rational or logical thought. The use of the “statistics” at the beginning of the post were nothing more than an emotional ploy, since the figures were not put in any context, and were therefore intended to evoke a gut response from the people reading them. Add to that the last paragraph, wherein he quotes the standard anti-gun rhetoric that is intended to cater to your average American’s apparent inate fear of firearms… well, there you go. It is always great when your test subjects prove your axioms for you.
At this point, you are probably wondering why I did not leave this as a comment on the weblog in question, and address the author directly. Well, the fact of the matter is this: I tried. You see, hoplophobe weblogs come in one of two flavors – those that do not accept comments at all, and those that accept comments, and moderate out all of the ones that disagree with them, or shoot holes in their theories. After all, if no one is apparently speaking up to disagree with them, they must be right… right? In essence, it boils down to nothing more than their own arguments and belief being sufficiently weak as to not be able to withstand the other arguments and beliefs being expressed… much less the scrutiny of others.
As always, gun control certainly is not about the firearms, but, damnit, I like shooting my guns, and these people trying to strip that joy away from me is just frustrating as hell. Why they do not persecute those who are intent upon committing crimes with the firearms, as opposed to those of us who try our damnest to stay within the convoluted and absurdly numerous firearm laws out there, I will never, ever understand.
Trackposted to Stop the ACLU, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, Big Dog’s Weblog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, Phastidio.net, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, Public Eye, The Yankee Sailor, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.