Mass shooting in the middle school Vladislav Ribnikar in Belgrade

[FlatAssembler]

Not if there are millions of unreported gun crimers out there waving their deagle at the delivery man.....

Give five year olds guns, give guns to the guns, -and- have cops shoot people at random. Voila, problem solved with the judicious application of moar guns.

Sorry, I still don't understand you. The vast majority of people aren't criminals, much less criminals who will murder somebody. The police randomly shooting people will mostly kill people who will otherwise not kill anybody, thus it will kill more people than it would save.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Not if there are millions of unreported gun crimers out there waving their deagle at the delivery man.....

Give five year olds guns, give guns to the guns, -and- have cops shoot people at random.  Voila, problem solved with the judicious application of moar guns.

Sorry, I still don't understand you. The vast majority of people aren't criminals, much less criminals who will murder somebody. The police randomly shooting people will mostly kill people who will otherwise not kill anybody, thus it will kill more people than it would save.

And yet you don’t seem to grasp that giving more people guns will result in more criminal behaviour.

Also, is there a sarcasm detection shortage in Croatia?

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

Oh really? Keep in mind that, to the vast majority of doctors at the time, the Semmelweis'es work seemed like a terrible study. It seemed to use bad methodology and to arrive at pseudoscientific-sounding conclusions. Levy commented both that the methodology is bad (he said: "Why wasn't a simpler and more convincing experiment performed, to simply stop all the anatomical work?") and that the conclusions are implausible (that "implausibly small" particles from a corpse can turn you into a corpse if they touch your blood, and that washing your hands with some substances solves that). So, was it the right conclusion that Semmelweis was incompetent? Of course not.

This is just ‘they laughed at Galileo’. Simply because Semmelweis was right doesn’t justify concluding that Kleck is.

Boru

Semmelweis'es study was the only study available back then about the causes of puerperal fever. Thus, the right thing to do was to accept its conclusions, rather than to complain about its shortcomings. Similarly, since the only study we have about how many lives are saved by defensive gun use is the Gary Kleck's study, the right thing to do is to accept its conclusions, rather than to complain about its shortcomings.

[FlatAssembler]

Sorry, I still don't understand you. The vast majority of people aren't criminals, much less criminals who will murder somebody. The police randomly shooting people will mostly kill people who will otherwise not kill anybody, thus it will kill more people than it would save.

And yet you don’t seem to grasp that giving more people guns will result in more criminal behaviour.

Also, is there a sarcasm detection shortage in Croatia?

Boru

Because it doesn't. There are way more guns today in the US than there were 100 years ago, yet there is way less violent crime today in the US than 100 years ago. Conversely, there are way fewer guns in the UK than there were 100 years ago, yet there is more violent crime today in the UK than 100 years ago.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This is just ‘they laughed at Galileo’. Simply because Semmelweis was right doesn’t justify concluding that Kleck is.

Boru

Semmelweis'es study was the only study available back then about the causes of puerperal fever. Thus, the right thing to do was to accept its conclusions, rather than to complain about its shortcomings. Similarly, since the only study we have about how many lives are saved by defensive gun use is the Gary Kleck's study, the right thing to do is to accept its conclusions, rather than to complain about its shortcomings.

Suppose - just suppose - the only available study at the time conclude that the best way to reduce surgical infection was for the surgeon to coat his hands in rancid goat dung. Should that conclusion have been accepted?

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

And yet you don’t seem to grasp that giving more people guns will result in more criminal behaviour.

Also, is there a sarcasm detection shortage in Croatia?

Boru

Because it doesn't. There are way more guns today in the US than there were 100 years ago, yet there is way less violent crime today in the US than 100 years ago. Conversely, there are way fewer guns in the UK than there were 100 years ago, yet there is more violent crime today in the UK than 100 years ago.

Do you have evidence that any of this is true?

And, for the record, ‘criminal behaviour’ and ‘violent crime’ are not always the same thing.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Not if there are millions of unreported gun crimers out there waving their deagle at the delivery man.....

Give five year olds guns, give guns to the guns, -and- have cops shoot people at random.  Voila, problem solved with the judicious application of moar guns.

Sorry, I still don't understand you. The vast majority of people aren't criminals, much less criminals who will murder somebody. The police randomly shooting people will mostly kill people who will otherwise not kill anybody, thus it will kill more people than it would save.

Who said anything about a vast majority?  All the guns in the us are held by less than a third of the people in the us. Most of those guns, within that demo, are held by people like myself - people with collections.

There are, though, according to the very best study we have that also makes your entire field a laughing stock, a bunch of self admitted gun criminals waving their weapons at people and, 20% of the time, attempting to murder them. You didn't seem to be worried that this group was randomly shooting at people?

[Angrboda]

Why is the UK the standard when the Kleck study was of the U.S.? You can't just mix and match the results you like with the country you want to opine about.

The fact that you took my comment about police engaging in random shooting seriously tells us all we need to know about what kind of idiot you are. You have no mental guard rails against accepting absurd and ridiculous ideas as plausible. As a result, you've mentally taken onboard a bunch of absurd and ridiculous stuff that isn't remotely plausible. The short version, you're an idiot with zero critical thinking skills.

[FlatAssembler]

Semmelweis'es study was the only study available back then about the causes of puerperal fever. Thus, the right thing to do was to accept its conclusions, rather than to complain about its shortcomings. Similarly, since the only study we have about how many lives are saved by defensive gun use is the Gary Kleck's study, the right thing to do is to accept its conclusions, rather than to complain about its shortcomings.

Suppose - just suppose - the only available study at the time conclude that the best way to reduce surgical infection was for the surgeon to coat his hands in rancid goat dung. Should that conclusion have been accepted?

Boru

In that unlikely situation, I think it should have been accepted. That's what "evidence-based medicine" means, right?

[FlatAssembler]

Because it doesn't. There are way more guns today in the US than there were 100 years ago, yet there is way less violent crime today in the US than 100 years ago. Conversely, there are way fewer guns in the UK than there were 100 years ago, yet there is more violent crime today in the UK than 100 years ago.

Do you have evidence that any of this is true?

And, for the record, ‘criminal behaviour’ and ‘violent crime’ are not always the same thing.

Boru

Well, I am quite sure the violent crime in the US has decreased, as why else would the reported crime decrease? Now, whether the violent crime in the UK has really increased, or whether it is just reported to the police more, that's harder to tell.