Sunday, August 4, 2013

The Venn Diagram Showing Hidden Criminals

The Venn Diagram of Gun Owners reposted from a couple years ago

A = criminal gun owners
B = law-abiding gunowners
AUB =all of the in-between guys, including but not limited to the following.

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified. 
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated.

I realize there are others, please feel free to mention them in the comments.  And I apologize for the disproportionate diagram.  The AUB section should be much, much larger.

UPDATE: The diagram is very much out of proportion.  Circle B would be much larger than circle A and the overlapping section representing the hidden criminals would be the largest part of all.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment


  1. AUB would be the biggest of all eh? Guess we're giving up on claiming that we only want to disarm 50%?

    1. That's another stupid attempt at a gotcha. Many of the hidden criminals would not be able to be disarmed. You know how much I respect due process. Plus, when talking about disarming 50%, we're talking about lawful gun owners only. In this discussion we're including the criminals.

      So, yeah, roughly 50% of the lawful gun owners can still be disarmed without harming this graphic at all.

    2. When you show no respect for due process and demand a whole lot more process than is due, you have to accept that people will come to a particular conclusion about you.

    3. Mike,

      When we demand due process, you call us not just gun rights fanatics, but "other rights fanatics."

      So yes, I do know Just how much you respect due process. About as much as a Medical Marijuana Dispensery respects Federal drug policy.

      Also, as for your explanation: You claimed that the INTERSECTION would be the largest part of the graph. That's be part that's in both A and B. If it only includes 50% of lawful owners, then the Intersection is only the same size as what's left. For AUB to be the largest part, you would have to be disarming more than 50% by definition.

      I'm sorry that the rules of math and reality won't allow you all of the rhetorical flourishes that you want.

  2. Mikeb, since you refuse to follow the rules regarding Venn diagrams, why should we bother? Based on your definitions, A and B are mutually exclusive, thereby having no overlap.

    O.K., I'll try to help. A needs to be criminals. B should be gun owners. Then A U B is possible.

  3. Also, I didn't mention this this morning, but there's two problems with your Item number 5.

    1: Like number 4, the conditions you list are not crimes, therfore, since the old and disabled are not criminals for being old and disabled, they don't belong in the intersection of A and B as you've defined them. To include them here, A needs to be labeled People I don't want to have guns but who do have them. Otherwise, they're part of a different set's intersection with B that doesn't necessarily intersect with A unless we're dealing with a geriatric ex-con.

    2: Are there old folks and people with problems whose caretakers should take care of their safety and remove their guns--sure. But that's not what you're talking about. In the past, you've admitted that you don't want any old person or disabled person who can't pass a rigorous fitness test to own a gun.

    Therefore, you want only the strong to be armed, and the most weak and helpless among us to be forbidden to touch a gun that they could use for self defense. This is despicable.

  4. Keep pretending you don't understand what I'm saying with my, admittedly poor diagram. That's what you guys do when put in a corner, pretend to not get it and nit pick desperately looking for gotchas.

    The point is the world is not a simple black and white, good and bad, place. There are good guys, bad guys and hidden criminals.

    1. Mike,

      If the only thing you were trying to get across was that, I doubt that you would have any opposition from us. The problem is that you keep trying to make much Larger points that go far beyond that.

    2. 1. Pointing out that you have made a fundamental error in building your diagram is not picking at nits. If you start off an argument, for example, by insisting that all cirlces have three right angles, you may reach a conclusion, but it will certainly be wrong.

      2. I understand what you've been saying. I simply reject it. Your assertion is that half of all gun owners are unfit. Of course, you have no evidence to support that. You don't even have evidence to distinguish between the claims that 50.00% and 51.35% are unfit. Half just sounds good to you.

      3. When it comes to basic rights and our legal system, there must be a sharp line. If the government can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is a criminal or an immediate danger to innocent life due to mental illness, we must accept that person as a good citizen.

    3. One of the problems is the fact that we have too lax gun laws. Many of the inhabitants of the bad 50% get away with all kinds of bullshit that should disqualify them. Why you, as a responsible gun owner, approve of this travesty is beyond me.

    4. I approve of a lot of things that you despise because I recognize that it's not my place to tell others what they may not own. I insist on due process and a conviction of a violent crime before someone is deprived of gun rights.

    5. I don't think so, Greg. You and I agree on almost everything except guns and the death penalty.

    6. There are some specifics that we agree on. Where we differ fundamentally is our view of humanity and our view of the role of government. This means that while we might agree on one program or policy or another, we got to our positions by different routes, and those moments of agreement are just occasional intersections in wildly divergent lines.