Comment I placed in CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/08/us/california-college-gunman/
Abraham asked, if 10 people were righteous, would you save the city?
That was the Bible's ancient treatise on statistical quality control.
If background checks eliminate just 10% of those unfit to own guns, would it be worthwhile?
If stringent background checks eliminate 25% unfit, would it be worthwhile?
If excruciatingly stringent background checks eliminate 60% unfit?
If adaptive stringent background checks eliminate 90% unfit?
If obsessively adaptive stringent background checks eliminate 99.7% unfit?
But you may say, we still have the 0.3% loop hole and bad people could get thro that.
The US Army developed these statistical techniques which played critical role in winning the war against Japan and Germany. But American industries refused to adopt these techniques - consequently, we had a whole class of experienced industrial statisticians left behind as information janitors.
But Japan actually won the war because those experts went over to Japan. Japan had quickly seen the light. American industries at that time believed, we only made 0% good or 100% good TVs but we don't strive to make 99.6% good TVs. It's all or nothing. That American attitude was devastated by the rise of industrial machine of Japan with no small role played by American military philosophy.
But in the late 1990s, these industrial philosophies came back to the US. Why would Ford have the confidence to refuse govt bailout? Why was GM so lousy and what would GM have to change? Did GM, in all those years, implemented quality control in name only, when what was necessary was treating the quality enemy as an intelligent moving target.
In EFFECTIVE industrial management, we don't aim to eliminate, we aim to drastically reduce. We treat our adversarial bad quality as an intelligent moving target and so we must adaptively continuously modify our filters. We start reducing small and gradually tighten the noose (sorry for the word) around that enemy, until it is so reduced that it is effectively eliminated. My mistake, because in our efforts there is no UNTIL.
What attitude that we Americans have to change to drastically reduce gun violence, without giving excuses like, "well we still have a 50% loop hole"?
What is it that we have to do to preserve our privileges to own guns, which we can use to keep our families and communities safe?
Are background checks simply black/white or is it a battle against 1000 shades of mutating grey?
Abraham asked, if 10 people were righteous, would you save the city?
That was the Bible's ancient treatise on statistical quality control.
If background checks eliminate just 10% of those unfit to own guns, would it be worthwhile?
If stringent background checks eliminate 25% unfit, would it be worthwhile?
If excruciatingly stringent background checks eliminate 60% unfit?
If adaptive stringent background checks eliminate 90% unfit?
If obsessively adaptive stringent background checks eliminate 99.7% unfit?
But you may say, we still have the 0.3% loop hole and bad people could get thro that.
The US Army developed these statistical techniques which played critical role in winning the war against Japan and Germany. But American industries refused to adopt these techniques - consequently, we had a whole class of experienced industrial statisticians left behind as information janitors.
But Japan actually won the war because those experts went over to Japan. Japan had quickly seen the light. American industries at that time believed, we only made 0% good or 100% good TVs but we don't strive to make 99.6% good TVs. It's all or nothing. That American attitude was devastated by the rise of industrial machine of Japan with no small role played by American military philosophy.
But in the late 1990s, these industrial philosophies came back to the US. Why would Ford have the confidence to refuse govt bailout? Why was GM so lousy and what would GM have to change? Did GM, in all those years, implemented quality control in name only, when what was necessary was treating the quality enemy as an intelligent moving target.
In EFFECTIVE industrial management, we don't aim to eliminate, we aim to drastically reduce. We treat our adversarial bad quality as an intelligent moving target and so we must adaptively continuously modify our filters. We start reducing small and gradually tighten the noose (sorry for the word) around that enemy, until it is so reduced that it is effectively eliminated. My mistake, because in our efforts there is no UNTIL.
What attitude that we Americans have to change to drastically reduce gun violence, without giving excuses like, "well we still have a 50% loop hole"?
What is it that we have to do to preserve our privileges to own guns, which we can use to keep our families and communities safe?
Are background checks simply black/white or is it a battle against 1000 shades of mutating grey?
No comments:
Post a Comment