"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:44:46 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Jeez, I could have sworn you said, when I asked "How much safer are you
because he's there?", you replied "Two fewer thieves in the world because
of
him, obviously. Works for me."

Given that 90% of the crime is caused by 10% of the criminals....its a
wobbler.

They were killed in the commission of a crime. Was it their first
crime?

Based on your stats the chances are 9 out of 10 that they were among the
criminals who commit only 10% of the crime. Those numbers cut both ways.

(Oh, nuts, that isn't right. It's the other way around.)


If not..any future crimes will not be committed by those 2. Since
most criminals are repeat offenders...Id have to say that yes..the
people are safer.

You realize that Doug never said that. d8-)

Of course, we don't know for sure. But we do know that even if they were at
the highest end of the average, together they represent only 1 in 1,000 of
the burglars in Dallas. The point being that you won't even be able to
detect any improvement in the crime rate no matter where they fall on the
curve.

For those who haven't followed this argument through the labyrinth, I'm not
suggesting that those burglars shouldn't have been shot. What I'm saying is
that shooting them has no measurable effect on the crime rate, and thus the
safety, of Dallas.


A dead perp has a zero recidivism rate.

The trouble is that Dallas has thousands ready to fill their shoes. You can
shoot some more, and you will have no measurable effect.

--
Ed Huntress