9 Responses to Model this: more guns, less homicide!

1. Kathy H says:

   March 26, 2018 at 11:42

   There are lies, damn lies, and then statistics.

   Reply
2. Craig says:

   March 27, 2018 at 22:28

   Enrique, you should really rethink your motivation to post a chart like this in a blog titled “Prior Probability” that purports to advance Bayesian statistics. Was this just a challenge to your readers to poke holes in the premise (a la “How Many Mistakes Can You Find In This Picture” puzzles) or do you really subscribe to this? I hope it was the former.

   Reply
   • Enrique Guerra-Pujol says:

     March 28, 2018 at 03:00

     As good bayesians, we are obligated to consider new evidence and update our priors in light of such evidence. (In fairness, the chart excludes the leading cause of death by firearms, which is suicide.)

     Reply
     • Craig says:

       March 29, 2018 at 00:36

       So one wonders how many fewer suicides (as well as homicides) there might be if guns didn’t make it so quick and easy. Saying that most gun deaths are suicides makes what point exactly? This country is sloshing in guns. They are a problem not a solution.
     • Enrique Guerra-Pujol says:

       March 29, 2018 at 02:53

       But by that logic, we should knives, cars, and other dangerous things!
     • Craig says:

       March 29, 2018 at 12:50

       I am not going to continue to argue against false equivalencies and slippery slope arguments, which seem to be the substance of your stance on this issue, Enrique. Enjoy.
     • Enrique Guerra-Pujol says:

       March 29, 2018 at 14:16

       Fair enough, and I certainly understand your frustration with me. To provide some context, I have to confess that my legal world-view was highly influenced by my torts professor (and mentor) Guido Calabresi. He not only introduced me to the Coase Theorem, which posits that all conflicts are “reciprocal in nature” (a point I will elaborate on in a future blog post); Calabresi also posed a fascinating question: in any given social problem (such as car accidents or gun deaths), who is the “cheaper cost avoider”? That is, who can avoid or reduce the risk of harms at the lowest cost? It turns out that, sometimes, it’s the victim!!! (That’s why we have laws, Calabresi would argue, that restrict our freedoms by requiring us to wear seat belts or purchase cars with air bags.)
     • Enrique Guerra-Pujol says:

       March 29, 2018 at 14:18

       Also, to my credit, I am certainly willing to consider a repeal or a revision of the Second Amendment (!), so long as the States get to decide their own policies (either for gun rights or for gun control) however they wish.
3. jecgenovese says:

   March 28, 2018 at 12:37

   Also consider this:
   https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/02/the-bleeding-of-chicago/554141/

   Reply