Quote:I don't understand why the burden of proof would be on the pro-gun side. They are not the ones advocating the use of force. It's the anti-gun people who are advocating the use of force (to forcibly take guns away from people), so obviously they have to at least prove it will result in the desired outcomes (less violent crime).

And even if the burden of proof is initially on the pro-gun side, doesn't the Gary Kleck study (concluding that guns save 10x more lives as they take) switch that burden of proof? Like the fact that we see the Moon switches the burden of proof onto the Mad Revisionists (the conspiracy theorists who claim the Moon doesn't exist).

(May 16, 2023 at 11:07 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(May 15, 2023 at 11:04 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Imagine that.  A world in which almost everybody who pulls a gun on someone else wasn't actually in any danger of losing their life.  Like the thief who robs people at gunpoint.  I wonder if he thinks he needs to protect himself from his clients, too?

Bank robberies and store robberies do not happen hundreds of thousands times per year, though.

(May 16, 2023 at 11:11 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(May 16, 2023 at 12:34 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Because you STILL can't be sure that the attacker would have killed the respondent if the latter hadn't had a gun. Also, whether one is being 'attacked' is a very subjective matter. In recent news, people have been shot for ringing the wrong doorbell, approach the wrong car, or pulling into the wrong driveway. In each case, I'm sure the shooter felt they were in imminent danger of being harmed or killed, but the circumstances of those cases argue against it.

Boru

Do you have any evidence that happens hundreds of thousands times per year?

(May 16, 2023 at 2:46 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 16, 2023 at 11:11 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Do you have any evidence that happens hundreds of thousands times per year?

What’s that got to do with anything? Those were only used as examples to show that Kleck cannot determine after the fact if any particular life was saved by the use of a gun. In other words, it’s all but impossible to know if an assailant would have killed the person responding to Kleck’s question if the respondent hadn’t brandished a firearm. All he’s shown is that people predisposed to point a gun at someone believed that they were in immanent danger of being killed (colour me shocked) - this is why people who routinely carry firearms do so, because they think the world is teeming with people who want to kill them.

Boru

(May 12, 2023 at 5:45 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: He just has different flavors of nonsense.

(May 19, 2023 at 12:13 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(May 16, 2023 at 2:46 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: What’s that got to do with anything? Those were only used as examples to show that Kleck cannot determine after the fact if any particular life was saved by the use of a gun. In other words, it’s all but impossible to know if an assailant would have killed the person responding to Kleck’s question if the respondent hadn’t brandished a firearm. All he’s shown is that people predisposed to point a gun at someone believed that they were in immanent danger of being killed (colour me shocked) - this is why people who routinely carry firearms do so, because they think the world is teeming with people who want to kill them.

Boru

But don't you think it is kind of arrogant to think that almost everybody who thinks a gun saved his life is mistaken? I mean, don't they know better than you, since they have actually been in that situation?

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:Look at Kleck's sample (not the sample size, but who he questioned): he drastically over-represented not just men, but the oldest male in each household with a gun.

(May 19, 2023 at 9:17 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Why 30%, you reckon?