Good Guy with a Gun Fallacy
Posted on March 3, 2016
The theory that allowing guns in the workplace would have saved lives in Hesston is based on the fallacy known as “anchoring” or “anecdotal reasoning.” If viewed as a scientific theory, it depends on many low probability assumptions. When you multiply a lot of low probabilities together you get an infinitesimal probability.
Some assumptions are:
1. that someone would actually have a gun (even though majorities of people don’t carry guns and don’t like to be around guns and put social pressure on people who do carry guns.)
2. that the guy with gun was in the right/wrong place where shooting was better than running or hiding (usually the latter two are better strategies).
3. that the gunowner would do the right thing even without special training (that just about never happens) or else had special training (only a tiny percentage do).
4. That the training had been practiced recently (rarely happens) or else worked well even without recent practice (cops say it is hard to do that).
5. That the training held up in face of fear and adrenaline rush (often it doesn’t the first time in combat)
6. That the well-trained good guy with the gun won the gun battle (sometimes the good guy loses)
7. That the good guy doesn’t shoot himself or a bystander in the mean time (happens more often than you think).
Moreover, against all that you have to offset what would happen if every workplace had a good guy with a gun: lots of gun accidents, not a few shootouts, and an occasional hot blooded murder