Quote Originally Posted by Sinfix_15 View Post
I'll use this example. Lets say you work at a GM auto plant that employs 2000 people. The injury rate is pretty low, lets say only 2 people get injured a year. Would GM stop doing safety training or project the idea that you're safe at work because only 2 people got injured? Statistically, you would have less than a 1% chance of being injured, right?

My approach to that is that even if something bad only happens to 1 person in the entire world, that 1 person could be me and i want to prevent it. No statistic is "the bible" for my decision making process. I consider statistics, but also recognize their flaw.
Yes but your GM example is only true because it's hard to believe safety training could lead to more injuries. Guns on the other hand do not have such an asymmetrical safety profile. They can make you safer in some situations and less safe in others. I agree statistics must be put in an individuals context to be used effectively. This is the point David was making regarding living in a relatively dangerous area versus a relatively safe area. Public policy however should be more influenced by statistics than by individual circumstances because it is unfeasible to create laws that handle all the intricacies of individual circumstances. It is still an imperfect approach but it is far better than basing policy on anecdotes.