Reading the article I couldn't help but think about the way Xavier prepares for that home invasion that in all likelihood will never come. And so many other times the individual responsibility guys explained how although the chances are slim, they must be prepared because the possible consequences are so great. This, of course, led to the meteorite metaphor.
There's a certain blindness that comes from worst-case thinking. An extension of the precautionary principle, it involves imagining the worst possible outcome and then acting as if it were a certainty. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for risk analysis and fear for reason. It fosters powerlessness and vulnerability and magnifies social paralysis. And it makes us more vulnerable to the effects of terrorism.Worst-case thinking means generally bad decision making for several reasons. First, it's only half of the cost-benefit equation. Every decision has costs and benefits, risks and rewards. By speculating about what can possibly go wrong, and then acting as if that is likely to happen, worst-case thinking focuses only on the extreme but improbable risks and does a poor job at assessing outcomes.
Second, it's based on flawed logic. It begs the question by assuming that a proponent of an action must prove that the nightmare scenario is impossible.
Third, it can be used to support any position or its opposite. If we build a nuclear power plant, it could melt down. If we don't build it, we will run short of power and society will collapse into anarchy. If we allow flights near Iceland's volcanic ash, planes will crash and people will die. If we don't, organs won't arrive in time for transplant operations and people will die. If we don't invade Iraq, Saddam Hussein might use the nuclear weapons he might have. If we do, we might destabilize the Middle East, leading to widespread violence and death.
What's your opinion? Do gun owners go in for this kind of worst-case thinking? Can the article be applied to them?
Please leave a comment.
But the anti-gun ownership argument is entirely based on worse case thinking:
ReplyDeleteIf I own a gun, someone will steal it from me and murder someone with it.
If I own a gun, I will blow away my family and then myself.
If I own a gun, my kids will pay with it and kill each other.
If I carry a gun, I will shoot a kid reaching into his jacket for a lollypop.
The most likely reality of me owning a gun is that nothing bad is going to happen, I won’t have to use it to save my life, but I’ll take it up to the range every now and then for an enjoyable weekend. What is your most likely reality against gun ownership?
To the contrary, TS.
ReplyDeleteFirst, we know for a fact that owning a gun is riskier than not owning one.
Second, no one is suggesting you cannot own a gun provided a number of prerequisites are met (e.g, not a felon, not insane, etc.)
Third, we all understand there a number of things gunowners can do to mitigate risk: be well-trained, trigger locks, gun safes, registration, etc. Yet, gunloons oppose such things based on the dreaded "worst case scenario."
Per usual, TS has missed the central thesis of the essay. It isn't that the "worse case" never happens--it's that it is treated as the likely outcome. When such thinking is employed, it leads to very bad decision-making.
I'll provide a case in point unrelated to firearms. Whenever you hear about an aircraft tragedy involving "pilot error," it rarely involves one catastrophic error. Instead, it's usually a number of smaller and sometimes inconsequential errors. The sequence of events usually is started off by some small error which the pilot and/or aircrew overreact to causing a series of ever-increasingly more dangerous errors. It's a snowball effect.
Similarly, a gunloon opposes things like trigger locks because he is of the belief that he must be ready to fire at an assailant in a nanosecond. Without fully ascertaining and understanding the situation, the gunloon is already well on the way to tragedy because he has already convinced himself he is in a life-or-death situation.
--JadeGold
Jadegold: “First, we know for a fact that owning a gun is riskier than not owning one.”
ReplyDeleteThis demonstrates my point exactly. Apart from the gun control side pushing legislative action, they also try to discourage gun ownership from the law-abiding (those who meet the prerequisites e.g, not a felon, not insane, etc.) They do this by coming up with bogus Kellerman studies based on worst-case thinking. Your entire argument is based on citing the very worst things that can happen with the 200 million guns in this country. Worst-case scenarios should be accounted for (from a safety standpoint and self-protection), but I find it pretty funny when the gun control side says things like; “It isn't that the "worse case" never happens--it's that it is treated as the likely outcome. When such thinking is employed, it leads to very bad decision-making.” I agree with you Jadegold.
Jadegold: “Third, we all understand there a number of things gunowners can do to mitigate risk: be well-trained, trigger locks, gun safes, registration, etc. Yet, gunloons oppose such things based on the dreaded "worst case scenario."
The pro-gun side is much more about preaching safety than you’ll ever be. The opposition only comes in when the law *requires* guns to be disassembled/unloaded/locked-up regardless of whether or not there are children present. Every risk situation is different, and the owner should be able to make their own assessments and decisions as well as be responsible for the consequences.
TS: You can call the Kellerman studies "bogus" but it doesn't change the fact they have yet to be refuted and similar studies produce similar results.
ReplyDeleteWe also know from hard data that kids who get killed and wounded by guns are overwhelmingly kids whose parents own the guns.
You note the 200M guns but omit the fact this country has extremely high gun violence numbers for a nation that's not a third world country and/or involved in a civil war.
You claim to be all about safety. Yet, you refuse to mandate any training for gun owners. Not even the NRA training that's useless. You refuse to mandate trigger locks or gun safes or even checking to see if a gun buyer is a felon. It's gotta be hard to claim the safety high ground when you're opposed to every safety initiative.
--JadeGold
Quite right, we should eliminate policies based on worst-case thinking. One of the first should be the silly fire codes for schools. We spend millions of dollars every year on creating and maintaining fire control systems in schools. We have fire extinguishers, fire hoses, emergency lights, not to mention inspections and fire drills. Further, every new school built has a large percentage of its cost made up of fire retardant carpets, wall coverings, ceiling tiles, etc.
ReplyDeleteHow many kids have been killed in school fires in the last 75 years? ZERO. So why do we contiunue to spend all that money on a worst-case idea?
Jadegold,
ReplyDeletePlease explain your desire to ban 50 cal guns and how that is not "worse case scenario" thinking.
FWM illustrates why Ohio State is not known for academics.
ReplyDeleteHe questions why schools need fire codes. Well, a possible answer is that school fires aren't infrequent. Every year there are abot 15,000 school fires that result in about 125 injuries and about 5 fatalities annually.
But let's entertain FWM's misconceptions a bit: suppose the fire codes are unnecessary. What's the risk? Well, there's money. But that's about it. Kids aren't going to die from a fire code.
--JadeGold
" An extension of the precautionary principle, it involves imagining the worst possible outcome and then acting as if it were a certainty. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for risk analysis and fear for reason. It fosters powerlessness and vulnerability and magnifies social paralysis. And it makes us more vulnerable to the effects of terrorism."
ReplyDeleteIronically, that's the same logic that's used to "fight" terrorism.
Kellerman:
ReplyDeletehttp://home.comcast.net/~dsmjd/tux/dsmjd/rkba/kellerman.htm
http://rkba.org/research/suter/med-lit.html
Kellerman includes suicides… yada, yada, yada… We all know you think owning a gun makes you want to kill yourself- and you can go on thinking that, but why cite studies that show gun owner restraint on killing assailants? I mean, if we were blowing away more criminals, Kellerman’s numbers wouldn’t look so good.
Jadegold: “We also know from hard data that kids who get killed and wounded by guns are overwhelmingly kids whose parents own the guns.”
And kids who drown in swimming pools are overwhelmingly kids whose parents own swimming pools. Look, I have never seen a gun advocate say it is OK to leave a loaded gun lying on the end table with a 4 year old in the house. The vast majority of swimming pool and gun accidently are easily preventable by responsible parenting. Perhaps we should have a background check for having a baby? Gun owner objections come in with blanket laws that do not account for circumstances, like if the “child” is a 17 year old marksmen, well versed in gun safety.
Jadegold: “You note the 200M guns but omit the fact this country has extremely high gun violence numbers for a nation that's not a third world country and/or involved in a civil war.”
I “omitted” the fact? So I have to bring this up on every post even when it is not the subject of conversation? Tell me Jade, why the disclaimer on third-world (or second world) nations? Is it because socio-economics maybe the driving factor and not gun ownership? Why do you applaud Australia’s “buy-back” when they have 1/10th our murder rate? It is not really about our “high gun violence” numbers, is it?
Jadegold: “You claim to be all about safety. Yet, you refuse to mandate any training for gun owners. Not even the NRA training that's useless. You refuse to mandate trigger locks or gun safes or even checking to see if a gun buyer is a felon.”
The only problem I have is with your “mandate” word- particularly the mouth that it is coming out of. Once mandates are in place, they can be used by people who would abuse this to continuously squeeze out gun ownership. You claim to be for training, but only if it is mandatory and under the gun-controller’s terms. You surely have a problem with people voluntarily training especially when they are off in the woods wearing camo. By the way, I am FOR mandatory training for CCW permits. As far as mandatory safes, what do you think the net result would be if every one who has one $200 shotgun needs to buy a $500 safe even if they live in a rural neighborhood where people don’t even lock their doors? Sounds like very bad decision making based on worst-case thinking to me. Finally I’d like you to find one quote of mine that that says I oppose checking to see if the buyer is a felon.
It is interesting in light of the recent “terror gap” topic that MikeB cut off his quoting of the article right before he said this:
ReplyDelete"Of course, not all fears are equal. Those that we tend to exaggerate are more easily justified by worst-case thinking. So terrorism fears trump privacy fears, and almost everything else"
And this:
"Even worse, it plays directly into the hands of terrorists, creating a population that is easily terrorized -- even by failed terrorist attacks like the Christmas Day underwear bomber and the Times Square SUV bomber.
When someone is proposing a change, the onus should be on them to justify it over the status quo. But worst case thinking is a way of looking at the world that exaggerates the rare and unusual and gives the rare much more credence than it deserves."
Ironically, that's the same logic that's used to "fight" terrorism.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely.
Once you come to believe that terrorism is imminent and omnipresent, forcing you to abandon your principles--the terrorists have attained their objective. When this happens, terrorists need not even commit terrorist actions--they can shut down institutions and impact economies merely by threat.
Similarly, if you believe the situation is so very dangerous that it compells you to carry a firearm or that you need several assault rifles to protect home and hearth, your perception of reality is seriously skewed and your decision-making is bound to be poor.
Ruff:
You need to reread the essay. In every situation, there is a risk and a reward associated with most everything. In the case of .50 cal firearms, the reward is purely visceral. You enjoy shooting one. That's it--it isn't a good self-defense weapon, it's useless for hunting, etc. On the risk side, the .50 cal is very good if you want to go to war or engage in terrorist acts. That is what a .50 cal is designed for. Risk far exceeds reward, especially to society.
--JadeGold
In spite of Jade's made-up facts, no one wants to see a school fire and fire codes in place help to protect our children. However, my point was that fire codes are indeed based upon worst-case thinking yet they are necessary.
ReplyDeleteJadeGold,
ReplyDelete50 cal guns pose no more risk to society than any other gun. The terrorist angle is bullshit. Civilians cannot use the armor piercing rounds that the military uses. You are not going to shoot down an airplane or blow up a nuclear plant with one. If history is any indicator crimes using one of these is so statistically small that it is nearly nonexistant. As is the risk to society.
No, this is just another case of incremental gun banning from idiots like yourself who proclaim that they have no intention of banning guns. How else can you explain New Jersey going so far as to ban 50 cal muzzleloaders? Is that also a terrorist weapon you lying sack of shit? I bet the founding fathers could have never envisioned that civilians would one day have access to 50 cal muzzle loading technology. LOL!
Jadegold: “You need to reread the essay. In every situation, there is a risk and a reward associated with most everything. In the case of .50 cal firearms, the reward is purely visceral. You enjoy shooting one. That's it--it isn't a good self-defense weapon, it's useless for hunting, etc. On the risk side, the .50 cal is very good if you want to go to war or engage in terrorist acts. That is what a .50 cal is designed for. Risk far exceeds reward, especially to society.”
ReplyDeleteMaybe you need to reread the essay, especially:
“Fourth and finally, worst-case thinking validates ignorance. Instead of focusing on what we know, it focuses on what we don't know -- and what we can imagine.”
And here, he aptly uses a gun analogy:
“Even worse, it can lead to hasty and dangerous acts. You can't wait for a smoking gun, so you act as if the gun is about to go off. Rather than making us safer, worst-case thinking has the potential to cause dangerous escalation. “
The "terrorism" arguments about .50 cal. rifles are blown away by the fact that the VPC and many of the same anti-gunowner advocates who want to ban them want or wanted to ban .50 cal. handguns, which can do almost none of the "terrorism" things that are claimed for the rifles.
ReplyDeleteThis reveals their REAL argumant: "It's big so it must be bad."
"Similarly, if you believe the situation is so very dangerous that it compells you to carry a firearm or that you need several assault rifles to protect home and hearth, your perception of reality is seriously skewed and your decision-making is bound to be poor."
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, if you believe the situation is so very dangerous that it compels you to bar people from buying firearms because they are on a super-secret government list, your perception of reality is seriously skewed and your decision-making is bound to be poor...
Which we know for a fact is Joe Lieberman's and Michael Bloomberg's problem. The rest of them are just idiots who go with whatever sounds good.
Similarly, if you believe the situation is so very dangerous that it compels you to bar people from buying firearms because they are on a super-secret government list, your perception of reality is seriously skewed and your decision-making is bound to be poor...
ReplyDeleteActually, it doesn't.
An example: When Ted Kennedy was alive, his name was on a watchlist. Did that stop him from flying? No. Why? Because it was just a matter of ascertaining the Ted Kennedy on the list wasn't the Senator from MA.
Similarly, if you are eligible to purchase a gun but find you've been refused because you're on a watchlist--it's not to hard to get off it, assuming, of course, you're not a terrorist.
But AzRed isn't really concerned that terrorists might get access to guns.
--JadeGold
Jade, when you said this:
ReplyDelete“Second, no one is suggesting you cannot own a gun provided a number of prerequisites are met (e.g, not a felon, not insane, etc.)”
You forgot to add, “name is not a on a secret government list, etc.” I imagine that whatever the process is to remove you from said list; it is a lot easier for a US senator.
But how about this for a reasonable compromise to the whole “terror gap” issue; we run it the same way we would if the government wants to tap the suspect’s phone line. That means you pick out people from your list of a million or so suspects, and you gather your evidence and bring it in front of a judge for her to review and then grant a wiretap/prohibit firearm purchase. Bam! Due process. How hard was that?
On the other hand, we have folks like Corporate Citizen BP who said it was "inconceivable" that their oil well in the Gulf of Mexico would spring a leak. And we have a whole litany of "nobody could have anticipateds" -- flying planes into buildings, levees breakings, etc.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a certain segment of the population susceptible to fear and these are the people who feel the need to arm themselves to the teeth so they can be the hero of their own movie and fight off the bad guys. Me, not so much.
Unfortunately, statistics to state that a gun is more likely to be used against you or a loved one or end up in the hands of a criminal than be used to help you. I've been robbed three times and every time the robber was looking for a gun. If I'd had one, that would be another weapon in the hands of a criminal.
Those are odds that I just refuse to play.
"An example: When Ted Kennedy was alive, his name was on a watchlist. Did that stop him from flying? No. Why? Because it was just a matter of ascertaining the Ted Kennedy on the list wasn't the Senator from MA."
ReplyDeleteThe difference is not everyone is Ted Kennedy. Thus not everyone will be given preferential treatment like Ted Kennedy. The rest of us will have to wait weeks if not months to be taken off of the watch list, unless we're lucky enough to make it onto Fox News to plead our case.
"Similarly, if you are eligible to purchase a gun but find you've been refused because you're on a watchlist--it's not to hard to get off it, assuming, of course, you're not a terrorist."
What is the process for getting off the list and how long does it take? If I can't do it from the counter at the gun store when i'm trying to buy a gun, it's not easy enough or fast enough.
"But AzRed isn't really concerned that terrorists might get access to guns."
That's because terrorists by nature are not bound to the law. They have access to everything they want, when they want it, regardless of the law. Good example: The Mumbai Massacre. Despite fully automatic weapons being prohibited in India, it didn't stop the terrorists from acquiring them.
"Unfortunately, statistics to state that a gun is more likely to be used against you or a loved one or end up in the hands of a criminal than be used to help you. "
ReplyDeleteUnless you're a gang banger or a part of the illegal drug trade, those statistics don't include you.
Thanks for all the great comments, everybody. Did anyone notice the third point?
ReplyDelete"Third, it can be used to support any position or its opposite."
I think it's been made pretty clear that gun owners do this best.
MikeB: “I think it's been made pretty clear that gun owners do this best.”
ReplyDeleteHow so? I’ll go on record saying carrying a gun is an example of worst-case thinking. Will you or Jade go on record agreeing that mandatory safes, terror gap legislation, and 50cal bans are also examples of worst-case thinking? Or does worst-case thinking only work when it suits the gun control agenda?
State your statistics please sobeale. Actual facts too, not just some Joyce study.
ReplyDeleteDo you wear a seatbelt MikeB?
ReplyDeleteWhy? are you some paranoid nutcase or something?