Mass shooting in the middle school Vladislav Ribnikar in Belgrade

[The Architect Of Fate]

I have published a few papers in social sciences (the latest one being about applying information theory to the Croatian river names), and I think I can safely tell you, the Gary Kleck's study is legit.

No you can not.....

Also people who have also written papers on social studies regard his paper as flawed.

[FlatAssembler]

You do realize, that by not answering my thought experiment, you have answered my thought experiment. I can now confirm that you would not be willing to give up your alcohol, to save thousands or tens of thousand of innocent lives, but you are happily willing to give up other people's rights (guns), that they own to hunt and protect their own families from intruders who would mean to do them harm.

You make a fair point. I mean, who are we to deny the freedom of a 58 year old man to shoot a 14 year old girl in the head for playing hide and seek in his garden?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65539174.amp

Boru

That's the problem. When a gun takes a life, it usually makes it into the news. When a gun saves a life, it usually doesn't make it into the news, even if that happens way more often. And politics is influenced by the news.

[FlatAssembler]

I have published a few papers in social sciences (the latest one being about applying information theory to the Croatian river names), and I think I can safely tell you, the Gary Kleck's study is legit.

No you can not.....

Also people who have also written papers on social studies regard his paper as flawed.

Either way, it's by orders of magnitude more scientific than things you keep saying here.

[arewethereyet]

You make a fair point. I mean, who are we to deny the freedom of a 58 year old man to shoot a 14 year old girl in the head for playing hide and seek in his garden?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65539174.amp

Boru

That's the problem. When a gun takes a life, it usually makes it into the news. When a gun saves a life, it usually doesn't make it into the news, even if that happens way more often. And politics is influenced by the news.

If the times that guns save a life aren't reported then how the hell do you know the numbers?

[The Grand Nudger]

No you can not.....

Also people who have also written papers on social studies regard his paper as flawed.

Either way, it's by orders of magnitude more scientific than things you keep saying here.

Excellent, and so..we can scientifically say that there are @ 300k unreported crimes involving a firearm going on every year.  Brandishing and threatening are, ofc, illegal in the us.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Either way, it's by orders of magnitude more scientific than things you keep saying here.

Not really   

Your raving is about as scientific as phrenology and no were near as entertaining to laugh at 

You are the forum lolcow just slightly above IA and that is only because Huggy got himself axed.That's right you can't even become a joke by your own efforts only by the failures of other people.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@FlatAssembler

In case you’re interested, here are some problems with Kleck’s study:

https://www.vacps.org/public-policy/the-...s-of-kleck

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

@FlatAssembler

In case you’re interested, here are some problems with Kleck’s study:

https://www.vacps.org/public-policy/the-...s-of-kleck

Boru

As far as I can see, that article essentially makes two arguments:
1) The number of people who claim to have contacted with the aliens is even greater than the number of people claiming to have been saved by a gun.
2) The probability that somebody who has a gun will be murdered is greater than the probability that somebody who doesn't have a gun will be murdered.
Both of those arguments are nonsense.
For the first argument, in case somebody thinks he has seen an alien, we have a strong independent reason to think that he is mistaken. Intelligent life is almost certainly thousands of light-years away from us, and special relativity prevents the aliens from traveling faster than light, no matter how technologically advanced they are. What is that strong independent reason to think that somebody who thinks he has been saved by a gun is mistaken? There isn't one.
For the second argument... If you lived in a high-crime neighbourhood where you are at an increased risk of getting murdered, wouldn't you want to get a gun to protect yourself? People who get a gun are those at a higher risk of getting murdered, it's not that having a gun puts you at a higher risk of getting murdered.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The arguments are good. Glecks a hack. And your the defender of a hack

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You make a fair point. I mean, who are we to deny the freedom of a 58 year old man to shoot a 14 year old girl in the head for playing hide and seek in his garden?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65539174.amp

Boru

That's the problem. When a gun takes a life, it usually makes it into the news. When a gun saves a life, it usually doesn't make it into the news, even if that happens way more often. And politics is influenced by the news.

You’re missing the point. These kids were playing hide-and-seek, and the homeowner’s reaction was to shoot at them while they were running away. 

The USian problem is as much gun culture as it is guns. Why should firearms be allowed to people who think the solution to every minor inconvenience is to start shooting?

Boru