6 Comments
founding
May 29, 2023Liked by Open Source Defense

Well said:

"""

But if instead of an open “are guns noxious?”, someone’s starting point is “guns are noxious, now how do we stop that?”, this starts to make a lot more sense. Now technical details become dangerous, not helpful. The foundational premise is that guns are noxious. So it would be game theoretically stupid to learn about them, because that knowledge can only cut against your premise. So a rational actor would acquire only enough technical knowledge to sound convincing to the laity, and no more.

"""

Expand full comment
May 30, 2023Liked by Open Source Defense

Glad to see Base Rate Neglect here.

It was brought up to good effect in Mr. Correia's book and no less effective here.

Expand full comment
May 30, 2023·edited May 30, 2023Liked by Open Source Defense

Greetings

I am a firearms examiner, and have been for the last four years.

The field is completely sound, despite what the article you based yours off of might say.

Firearms examiners base their examinations on the fact that no two tools will be created the same way, and share the same wear patterns. There are thousands of studies that demonstrate that items made one after another display differences due to tool wear, which are imparted onto expended bullets and casings and can be used to differentiate between sources.

It takes years of training and study to be able to make identifications, so the slew of statisticians and non-forensic analysts who try to publish articles without understanding the science are extremely incorrect regarding the scientific foundation.

Expand full comment