Did guns or vaccines save more lives in 2021?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

A crank study and he's right and you're wrong...

Gary Kleck's study is, until you point to a better study, the best data we have. And I see no reason to think that almost everybody who thinks a gun saved their life is somehow mistaken, which seems to be the only way Gary Kleck's study could be wildly wrong.

Simply because Kleck’s study is the best data we have isn’t enough to validate his conclusions. Why? You gave the answer yourself.

As I said earlier, the people most likely to support the idea that a gun saved their life have a vested interest in saying so, if only because these are the same people who felt they needed a gun to save their life. 

The trouble is that thinking a gun saved your life is extremely subjective, as the circumstances of every gun encounter are different. What exactly constitutes ‘saving your life’? How do you determine that the gun saved you and not some other factor? In how many encounters did one of the parties only think a gun was present?

Until these and other variables are taken in to consideration, Kleck’s conclusions remain suspect at best.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Good...god. The quality of Gary Klecks study is, ultimately, irrelevant. Let's accept his claim for no reason other than shits and giggles. If Gary Kleck says that the covid vaccine and guns both saved around 300k a year - then the answer to the opq is as obvious as the nose on your face. Vaccines saved more lives than guns in 2021, if a single vaccine saved as many lives as guns.

QED.

The only real question, is whether or not that will look different - still accepting Klecks claim for shits and giggles..when the people who consume this silly trash reject vaccinations because of this silly trash. Then, guns might actually save more people than vaccines, on account of anti-vax gun nut intersectionality. This will, ofc, mean that fewer lives overall are saved..and not by a little..by a lot. But fuck it. More blood for the blood god!

[FlatAssembler]

Sure, but there are different levels of wrongness. Claims that aren't based on a study are way more wrong than claims that are based on a flawed study.

Not necessarily. Suppose I make the claim, without a study, that trees are made of wood. Someone conducts a flawed study which concludes that trees are made of pickled beets.

Which claim is ‘way more wrong’?

Boru

Are you a rationalist or an empiricist? Because what you say seems to be against empiricism.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Are you a rationalist or an empiricist? Because what you say seems to be against empiricism.

Empiricism doesn't mean the embrace of bad studies and dubious conclusions from bad studies. That's the opposite of Empiricism.

[The Grand Nudger]

Put the posts down, you nut. The question was asked...do vaccines save more lives or do guns? Vaccines, even according to nut math. Next?

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you a ratonalist or an empricist...Flat? Because it seems to me, that in this, there's no difference in expected outcomes. If you/we tell people not to take their shots, then will more or less people die from things that their shots could prevent? What's the confusion? Is there a contradictory croatian toponym or some shit.......?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Not necessarily. Suppose I make the claim, without a study, that trees are made of wood. Someone conducts a flawed study which concludes that trees are made of pickled beets.

Which claim is ‘way more wrong’?

Boru

Are you a rationalist or an empiricist? Because what you say seems to be against empiricism.

I’m an empirical rationalist, but that’s hardly the point. YOU made the claim that a non-study conclusion is always more wrong than a study-based conclusion. The hypothetical above was intending to point out how bone-headedly stupid your claim is.

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

Are you a rationalist or an empiricist? Because what you say seems to be against empiricism.

Empiricism doesn't mean the embrace of bad studies and dubious conclusions from bad studies. That's the opposite of Empiricism.

The opposite of empiricism is, as far as I know, rationalism. Rationalism is disregard for the empirical evidence and trusting your intuition over empirical evidence, which seems to me that you guys here are doing.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are over a dozen vaccinations we receive as schoolchildren in the us, not including the covid vaccination. If you wanted to be all empirical, there are numbers for death in the us before vaccinations and after. If we accept your silly number it will still be obvious that vaccines saved more people in 2021, and in any year, than guns.

Stop fucking the chicken. No one is disregarding any evidence. You were taken in like the utter rube you are.

[Mister Agenda]

I know it has been pointed out, but maybe bears repeating. Kleck's study counted reports where the responder claimed to be threatened with bodily harm and deterred it by brandishing, or in some cases, firing a gun. There's no way to know in how many of those cases, the responder would have actually been killed had they not had a firearm for deterrance. Maybe they would just have been mugged with no physical harm. Maybe they would have been bruised. Maybe the responder exagerrrated their story. I have no doubt there are cases where a potential victim has saved their life with their gun, but there's no way to tease out a number of lives saved. In the end, Kleck's study is juat a guess based on multiple anecdotes.

On the face of it though; 300,000 lifes saved because of guns in one year, even in the USA, is an absurd number that should not be believed without better evidence.