Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
How many of those 2,000,000 are felons? (Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that you have argued that most prison overcrowding is due to nonviolent drug offenders.) How many felons from the nationwide convicted felon population were asked to respond? (I doubt it's all of them) How many of those felons committed a violent crime in which someone may have felt the need to defend himself? (There isn't always a good Samaritan around to try to defend his/her fellow man/woman) How many of them were arrested by the police? (all of them) How many were confronted by an armed citizen? (a lot less than all)
While I understand what you're trying to say, I think you're saying it based on a gut reaction and basing it on a gross oversimplification of facts. I'd like for you to at least consider this before completely disimissing the argument as being statistically insignificant.
|
I wasn't arguing that the results were statistically insignificant. Someone quoted a study as evidence that the majority of incarcerated individuals responded that they were more afraid of armed citizens than police officers.
I read the linked study and the researchers' sample size was 1,800 incarcerated people. Their results were statistically significant, but their sample size was too small.
Most prisoners are incarcerated due to non-violent drug offenses. That wouldn't negate my point, but rather tend to bolster it since the argument resting on their responses is implying that armed citizens thwart violent crime.
The study didn't explain its sampling method, so I can't comment on most of your queries. Suffice to say, I'm not dismissing out of hand due to anything. It's not my responsibility to accept studies until they've demonstrated validity and reliability. If you choose to accept a study that is based on shoddy techniques, go ahead. But the results of that study were inconclusive, at best.