TIME magazine article on risk analysis

[Tim James]

I normally want to gag these days when I read TIME magazine and plan on letting my subscription lapse, but they had an informative article on risk perception. (Guns are not mentioned in the article.) I heard about this back in college and the article matched what I was taught.

Basically, people judge risk based on different factors, such as whether it is immediate (mad cow disease vs. eating junk food and dying of a heart attack), whether they are in control (driving vs. flying), and whether they could ever bear the risk, no matter how unlikely (basically the insurance industry).

In our case, some people would never be able to live in peace if their child accidentally killed himself, no matter how unlikely, and would rather be at the mercy of murderers, no matter how likely after threat or previous incident.

That changes though when you start thinking about elements of control -- in other words, I won't be another gun-accident statistic because I'm going to be responsible enough to get training, educate my kids, and secure the weapon. Sometimes control can be misleading (driving vs. flying) but if you follow through on it, it makes sense.

If you ever encounter someone who doesn't want to get a gun to protect his or her family because of risk to his or her children, you should understand the factors of risk analysis so you can go over the situation logically with the individual.

Let's make some new gun owners, cut down on victims, and reduce accidental deaths at the same time.

 

[greener]

I think Time is right, risk is a matter of perspective. However, they don't seem to mention that much of the perspective is hyped by the media. Remember last year's bird flu scare? I'm sure there are scores of ulcers and heart attacks over an event that never happened. The media and enviros do a fine job of hyping environmental scares. We are all terrified of mercury from power plants, except that they only produce 1% of the total mercury entering the environment; 80% is from natural causes and 19% is outside the US. Besides, how many "mercury poisonings" are there each year from eating food contaminated with mercury (two incidents in the last 50 years, neither in the US). We should all be terrified about global warming, all based on computer programs that can't predict last year's climate. If Kyoto were enforced, we couldn't measure the decrease in temperature. And everyone knows that flying is more dangerous than driving, except that you have much less chance of dying on an airplane than you do driving to the airport.

Gun control tactics are much the same. Most people in the US live in fairly comfortable, safe environments, so they do not see any need for protection. All they hear about is some lunatic, probably illegally possesing the firearm, doing some idiotic thing. Since they don't see the need for self-protection and all they hear about is "gun violence" it'd easy to convnce them that preventing law-abiding citizens from owning firearms is just the trick to stop al this violence. Also the media likes to portray gun owners as something straight out of Deliverence. It's too easy not to look at the real gunowners, most of whom have decent educations, are responsibly employed and shoot for fun or sport.

I've had my kids get the public school "guns are bad" brainwashing. It takes quite a while to convince them that they aren't getting the truth. When you point out that they live in a household that has had firearms all their lives and none of the "truths" they know happen, you get the "well, you are different and John is different" and it turns out that everyone they know who owns firearms is "different." And these are kids that went out shooting with Mom and Dad. Perception beats reality every time.

 

[Oleg Volk]

The original of that articles comes from Scientific American, early 80s, I think.

 

[Unisaw]

Without commenting directly about the Time article, perception of risk is a really interesting issue. As part of my job, I recently read a book by Paul Slovic called The Perception of Risk. It's available on Amazon for anyone who is interested. Warning: it is written in an academic style.

One quote from the book that is definitely relevant to gun control is:

Whoever controls the definition of risk controls the rational solution to the problem at hand. Defining risk is thus an exercise in power.

 

[tellner]

It's a lot like the SciAM article, just a tad updated for today's real and perceived risks. The point is excellent. Our brains are wired for the Paleolithic. Our perception of risk and our ability to deal with probabilities is very poor. This leads to irrational decisions.

Billions for Tamiflu (which probably doesn't actually work) to combat a disease which has killed precisely nobody in this country. But getting people to take flu shots (over 30,000 deaths/year at least partly at the door of regular influenzas) is like pulling teeth. Terrorism? The degree of hysteria is nearly inconceivable, and the measures we take are insane compared to the actual risks. By comparison, the resurgent threats of lead in drinking water and mercury in the air are completely ignored. Our system of discounting and reliance on the boob tube to make our decisions crossed the boundaries of foolish long ago and is looking for offramps to crazier than a pet squirrel.

There are plenty of excellent readable books on the subject from "Real Risk" to "Fooled by Randomness".

 

[MechAg94]

I haven't had the flu in years. Why should I get a flu shot? Flu shots should be targeted on groups or people at risk. I don't feel I am at risk.

Mercury in the air? What areas? Where? How much? The stupid political media scare about mercury standards in water is not that long ago. I am not saying those risks don't exist, but where do they exist? Everyone in the country doesn't necessarily need to get up in arms about most of this stuff. Lead in water is a good example. Some cities do have a bad problem. Washington D.C. is one I have heard of. I am not too concerned about it where I am.


Risk analysis is a good way to approach the problem of gun safety. It is a good way to start a more rational conversation about it and possibly bypass reflexive emotions.

 

[Tim James]

I think Time is right, risk is a matter of perspective. However, they don't seem to mention that much of the perspective is hyped by the media.

You might say they are exploiting our wiring for profit? Almost as bad as the strip club industry!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If you ever encounter someone who doesn't want to get a gun to protect his or her family because of risk to his or her children, you should understand the factors of risk analysis so you can go over the situation logically with the individual.

Let's make some new gun owners, cut down on victims, and reduce accidental deaths at the same time.

Risk analysis is a good way to approach the problem of gun safety. It is a good way to start a more rational conversation about it and possibly bypass reflexive emotions.

I fail to understand how it is that understand the factors of risk analysis is going to help a person go over a situation logically. It isn't going to remove emotions from the the issue of gun ownership and danger.

Why not? First, "risk analysis" may be a phrase being used loosely here and not completely accurately. As applied, it involves risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication. If y'all want to sit down with somebody and explain the risks to them, that is risk communication and you are presupposing an accurate risk assessment of the problem for the intended person and environment in which that person operates, but you probably have not performed a risk assessment on that person and his environment. You apparently are going to try to convince that person on how to mitigate their risk through risk management procedures and undoubtedly will need to address both the risk of outside influences (such as bad guys) and the risks of owning a dangerous item to handle those influences.

No doubt you will attempt to engage in something of a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) (or probabilistic safety assessment/analysis) or description and try to convince the person that s/he is safer with a gun than without and use some sort of statistics to back up the claim. You will probably do this in both the magnitude of the adverse conditions that might result if the person doesn't own a gun, as well as the likelihood of something bad happening if the person isn't able to produce a gun for defense. The magnitude and likelihood data of not having a gun for defense will likely be pitted against the magnitude and likelihood data of something going wrong via gun ownership.

Great, you will be doing a fine sort of academic job if you get all the correct data put forth and described in a realistic and fair manner and even if the data do show conclusively that the risks of gun ownership are extremely low and the benefits are potentially very high, I have trouble believing you can overcome the emotional block that so many people have about guns because they are afraid of them. It is next to impossible to reason away long held beliefs such as fears and religion.

You can explain all the safety features, safety records, etc. of commercial passenger flight to a person who feels unsafe on airplanes and all your risk communication isn't going to alleviate the person's fears.

The bottom line here is that perceived risk at the individual level is going to be highly influenced by emotion and emotion is not something readily dealt with by statistics.

 

[greener]

My guess is that if you did a risk-benefit analysis for gun ownership, the results might be surprising. I doubt the chances of the average individual needing a firearm for self-defense is all that great. The risks of owning a firearm are also very low. This gets to close to a needs-test for firearm ownership.

Whether I need a firearm is, frankly, not relevant. I own them because I enjoy shooting them. I believe I have every right to own them and use them. The list of things I have is long, the list of things I need is short. I don't need this computer; television; cable service; the house I live in; the cars I own; most of the clothing I have; most of the tools I have; and so on. I need food, clothing and shelter. That's about it.

 

[Wes Janson]

Five years ago, I was 14 and couldn't understand why people all around me, adults and kids, were deeply and truly worried about the prospect of a terrorist attack affecting them (in Florida, mind you). The odds then? Probably upwards of one in a hundred million. And yet the public response was simply unbelievable.

Five years have passed, and what has been learned? Has anyone figured out that terrorism is a joke? Perhaps a few have, but the vast majority of the country still is flinching away from a blow that in all likelihood will never come. And that's the thing about flinching away: you close your eyes to the other threats around you. A plot to put liquid explosives onto planes? I was convinced it was crap the day the news broke, and look at it now. It dropped off the radar within two weeks, and about a month after the fact people finally started admitting, quietly, that there never really was much of a threat in the first place, and that the entire plot was rubbish. Or what of the Miami plot to blow up the Sears Towers, the "terrorists" who had no weapons, no contacts, and no evidence of actually being able to do anything, except buy boots?

The only real conclusion I can come to is that the overwhelming majority of people have no idea what presents a real danger to them and what does not. Judging by the drivers I see on the interstate each day, I find it enormously absurd that people talk about the threat of terrorism and then a good percentage of them get into their cars and do their damndest to get themselves (and others around them) killed in an accident through careless driving.

Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.

 

[Tim James]

...and emotion is not something readily dealt with by statistics.

I completely agree. It would be stupid to immediately start spouting off statistics to try to convince someone in an argument.

I would first listen empathetically to understand the other person's perspective. You may start to notice how the individual is assessing the risk. Continue listening as they open up a bit more to reason... and now you can tell them how stupid they are! And quote some statistics! And send them to gunmyths.org!! Wait, wait.. get under control, don't do that just yet.

These risk assessment factors would make a good starting point for a discussion. For example, if the individual is unsure how he or she would control a wild gun (which he or she may think will go off at any time), explain ways to secure the firearm or undergo training for proper handling. Normal principles of good communication apply here: if the individual becomes emotional again, listen patiently before beating them into the ground with your statistics.

You're right to imply that some people may never change their mind. In addition, others may have fundamental values that preclude gun ownership, such as an unwillingness to control one's own destiny (ie, the woman who would rather be raped than bear the responsibility of defending herself). I think it's okay if you encounter someone like that. Just let it go and don't get frustrated.

However, you shouldn't give up all hope. I think half of the people out there who are afraid of guns are a lost cause, but the other half remain that way mostly because of ham-fisted gun owners who spend too much time on Internet forums and can't approach the issue sensitively. I think part of it is a communication issue, and I thought this article would be a good way to understand where some people are coming from.

 

[kfranz]

Whoever controls the definition of risk controls the rational solution to the problem at hand. Defining risk is thus an exercise in power.

Remember boys and girls, it's never about xxxxxx, it is always about control...

 

[K5mitch]

Five years ago, I was 14 and couldn't understand why people all around me, adults and kids, were deeply and truly worried about the prospect of a terrorist attack affecting them (in Florida, mind you). The odds then? Probably upwards of one in a hundred million. And yet the public response was simply unbelievable.

Five years ago my father was downtown in Washington DC. Four years ago I was 500 yards from a shooting by the "DC Sniper". In the past three years I've spent a lot of time in the middle east supporting OEF/OIF, and JTF Horn of Africa.


Terrorism is a joke?


Yes I do agree with you that chances of terrorism affecting someone at the individual level is extremely low, but I would hardly call it a joke.

 

[lacoochee]

My stepfather's office was destroyed at the Pentagon by the DC airplane. The TV wasn't working in the break room and he left to help fix it so they could watch the New York attack when the plane struck. I left a USO in Naples 5 minutes before it was blown up by a car bomb. I have been attacked by Moslem (Turkish Auslander) youths on a bender for Americans in the U-bahn in Munich, they got more than they bargained for when ten more of my friends got on at the next stop. Sometimes, the risks aren't close to zero for some of us.....

 

[Blackfork]

Summer of the Shark

Wasn't TIME Magazine pumping the "summer of the shark" about the time the mad muslims flew jets into the twin towers?

 

[Wes Janson]

Yes I do agree with you that chances of terrorism affecting someone at the individual level is extremely low, but I would hardly call it a joke.

Put it this way: the odds of a terrorist attack causing harm to people living outside of fifty miles away from a major city, with zero significant cultural, strategic, or symbolic sites around, is virtually zero. It's not quite zero, but it's so close as to be effectively the same. Visiting McDonalds almost certainly presents a greater health risk. The economic impact of a major attack is something far likelier to have an influence on most people, but then again there are countless other things that have serious effects on the economy that people seem to ignore.

It's a semi-familiar figure to cite in these discussions, but consider for a minute how many children drown in pools each year. Or boating accidents. Or lightning strikes. Or carbon monoxide poisoning. Then consider how many people living in America are killed by terrorism. Terrorism grabs the imagination and causes fear. Swimming pools do not. Terrorism allows a convenient target for anger and action and the sense of solving the problem, that carbon monoxide poisoning can't. Odds are that for most of the population, going camping and leaving a gas stove on inside the tent for heat is far more likely to kill them than jihadists are.

Consider for a moment if you were to take all newspapers, television broadcasts, and magazines printed in the last five years, and replace all instances of the phrase "the war on terrorism" with "the war on carbon monoxide". Replace all of their content on terrorism with information on carbon monoxide, ways it can kill you and stories of people killed by it. Then imagine that the United States government spent the better part of a trillion dollars waging a global campaign against carbon monoxide deaths, re-structured the federal government to better protect its citizens from carbon monoxide, and passed controversial laws to allow the government to more effectively fight carbon monoxide poisoning.

Why is it that the above is absurd, ludicrous, and insane? Given the assumption* that over recent history terrorism and CO have led to identical average yearly death rates, why should one be virtually ignored while the other is given the overwhelming attention of the largest superpower in the world?


* I'm still trying to find exact figures on how many Americans have been killed by terrorism, both in this country and overseas, per year and total, over the last century. Part of the problem is defining terrorism: where do you draw the line between something that is criminal and something which should be called terrorism. Adding up the figures of the (undoubtedly incomplete) number killed in the last 106 years in the United States, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_the_U.S. , one comes to a grand total of 3,339 people killed by terrorist attacks. Or, in other words, an average of 31.6 people per year killed by terrorism. According to the CDC, "Each year, more than 500 Americans die from unintentional CO poisoning" (Ref: http://www.cdc.gov/co/faqs.htm ). Even if you double the number of people killed by terrorism, say it's 64 deaths per year, that still means carbon monoxide is more than seven times a greater threat to the American public than terrorism. Make of this what you will.

 

[Jeff]

This subject brings up the excellent and very fascinating cliche of "Don't worry about that, you have no control over it."

However, what should a rational human be worried about: something she has no control over, or something she does have control over?

If you have control over it, then you should act within your best interests and do everything to avoid the risks, thus alleviating worry.

If you don't have control over it, then this is automatically a stimulus for worry, because we are still animals, and all animals are afraid of the unknown.

The cliche, to my perception, is wrong, if only we are animals and have no control over fear of the unknown.

 

[TX1911fan]

On an individual level, I think we should be concerned about terrorism only to the extent that we remain aware of our surroundings and what people are doing. This will help to avoid not only terrorist acts, but also criminal acts in general.

On a national level, terrorism must be dealt with. It is real, and if left unchecked, will become more common here. Ask Israelis if terrorism is a joke. We have the benefit of an ocean separating us from the majority of those who would do us harm, but those physical barriers won't protect us forever. The economic impact from terrorism, especially for a people such as ourselves unacustomed to it, would be significant.

 

[romma]

Nobody

needs to live. But most of us want to anyways...

 

[Phetro]

In our case, some people would never be able to live in peace if their child accidentally killed himself, no matter how unlikely, and would rather be at the mercy of murderers, no matter how likely after threat or previous incident.

That changes though when you start thinking about elements of control -- in other words, I won't be another gun-accident statistic because I'm going to be responsible enough to get training, educate my kids, and secure the weapon. Sometimes control can be misleading (driving vs. flying) but if you follow through on it, it makes sense.

Ah, yes! You make perfect sense!

Er...just one thing: gun grabbers don't need sense. They have feelings, don't you know. They feel that we don't need guns, and they feel that no one should have anything they don't need.

 

[Phetro]

* I'm still trying to find exact figures on how many Americans have been killed by terrorism, both in this country and overseas, per year and total, over the last century. Part of the problem is defining terrorism: where do you draw the line between something that is criminal and something which should be called terrorism. Adding up the figures of the (undoubtedly incomplete) number killed in the last 106 years in the United States, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...nts_in_the_U.S. , one comes to a grand total of 3,339 people killed by terrorist attacks. Or, in other words, an average of 31.6 people per year killed by terrorism. According to the CDC, "Each year, more than 500 Americans die from unintentional CO poisoning" (Ref: http://www.cdc.gov/co/faqs.htm ). Even if you double the number of people killed by terrorism, say it's 64 deaths per year, that still means carbon monoxide is more than seven times a greater threat to the American public than terrorism. Make of this what you will.

It's easy to see the truth: terrorism is nowhere near the threat that some people would like us to believe it is. How convenient, however! The more of a threat we believe it is, the less we'll resist the encroachments of a police state!

See, the solution to terrorism for us, as slight of a threat as it may be, is obvious. The terrorists don't see themselves as such, of course--they see themselves as freedom fighters, fighting against an occupation in the Middle East that was illegally sanctioned by the UN and then forcibly expanded itself (and on these points, they actually have a good case). We send $3 billion a year or more to these "occupiers," and they have by no means been innocent or nice to their neighbors...and they're not "always on the defensive" as their supporters are so quick to claim.

It's time to reassess our foreign aid programs. Personally, I think if we cut off aid to all other nations period, that these problems would solve themselves quickly enough. The Constitution doesn't even authorize foreign aid to begin with! The Middle East, terrorism, the EU, and these other countries are really not our concern. But we're certainly never going to get rid of terrorism by enraging the Muslim nations, giving their enemies billions of dollars with which to fight them while giving them a token hundred grand or so now and then. What do we expect?