C.W. Griffin is such a hoot ... clueless about what PERCENT means (“Right equates gun-control efforts with demands for universal gun confiscation,” AFN, Feb. 3).

But what I’m really curious about is what the other folks living here in Ahwatukee think, by conducting a survey.

Griffin purports that if a 1 percent increase in gun ownership results in a 3 percent decrease in crime rate, that represents a LINEAR relationship. In other words a 100 percent increase in gun ownership would create a NEGATIVE crime rate ... implying that John Lott’s premise was not correct.

So I’d like to know if AFN readers agree with C.W. E-mail your responses to math@analog-innovations.com. Please explain your reasoning. I’d also like to know your occupation. You can be otherwise anonymous.

For those of you with a mathematical curiosity, surf on “Difference Equations.” A particularly appropriate link is http://tinyurl.com/bao5ryt.


Jim Thompson designs custom microchips and has been a resident of the Valley for 49 years, the last 17 in Ahwatukee Foothills.

(6) comments


Is this "survey" about gun control or someone's math skills?

This is not clearly worded.

If it helps, I like math. :-)

Blair Houghton
Blair Houghton

Jim, again you put the "dis" in Cognitive Dissonance.

I re-read Griffin's letter, and he doesn't say there is a linear relationship between guns and crime, he says Lott's unqualified statement implies only a linear relationship.

And I'm not sure how you got from his "differential equation" to "DIFFERENCE EQUATION", but I bet there was spittle flying when you modified it.

Keep up the good work.

P.S. It's worth noting here that the word "state" in the 2nd Amendment is not the word "nation" only because of the fears of the southern states that once the Constitutional ban on laws banning slavery ran out in 1808 the federal government would disarm the slave patrols, which at the time were the militia pressed into doing something useful with their militia training and duty time, that being hunting down runaway slaves and going from slave quarters to slave quarters searching for weapons to confiscate... So there's a pretty heaping helping of hypocrisy in the way the 2nd Amendment came to be what it is. It's anachronistic. Almost nobody needs a gun to hunt to survive any more; and they're far more dangerous in the home than they are helpful in protecting the home; and they're completely useless against the government, which, if you're doing your job as a citizen, won't even get the idea to try to seize you or your property illegally; that's why we created democracy and it works, and the weapon you need there isn't a gun it's a lawyer. It's about time we repealed the 2nd Amendment and let the states decide whether to allow gun ownership within their borders, and let the Congress, President, and Supreme Court decide how to regulate trafficking in weapons across state and national borders. And we get to elect them (and they get to appoint the rest), so insisting that we need the 2nd Amendment to prevent tyranny is admitting you don't trust democracy at all.


Response to Blair,
(1) C.W didn't "imply", he asserted [smile]
(2) AFN titled my commentary and, as usual, got it wrong.
(3) Follow my link on difference equations... difference equations are discrete, i.e. integer steps... in essence a derivative... integrate to get the continuous differential equation.
(4) Do you really trust your government?


Response to Chet,
AFN titled my commentary and, as usual, got it wrong [sad]
Obviously, math skills in the US are next to none [sad]


Oh, Jim, I am an American and I, like most other American's, can do math just fine.

Let's start with the actual numbers:

The Big Scary Government, including police and the military, has 4 millions guns.
The American public has 300 million guns.

You have the Big Scary Government outgunned 75 to 1.

Going by that math, the idea that the Big Scary Government could ever come and get your gun just doesn't add up.

I've posted this so many times now.

This nonsense does, however, separate a lot of people who can't do math from their money, giving to gun rights groups who gin up this fantasy, and their sanity, preventing law enforcement from tracking the 1% of bad gun dealers who sell 80% of the weapons used in crime to criminals, and it prevents laws that would keep people from the Terrorist Watch List from getting an assault weapon in a perfectly legal manner.

So stop insulting the American public's ability to do math, please, and maybe spend more time on your article next time, which is not at all well thought out, regardless of the headline.


Afnanalog, first you change the subject because you have run out of ideas, then, mixed in with some name calling, you make a threat.

Making suggestions that people you disagree with are possible targets for you is proof that you are not a responsible gun owner or a serious person.

You are now the poster boy for gun control. I reported your comment.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.