(May 16, 2023 at 11:11 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:(May 16, 2023 at 12:34 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Because you STILL can't be sure that the attacker would have killed the respondent if the latter hadn't had a gun. Also, whether one is being 'attacked' is a very subjective matter. In recent news, people have been shot for ringing the wrong doorbell, approach the wrong car, or pulling into the wrong driveway. In each case, I'm sure the shooter felt they were in imminent danger of being harmed or killed, but the circumstances of those cases argue against it.
Boru
Do you have any evidence that happens hundreds of thousands times per year?
What’s that got to do with anything? Those were only used as examples to show that Kleck cannot determine after the fact if any particular life was saved by the use of a gun. In other words, it’s all but impossible to know if an assailant would have killed the person responding to Kleck’s question if the respondent hadn’t brandished a firearm. All he’s shown is that people predisposed to point a gun at someone believed that they were in immanent danger of being killed (colour me shocked) - this is why people who routinely carry firearms do so, because they think the world is teeming with people who want to kill them.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
