Proof may be problematic
NineseveN said:
All of this is nice and all, but the thread titles asks for PROOF that open carry is a bad idea, not your feelings, my feelings, or the friggin Greely County Sherriff's feelings on the matter....I'm still looking for some proof, haven't been able to locate any myself.
NineseveN, I think your nudging us back towards Beethoven's original post is reasonable, with one caveat.
First, let's review the original post. (Sometimes after reading a few pages, I start to lose sight of the original topic.
)
Beethoven said:
Has open carry ever been PROVEN to be a bad idea?
Invariably when open carry is discussed on forums, there are people talking about how it will make you a target instead of having the desired effect of people leaving you alone.
Has this ever been PROVEN to be true?
Can anyone provide factual evidence for even a single case in which a civilian was actully targeted by thugs because he was openly carrying?
While I
think I understand Beethoven's motivation for asking that, and think it's an interesting question for discussion, I'll suggest that "proof" in this case may be problematic. I like his use of the word "evidence" better, where evidence is slightly less rigorous than "proof".
Here's why.
The concept of "proof" demands cause and effect logic. When one is working with a simple system, proof isn't so hard to come by. If the cue ball strikes the 8 ball dead on into the corner pocket, one has 'proof' of the cause.
But when trying to sort out the multiplicity of factors involved in a complex social situation, where a person who was openly carrying may have been 'targeted' (i.e., harmed in some way) be
cause s/he was carrying, well that becomes relatively more sticky.
For example, let's say that an OC {= open carry, not obsessive compulsive} person was attacked by someone screaming "I'm going to hurt you because you carry a gun." For grins, let's add that five people near the attackee heard the attacker utter those words, and watched the attack.
Can one necessarily conclude that "proves" that OC "caused" the attack?
What if the attacker was merely deranged, looking for any excuse to attack. Could have been that even if he saw someone eating chocolate ice cream, he would have decided to attack for that reason. (I've been exposed to such unstable folks several times in my life. Schizophrenic "street" individuals come to mind.)
My examples are simplistic, bordering on absurd, and it may seem that I'm picking a semantic point. But my bigger point is this: when dealing with complex social phenomena, "proof" is hard to come by.
In fact, when one looks at this issue scientifically, from the perspective of probability theory (which I have a graduate degree in), 100% "proof" (i.e., probability = 1 or 0) cannot be obtained in most complex situations. One can only speak in terms of probabilities.
I like the idea of "evidence" better, and even more so, I encourage us to look for
evidence that OC was
A (not necessarily
THE) factor involved, and to remember that complex social situations don't always yield to simple analysis.
Having said that, this IS an interesting and relevant discussion. I look forward to reading more.
Nem