Mass shooting in the middle school Vladislav Ribnikar in Belgrade

[FlatAssembler]

Basically, yes. Of course, we can make an exception if the study has a particularly bad methodology and its conclusions are very implausible. But that's not the case with the Gary Kleck's study. Gary Kleck's study has a better methodology than my latest, and by far the best I made, study in social sciences does, and probably better methodology than any study in comparative linguistics or linguistic typology can possibly have. Gary Kleck's methodology cannot be the reason to reject his study and rely solely on intuition.

Wrong. Kleck’s methodology is suspect and his conclusions are at variance with the observed facts. You’ve been repeatedly give evidence and reasons why Kleck is wrong, but you continue flogging the deceased equine.

Boru

Because your "reasons why Kleck is wrong" make less sense than Levy's reasons why he thought Semmelweis was wrong.

[arewethereyet]

Oh FFS.

[FlatAssembler]

Basically, yes. Of course, we can make an exception if the study has a particularly bad methodology and its conclusions are very implausible.

That's silly. It ignores factors like study design, bias on either side of the investigation, or even simple technological issues.

In the case of Kleck's "estimate", how specifically have you excluded bias, from both respondents and from the collators of the replies? Remember, be specific.

"He might have a bias." is not a valid argument to reject a scientific study. You need to prove that he has a bias by doing a better study.

[The Grand Nudger]

I guess at some point the youth defensive use militia would run out of crimers to shoot? They'd probably be good at dealing with other problems too. Like bad studies and the baddies who study them.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Gleck isn't into you FA.So you can stop simping for him.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Wrong. Kleck’s methodology is suspect and his conclusions are at variance with the observed facts. You’ve been repeatedly give evidence and reasons why Kleck is wrong, but you continue flogging the deceased equine.

Boru

Because your "reasons why Kleck is wrong" make less sense than Levy's reasons why he thought Semmelweis was wrong.

This has nothing to do with Semmelweis: he, at least, found a correlation that supported his premise. Kleck has nothing.

The chief reason Kleck is wrong is that there’s no way to determine if a gun saved a life in most instances - circumstances are everything. Suppose a man accosts me and says, ‘Gimme your wallet.’ I brandish a gun and the man runs away. Kleck would count this as my life being saved by a gun (he said as much in the study). The fact is that in most robberies of this type, no one get hurt, let alone killed.

Another problem is that he includes encounters with animals, ffs. Every year in the US, more than 4 million people are bitten by dogs - the average numbers of deaths from dog attacks is 16. This alone is enough to skew his conclusion.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

"He might have a bias." is not a valid argument to reject a scientific study. You need to prove that he has a bias by doing a better study.

Right, which is why you don't settle for the first "study"/opinion piece coming down the pike as having anything but tentative conclusions. And that doesn't address the other problems. The bottom line is that accepting the only study of a field as more accurate simply because no others have yet been done is idiotic. It's assuming the study is correct in its conclusions, and as we know, or should know as you apparently do not, the onus of evidence is on the claimant.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Based on this Teen Uses Slingshot To Rescue Sister

A teenager helped save his younger sister from an alleged kidnapper by shooting the suspect with his slingshot, Michigan authorities said.

I can confidently conclude that slingshots save an estimated 462 355 lives per year.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

Based on this Teen Uses Slingshot To Rescue Sister

A teenager helped save his younger sister from an alleged kidnapper by shooting the suspect with his slingshot, Michigan authorities said.

I can confidently conclude that slingshots save an estimated 462 355 lives per year.

Boru

Ban wristrockets!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Based on this Teen Uses Slingshot To Rescue Sister


I can confidently conclude that slingshots save an estimated 462 355 lives per year.

Boru

Ban wristrockets!

Nonsense…we must encourage all people to carry them wherever they go. Clearly, the more slingshots in the hand of violence-prone people who know bugger all about slingshot safety will result in fewer people being injured by slingshots.

Contrariwise, if slingshots are banned, more people will be murdered by slingshots.

Boru