(May 13, 2023 at 4:46 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:(May 13, 2023 at 2:04 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 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
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
