Quantifying the value of firearms.

[Warren]

I'd like to ask about how to quantify the value of firearms to both bad guys and good guys in determining their effect on the outcome of events.

My thoughts are that firearms add, on average, very little to the criminals ability to commit crime. And that criminals start out with a higher abilty to commit crime than good people have to fight back.

This is because criminals are naturally viscious and willing to do whatever they need to to dominate the situation, including absorbing a certain amount of pain and having the physical endurance to keep going whereas good folk are just not ready to fight back at the same level of intensity.

For example a criminal would be quite able to attack someone using a piece of masonry or a metal bar but a good person, on average, will not be able to wield the same sort of thing as effectivly. Advantage criminal.

Firearms add quite a bit to people's ability to fight back. Having a gun allows the good person to not only level the battlefield but to tilt it in her favor.

This is because the amount of skill and strength neede to put a bullet into someone is minimal compared to fighting with one's hands. Criminals, on average, do not know how to use their guns any better than their potential victims and are often times worse gun handlers than their victims. Advantage good guy.

So below is the formula (?) used to show this.

Evil starts at EX ability in the commission of crimes.

Evil gains EY ability when using firearms.

Good starts at GX ability in fighting evil.

Good gains GY ability when fighting evil with firearms.

So when you remove GY from GX this means criminals have X advantage over good folks.

But when you add GY to GX this means good folk have X advantage over crimnals.

Whne you remove EY from EX (assume it is possible) and GY from GX this means criminals have X advantage over good folks.

The stumper is: What numbers would go in here? Can someone help me out with how to properly express this concept?


Please note: This thread is about how to express this particular concept. It is not about what is the best sort of argument to use in debates. So please do not post your favorite moral, ethical, legal, or biblical argument (Or state that that is the only germane or proper argument).
.
I understand and agree or sympathize with those views. I just want to keep this thread to the narrowest scope possible.

Nor is it on-topic for this thread to attack anti-gunners or their arguments.


Thank you,

Warren

 

[Wiley]

Warren, couple of holes in your initial premise.

- Embezelers don't use a weapon to commit their crimes and probably rake in more than the criminals you are thinking of. Same for telemarketers.

- Here in Atlanta, a firefighter just died because a 'homeless' person let a candle start a house fire. He's been charged with negligent homicide.

Where do those fit in your equation? If they are not to be concidered then you have to have some sort of violence factor must be greater than 0 to account for them: V(f)>0.

In addition, there are a lot (I would argue more than the number of criminals) who have the mindset to defend themselves with whatever weapon is available. From their bare hands to ?. That mindset needs to be accounted for.

There is also the element of the crowd. If the strongest individual takes a stand, others will join.

Interesting question but I don't think that such an equation can be devised with any accuracy to be usefull.

 

[svtruth]

Equation

doesn't need to be quantitative to be useful. Qualitative relationships can be useful.
It is an interesting question.

 

[Froggy]

What numbers would go in here? Can someone help me out with how to properly express this concept?

You might be able to get there with statistical analysis of historical events. Getting beyond anecdotal would be hard.

For some ideas on methodology, you might take a look at Trevor N. Dupuy's (oft criticized) efforts in Numbers, Predictions and War, originally published 1977, revised 1985 and published by HERO Books of Fairfax, VA.

In addition, there are a lot (I would argue more than the number of criminals) who have the mindset to defend themselves with whatever weapon is available. From their bare hands to ?. That mindset needs to be accounted for.

Exactly. The willingness to use force has to be accounted for. Most folks can swing a bat or crowbar pretty effectively. Whether or not they would actually use it to crush someone's head is another matter. Good might be armed, but without the resolve to use the weapon it becomes a liability. Very intangible, but probably the most important part of the equation. Dupuy wrestled with such intangibles. Because the ones he addressed were so intangible, they basically become a "fudge factor" added after the fact to make the prediction fit the historical outcome.