Mass shooting in the middle school Vladislav Ribnikar in Belgrade

[The Architect Of Fate]

And explanation is dog doo doo as is your COVID conspiracy bunkum you push.

[FlatAssembler]

And explanation is dog doo doo as is your COVID conspiracy bunkum you push.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Can you paraphrase?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Can you paraphrase?

Seriously 

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But that's in no way comparable to what Kleck did. Sometimes, unproven (even unprovable) assumptions are necessary in historical research - ya gotta start somewhere. 

But Kleck wasn't doing historical research or historical investigation. He wasn't constrained to make assumptions that may or may not be true. He deliberately chose parameters that would skew his research towards the results he wanted and relied primarily on subjective, pre-disposed witness statements to arrive at his conclusions. Any criminologist - except, apparently Gary Kleck - will tell you that witness statements are notoriously unreliable.

That's not pseudoscience - it's just bad science.

Boru

Well, like I've explained, as far as I understand the methodology of social sciences (and I have published a few papers in social sciences, so I know something about how social sciences work), if something is the only study about something (like the Gary Kleck's study is the only study that tries to estimate how many people are saved by guns each year in the US), we should generally accept its conclusions. There are exceptions, like when the conclusions are highly scientifically implausible (like the Thai study concluding that Moderna vaccine causes myocarditis in adolescents more often than COVID itself does) or when the methodology contains a fatal flaw (such as incorrectly calculating the p-value or not calculating it at all). Generally, if the study is not such that it shouldn't have passed the peer-review, and it is the only one, you should accept it. Complaining how unreliable witness statements are and discarding them, even if there is no better evidence, is not very scientific, in fact, it has more to do with the methodology of The Mad Revisionist than with science.

But Kleck’s conclusions ARE highly improbable, to the point of ridiculousness. He would have us believe that the number of defensive gun uses in the US exceeds that number of gun crimes. That’s absurd on the face of it.

And it’s already been explained to you why a single, flawed, non-corroborated survey should NOT be accepted.

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

He would have us believe that the number of defensive gun uses in the US exceeds that number of gun crimes. That’s absurd on the face of it.

I thought that was not even up to debate. There have been at least fifteen different studies concluding that:

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.

There are around 400'000 gun crimes per year in the US, so there are at least 2 times as many defensive gun uses.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you tell me that 800k people brandished a weapon at other people every year then I'm going to go out on a limb and say there are a fair few more than 400k gun crimes in that same year. It looks like the number could actually approach 1.2million gun crimes a year. Anywho, your papers author omits studies that conclude there are around 70-80k DGUs a year accounting for unreporteds..and that might have an effect on your "math" amigo.

Thing is, even taken at face value, the study can't give you those numbers. If you do the most rudimentary adjustments to observed fact then what you'd actually end up with, with that methodology, is surprisingly close to the number of dgus that credible studies report. Right around 70-80k. A bit by accident, but that might be better than being wrong on purpose.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yay Flats statics sounds off by several factors 

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

He would have us believe that the number of defensive gun uses in the US exceeds that number of gun crimes. That’s absurd on the face of it.

I thought that was not even up to debate. There have been at least fifteen different studies concluding that:

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.

There are around 400'000 gun crimes per year in the US, so there are at least 2 times as many defensive gun uses.

This is from your link (you should probably have read the entire thing):

Kleck’s statistics imply that defensive gun uses outnumber crimes committed with guns by a ratio of about 3:1.

Boru

[arewethereyet]

[FlatAssembler]

If you tell me that 800k people brandished a weapon at other people every year then I'm going to go out on a limb and say there are a fair few more than 400k gun crimes in that same year.  It looks like the number could actually approach 1.2million gun crimes a year.  Anywho, your papers author omits studies that conclude there are around 70-80k DGUs a year accounting for unreporteds..and that might have an effect on your "math" amigo.

Thing is, even taken at face value, the study can't give you those numbers.  If you do the most rudimentary adjustments to observed fact then what you'd actually end up with, with that methodology, is surprisingly close to the number of dgus that credible studies report.  Right around 70-80k. A bit by accident, but that might be better than being wrong on purpose.

I must say I can't follow your reasoning. I guess that you, just like Levy, in face of empirical evidence that contradicts your beliefs, slip into intricate theoretical reasoning. Read up on this, maybe it will be enlighting (as it was to me): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit..._criticism