Mass shooting in the middle school Vladislav Ribnikar in Belgrade

[FlatAssembler]

I have real-life problems and this conversation is wasting my time. Who is Semmelweis and who is Levy here? The answer seems obvious to me. Gary Kleck is Semmelweis and his critics are Levy.

Actually, forget about that, his critics are people not only using intricate theoretical reasoning to overshadow empirical data, they are also people who refuse to take responsibility for the policies they advocate. It is not at all controversial that guns sometimes save lives. It is therefore not controversial that gun control will kill at least some people. It's just that anti-gun people don't want to take responsibility for those people, they only speculate (apparently against evidence) that they will save more people than they kill.

[The Grand Nudger]

Who's an anti gun person? The issues with klecks sampling, methodology, and conclusions have been repeatedly explained to you.

Gun control as we've been discussing could only kill people™ who shouldn't have guns in the first place, and if you were worried about criminals then you probably wouldn't be too impressed with the lives guns save™. The whole thing is fucking ridiculous. Guns don't save anyone. Guns don't stop bullets, they don't heal wounds. Guns are for shooting things..I assume you've seen one?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I have real-life problems and this conversation is wasting my time. Who is Semmelweis and who is Levy here? The answer seems obvious to me. Gary Kleck is Semmelweis and his critics are Levy.

Actually, forget about that, his critics are people not only using intricate theoretical reasoning to overshadow empirical data, they are also people who refuse to take responsibility for the policies they advocate. It is not at all controversial that guns sometimes save lives. It is therefore not controversial that gun control will kill at least some people. It's just that anti-gun people don't want to take responsibility for those people, they only speculate (apparently against evidence) that they will save more people than they kill.

Non sequitur.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's just that anti-gun people don't want to take responsibility for those people, they only speculate (apparently against evidence) that they will save more people than they kill.

Tell that to the UK and Australia. You have a study, of doubtful data and questionable methodology, but those arguing for gun control have two entire nations where stiff gun control has reduced gun deaths significantly.

I cant blame you for taking your toys and going home. You've failed to make your case, and it's based only on one study that is very susceptible to critique.

You should probably use more data and less emotion in constructing your personal views. Your lack of objectivity is very evident.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is it, was it the whole "if this study is wrong then everything is wrong" bit...or something else (but...somehow...equally pathetic)?

[FlatAssembler]

In case somebody is interested, I asked a Politics StackExchange question about whether there are any studies apart from the Gary Kleck's one that try to estimate the number of lives saved by guns each year in the US.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

In case somebody is interested, I asked a Politics StackExchange question about whether there are any studies apart from the Gary Kleck's one that try to estimate the number of lives saved by guns each year in the US.

I'm not.

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

In case somebody is interested, I asked a Politics StackExchange question about whether there are any studies apart from the Gary Kleck's one that try to estimate the number of lives saved by guns each year in the US.

I'm not.

Boru

You said that one of the reasons you don't believe the Gary Kleck's study is telling the truth (at least approximately) is because it is supposedly not corraborated by other studies. Well, maybe it is indeed corraborated by other studies, and we will get to know that by somebody answering my StackExchange question.

[FlatAssembler]

It's just that anti-gun people don't want to take responsibility for those people, they only speculate (apparently against evidence) that they will save more people than they kill.

Tell that to the UK and Australia. You have a study, of doubtful data and questionable methodology, but those arguing for gun control have two entire nations where stiff gun control has reduced gun deaths significantly.

I cant blame you for taking your toys and going home. You've failed to make your case, and it's based only on one study that is very susceptible to critique.

You should probably use more data and less emotion in constructing your personal views. Your lack of objectivity is very evident.

In Australia, gun deaths have indeed been decreasing over time. Maybe it has something to do with gun control, maybe not, it is hard to tell. However, in the UK, gun deaths are actually higher now than they were 100 years ago. So arguing that gun control in the UK has reduced gun deaths is... I don't even know which word to use.

[The Grand Nudger]

Gun control is the thing that keeps convicted felons from buying weapons - but you feel as though something is off about the idea that gun control prevents gun death? Who are all these good guys with a gun defending themselves against, then? Obviously not anyone who would ever harm them.

Cuz that's bananapants.