Looking for Historical Insurance
Day 1. A Rottweiler dog bites a man's hand.
Day 2. That man dies.
Day 3. Interested observers, some of whom might dislike dogs, conclude that dog bites are fatal; therefore, the government must restrict lap-dog ownership. The government should also outlaw assault-dog ownership, with an exception for federally licensed Rottweiler collectors/dealers. None of them, as we all know, would ever go berserk and release a pack of saber-toothed Rottweilers into a nearby Walmart.
Day 4. Based on the death of our man and others who have died under like circumstances, statisticians (aka: voodoo mathematicians), some of whom might dislike dogs, publish statistically valid tables and graphics which “prove†dog bites to be fatal. Therefore, draconian restrictions on Rottweiler ownership are a good thing.
Other statisticians (also voodoo mathematicians), some of whom might like dogs, and who are in the employ of the NRA (National Rottweiler Association) counter by publishing their own statistically valid tables and graphics. These tables and graphics “prove†that in states where Rottweiler ownership has been uncontrolled, death by wolf-bite has decreased over time. Therefore, un-restricted Rottweiler ownership is a good thing. The government should rescind Rottweiler ownership restrictions.
Day 5. The Coroner releases the results of the autopsy performed on the man bitten by the Rottweiler. That man died because of a massive brain hemorrhage. The Rottweiler dog bite was purely coincidental and causally unrelated to the death of the man.
The lessons to be learned by wannabe statisticians:
(1) Do not believe everything you read. Especially that written-published by an individual or organization with an axe to grind.
(2) Beware of the “post hoc ergo propter hoc†(after this; therefore, because of this.) trap. Correlation is not necessarily causation: the fallacy of coincidental correlation.
(3) Ninety-five percent of all statistics are made up – to include this statistic.
Day 6. Gadget restates his advice: shooting an intruder is to put yourself in serious legal jeopardy. In some jurisdictions and circumstances, a pellet gun will be considered a lethal weapon. The shooter could end up in the middle of the same legal minefield as might be caused by use of a traditional firearm.
You don't believe me? Smart move! You should not believe me. I repeat: DO NOT BELIEVE ME! I am merely a name on the INTERNET, letters on a monitor screen, a faceless entity who might or might not possess the credentials to authoritatively address this issue. Perhaps, like a few others around here.
What to do? Where to go?
Call your District Attorney. Do not call the police; Uncle Ernie, the plumber, Oprah, or Dr. Phil because they are not authoritative sources of the required information. They don't have the power of prosecution. The DA does have that power. Call your DA and ask about the laws and scenarios which speak to citizen use of deadly force.
Be sure to ask the DA about the legal niceties of the following scenarios:
1. While lying in bed, you become aware of a peeping Tom outside of your home. He is looking through your window. Are you empowered to shoot Mr. Peepers?
2. You discover an un-armed intruder in your kitchen. The intruder is stuffing your stash of “Blimpieâ€sandwiches into a pillowcase with the obvious intent of committing the heinous crime of Blimpie-napping (property theft). Are you empowered to shoot the sandwich snitch?
3. You discover an armed intruder in your kitchen. The intruder brandishes a butcher knife, approaches you in a menacing way and threatens bodily harm. Are you empowered to shoot Mr. Cleaver?
The DA or A-DA will be reluctant to answer your questions. Press the issue.
That telephone call just might prove to be an educational experience.
Leave the combat gunplay to sworn peace officers.
Gadget
