Did guns or vaccines save more lives in 2021?

[Pat Mustard]

No I don't think it is bad, it demonstrably is bad.  None of his findings are replicable.

But... his findings have been replicated:

https://www.owl232.net/papers/guncontrol.htm
Fifteen surveys, excluding the one discussed in the following paragraph, have been conducted since 1976, yielding estimates of between 760,000 and 3.6 million defensive gun uses per year, the average estimate being 1.8 million.

I'm sorry but if you don't even understand the basics of the scientific method you shouldn't even be taking part in this discussion. The "paper" you link to starts with its conclusion and works its way back from there. It is literally anti-science.

[Jackalope]

It so nice we have all these guns for the millions of so called self defense acts otherwise our homicide rate would skyrocket compared to our peer nations. Oh wait.

Long time ago, I thought those same studies and arguments had merit. They don't stand up to legitimate scrutiny, they are bad science.

They don't even pass the giggle test.

[FlatAssembler]

But... his findings have been replicated:

‘Defensive gun use’ is not the same as ‘lives saved by guns’.

Boru

So if no other study even tried to estimate the number of lives saved by guns each year in the US... shouldn't we go with the Gary Kleck's study that estimated it to be around 300'000? The burden of proof is on somebody to demonstrate that Gary Kleck's study is wrong, that, if you control for various biases, you get a different number. Since nobody demonstrated that, the burden of proof stays on people who claim Gary Kleck's study is wrong.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

‘Defensive gun use’ is not the same as ‘lives saved by guns’.

Boru

So if no other study even tried to estimate the number of lives saved by guns each year in the US... shouldn't we go with the Gary Kleck's study that estimated it to be around 300'000? The burden of proof is on somebody to demonstrate that Gary Kleck's study is wrong, that, if you control for various biases, you get a different number. Since nobody demonstrated that, the burden of proof stays on people who claim Gary Kleck's study is wrong.

That other studies haven’t been done is not a valid reason to accept a flawed methodology.

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

So if no other study even tried to estimate the number of lives saved by guns each year in the US... shouldn't we go with the Gary Kleck's study that estimated it to be around 300'000? The burden of proof is on somebody to demonstrate that Gary Kleck's study is wrong, that, if you control for various biases, you get a different number. Since nobody demonstrated that, the burden of proof stays on people who claim Gary Kleck's study is wrong.

That other studies haven’t been done is not a valid reason to accept a flawed methodology.

Boru

I thought it is. I thought that's how burden of proof works in science.

[Angrboda]

‘Defensive gun use’ is not the same as ‘lives saved by guns’.

Boru

So if no other study even tried to estimate the number of lives saved by guns each year in the US... shouldn't we go with the Gary Kleck's study that estimated it to be around 300'000? The burden of proof is on somebody to demonstrate that Gary Kleck's study is wrong, that, if you control for various biases, you get a different number. Since nobody demonstrated that, the burden of proof stays on people who claim Gary Kleck's study is wrong.

That's not how burden of proof works and is essentially an argument from ignorance. "Nobody has proved it wrong, therefore it is right."

[FlatAssembler]

So if no other study even tried to estimate the number of lives saved by guns each year in the US... shouldn't we go with the Gary Kleck's study that estimated it to be around 300'000? The burden of proof is on somebody to demonstrate that Gary Kleck's study is wrong, that, if you control for various biases, you get a different number. Since nobody demonstrated that, the burden of proof stays on people who claim Gary Kleck's study is wrong.

That's not how burden of proof works and is essentially an argument from ignorance.  "Nobody has proved it wrong, therefore it is right."

If you think it's enough to complain about the flaws in methodology to discard a study, read up on conspiracy theorists (perhaps The Mad Revisionists - the conspiracy theorists who claim the Moon doesn't exist) and consider the matters again. You cannot manufacture the truth by discarding the evidence. That's not how science works. Gary Kleck's study is, until you point to a better study, the best data we have.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Nope the flaws in his study are enough by themselves to dismiss his conclusion.

[FlatAssembler]

Do you also think people on Internet forums are right to reject my study suggesting that the probability of the pattern of the first two consonants in river names in Croatia being 'k' and 'r' appearing by chance is between 1/300 and 1/17, without any attempt to calculate that probability themselves?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That's not how burden of proof works and is essentially an argument from ignorance.  "Nobody has proved it wrong, therefore it is right."

If you think it's enough to complain about the flaws in methodology to discard a study, read up on conspiracy theorists (perhaps The Mad Revisionists - the conspiracy theorists who claim the Moon doesn't exist) and consider the matters again. You cannot manufacture the truth by discarding the evidence. That's not how science works. Gary Kleck's study is, until you point to a better study, the best data we have.

I agree that it’s the best study we have, but only by the virtue of being the only study we have. That doesn’t mean Kleck’s conclusions are valid. 

Suppose I were to conduct a study - the only one, mind you - of facial expressions in South American rodents and reached the conclusion that these expressions meant that capybaras were thinking about crucifixion imagery in the works of Kierkegaard.

Since no one has refuted this study, let alone conducted one of their own, should we accept my conclusion as a working hypothesis?

Boru