In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


In Texas, as in most of the country, only 13% of burglaries are ever
solved
("cleared"). That gives you some pretty questionable stats, if you're
trying
to figure out how many burglars were involved.

From FBI stats of a couple of years ago, the number of burglaries cleared
in
Dallas is somewhere around 3,990. The number of burglary arrests is just
under 1,700. So looking at it the way you suggest, you get about 2.4
burglaries cleared per arrest made. Projecting to Dallas's total number of
burglaries (a little over 23,000), it would mean you have around 9,600
burglars.

The actual number of burglars, therefore, must fall somewhere between
1,700
and 9,600. Let's be generous and say that the 1,700 arrested committed all
of the burglaries (I guess that would also mean you have no more
burglaries,
'cause all the burglars have been arrested g). If that unlikely event
were
true, the two burglars killed represent 0.001 of the burglars in Dallas.
If
the 9,600 is closer to the actual number, they represent 0.0002 of the
burglars in Dallas. If you can notice *either* of those differences, you
have very good detectors indeed.

The moral of the story is, there's no way to wiggle out of the fact that
your two dead burglars aren't going to help your crime situation. While we
were talking 3 more probably took up burglary for a career.


Still two fewer than there would have been. That's a good thing in my
book.

So, it appears that killing criminals is what you consider "good," and the
original issue you were arguing -- the relative safety of that neighborhood,
compared to places that are a lot safer -- is not your real concern at all.

But that was the original argument, Doug. Perhaps the discussion has come
around to the thing you feel is really important.

Maybe you don't care -- you're in a safe place, so to hell with everyone
else,
eh?

I *do* care, and I don't care much if you kill bad guys or not. The issue,
and the whole argument, was about whether it's better to move your family to
a safe place or to stay in a dangerous one and shoot it out with the bad
guys.
[snippo]

You miss the point [again] -- it's not up to you, or me, to judge or
second-guess the decisions and the situation of the guy who shot the burglars,
but unquestionably the place is better off for his presence, and the absence
of the men he shot, than it would be the other way around. That's a *fact*,
Ed, not speculation, and that it makes you uncomfortable does not make it any
less a fact.

Anyway -- I'm done with this subthread. Have the last word if it makes you
feel better, but know that I'd rather have Walton for a neighbor than you.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.