Mass shooting in the middle school Vladislav Ribnikar in Belgrade

[The Grand Nudger]

At least a handgun, right? The fact that there isn't a handgun in every back to school package shows that we're not really serious about protecting our schools.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I personally think we should be legally obligated to shoot them with our legally-mandated guns. I mean, if more guns makes for a safer society, the government should issue guns to the citizenry and give them training ... and then turn them loose. i can't see any real downside to this. Anybody else?

But requiring training is coercive. Clearly, untrained firearms users are more of a boon to the social order than people who know where the safety is.

Boru

Hold it as a competition. The winner at our Hogan's Alley gets a case of Bud Light and a bag of pork rinds. No coercion needed!

[FlatAssembler]

Gun control is a coercive government policy, and claiming that coercion helps is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.

I need to know that Kleck is not full of shit. Whatcha got? Show me how you know his numbers are good. That's your only assignment for your next reply to me.

Because the only way it could be wildly (like, by an order of magnitude) wrong is if almost everybody who thinks that a gun saved his or her life is mistaken. I can see how that could be the case if Gary Kleck hadn't asked "Have you actually seen the attacker." (maybe many people are deluded and think a gun saved them from an attacker that wasn't actually there), but I fail to see how it can be true given that Gary Kleck only counted those who claim to have actually seen the attacker.

[The Grand Nudger]

Imagine that. A world in which almost everybody who pulls a gun on someone else wasn't actually in any danger of losing their life. Like the thief who robs people at gunpoint. I wonder if he thinks he needs to protect himself from his clients, too?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I need to know that Kleck is not full of shit. Whatcha got? Show me how you know his numbers are good. That's your only assignment for your next reply to me.

Because the only way it could be wildly (like, by an order of magnitude) wrong is if almost everybody who thinks that a gun saved his or her life is mistaken. I can see how that could be the case if Gary Kleck hadn't asked "Have you actually seen the attacker." (maybe many people are deluded and think a gun saved them from an attacker that wasn't actually there), but I fail to see how it can be true given that Gary Kleck only counted those who claim to have actually seen the attacker.

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

[Thumpalumpacus]

I need to know that Kleck is not full of shit. Whatcha got? Show me how you know his numbers are good. That's your only assignment for your next reply to me.

Because the only way it could be wildly (like, by an order of magnitude) wrong is if almost everybody who thinks that a gun saved his or her life is mistaken. I can see how that could be the case if Gary Kleck hadn't asked "Have you actually seen the attacker." (maybe many people are deluded and think a gun saved them from an attacker that wasn't actually there), but I fail to see how it can be true given that Gary Kleck only counted those who claim to have actually seen the attacker.

You're still relying upon individual perceptions of both the circumstance and the reason the "attacker" fled, amongst other issues.

[FlatAssembler]

Nope the burden of proof is on the pro gun nut side and they have failed in every way.

I don't understand why the burden of proof would be on the pro-gun side. They are not the ones advocating the use of force. It's the anti-gun people who are advocating the use of force (to forcibly take guns away from people), so obviously they have to at least prove it will result in the desired outcomes (less violent crime).
And even if the burden of proof is initially on the pro-gun side, doesn't the Gary Kleck study (concluding that guns save 10x more lives as they take) switch that burden of proof? Like the fact that we see the Moon switches the burden of proof onto the Mad Revisionists (the conspiracy theorists who claim the Moon doesn't exist).

[FlatAssembler]

Imagine that.  A world in which almost everybody who pulls a gun on someone else wasn't actually in any danger of losing their life.  Like the thief who robs people at gunpoint.  I wonder if he thinks he needs to protect himself from his clients, too?

Bank robberies and store robberies do not happen hundreds of thousands times per year, though.

[FlatAssembler]

Because the only way it could be wildly (like, by an order of magnitude) wrong is if almost everybody who thinks that a gun saved his or her life is mistaken. I can see how that could be the case if Gary Kleck hadn't asked "Have you actually seen the attacker." (maybe many people are deluded and think a gun saved them from an attacker that wasn't actually there), but I fail to see how it can be true given that Gary Kleck only counted those who claim to have actually seen the attacker.

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?

[arewethereyet]

Nope the burden of proof is on the pro gun nut side and they have failed in every way.

I don't understand why the burden of proof would be on the pro-gun side. They are not the ones advocating the use of force. It's the anti-gun people who are advocating the use of force (to forcibly take guns away from people), so obviously they have to at least prove it will result in the desired outcomes (less violent crime).
And even if the burden of proof is initially on the pro-gun side, doesn't the Gary Kleck study (concluding that guns save 10x more lives as they take) switch that burden of proof? Like the fact that we see the Moon switches the burden of proof onto the Mad Revisionists (the conspiracy theorists who claim the Moon doesn't exist).

You are really confused and/or disturbed.