The Sword In The Attic

This ID-related post generated a few questions...and in answering them I have to say, certain things were said in the spirit of lying creatively. I have to say no; an ex-girlfriend did not swear to kill me with a sword. Though if it had happened, I know which ex-girlfriend it would probably be, as well as which sword she would most likely try to use.

There is an old sword in the tiny book-crammed attic of my parents' house in Ventnor on the Isle of Wight. The dark brown leather scabbard is dry and flaking with age, and the blade is dull both in colour and along its edge. You can just make out the inscription at the base of the blade, noting the officer's commission and appointment as a captain of a company of artillery, and the date; 1812. I managed to successfully navigate childhood without skewering myself on it.

I'm reading Freakonomics at the moment which deals with all sorts of things; from the methods of discovering test-cheating teachers to exposing the economic structure of crack-dealing gangs (and how similar they are to McDonald's) and on to the statistics of danger from weapons in the home.
It is interesting in a 'what if we looked at it this way?' manner, and above all, it's provocative. It is also the most self-congratulatory book I think I've ever read...apart from, maybe, Mr. Nice.

There are a lot of statements in the book which are presented as common sense observations which can not be proven by conventional academic processes. One which recurs frequently, and although I'm only three-quarters of the way through, seems to have accounted for a good quarter of the book so far, is the assertion that the unexpected and wholly unpredicted drop in crime in the US in the 90s was a delayed result of Roe v. Wade.
For those who haven't had a gentle soaking in US legal history, Roe v. Wade was the case which, in 1973, legalised abortion in America. Case summary here.

Unwanted children are more likely to grow up to become criminals, runs the argument.

In America there are more child deaths because of swimming pool accidents than because of accidents with personal firearms. Therefore, say the authors, swimming pools are more dangerous than handguns.
Of course it is a little more difficult to stick your swimming pool in your coat pocket, take it to the local betting shop and demand all the money in the safe.

Guns! Now there's an issue.
If a defenceless girl is threatened on a dark night by a burly man in a bomber jacket equipped only with a fist at the end of each arm, are we happy about this?
No!
If a girl held up at gunpoint by a mugger is, in fact, armed herself, isn't this better for all concerned?
Not really.
If a man, strapped for cash and strapping on a handgun before venturing out for the evening, thinks that anyone he might try and mug could be armed, isn't this better for all concerned? Isn't he now less likely to go out and mug that girl?
Possibly. But the hypothetical world where that is the norm makes for a hellish prospect.
So what do we do about it? Make sure the mugger never leaves the womb?

One thing I give the authors of Freakonomics a lot of credit for biting the bullet and showing is the logical path made by doing dirty mathematics.
I've had to do something similar, and it stinks.
When the possibility arose that I would have to present a 'dirty maths' argument in a professional capacity I worked harder at my job than ever before to try and find an alternative solution, producing long logic strings and comparative judgments to arrive at the same point without having to do it.
We were designing a very real tunnel, and I was sitting at the bottom of a virtual well of probability and statistics so complex that everyone else in my office was more than happy to leave me down there and not venture there themselves; they were more than happy to take my word for what it all meant. But at the bottom of that well were the questions in Dirty Maths.
Dirty Maths involves money and human life in the same equation. To me, it is morally repugnant.
If we don't spend X million on safety...how many lives does that cost?
Is it worth spending the money to save those lives, if we say each life is worth Y amount?
I hate it hate it hate it.

Levitt does something similar in Freakonomics, just to prove a point - it's illustrative, arbitrary, and completely unbased on anything but random figures to show a relationship. If Roe v. Wade resulted in the drop in crime, was the drop in homicide rate justified by the number of abortions carried out?
He selects, protesting its complete arbitrariness all along, a comparative 'cost' of one adult life to one hundred aborted fetuses. From that value judgement, crime control through abortion is not worth it. The drop in the homicide rate was not worth 'buying' with the number of abortions carried out since 1973. IF the drop in crime and hence homicides was an effect of Roe v. Wade, it was not worth allowing legal abortions to that end...which is fine, because the case was passed on separate issues entirely.
Anyway.
This is all pretty disgusting, isn't it?

Going back to our conflict - the mugger and muggee.
Which is the best situation?
Of course the very best situation is one where the mugging doesn't take place, which leads us away from guns towards social inequality, education, the penal system, and the causes of crime.
We have, in essence, popped the lid on the can of worms, and I think it's best if we let them run free without comment.
But back to the guns.
Here is a question I don't know the answer to:

A society where everyone carries a gun; the victim/attacker 'stalemate' condition...how can anyone conscionably advocate this? How can they ignore the escalation of arms?

Fist v. Gun = Gun wins.
Gun v. Gun = Gun wins.
Gun v. Big Gun = Gun Wins.
Big Gun v. Array Of Automatic Weapons & Landmines Around The Perimeter = Gun Wins.

The only situation, looking at that scorecard, you definitely wouldn't want to be is: Fist.
Which of course makes absolute perfect sense if you have no choice but to be involved in a scorecard situation.