First link was about Philly.

So if I got shot once and was injured but no too badly, but was also stabbed once and was injured considerably worse, that alone would be enough proof to turn a blind eye to everything you put forward, or would "whatabout" my links and claims come into effect? Why? Since they have more evidence than just what would've happened to me? Maybe that's why I posed those questions.

How many people in comparison to gun victims is that 1% though? My point about the vehicles is this. If guns should be heavily restricted or banned, so should vehicles. Lot's of bad, careless drivers around but nobody seems to care about that because they say, you can't just change the transportation system, it'll cause chaos. Well what about when you try to restrict gun ownership, or flat out try to take them all away? Won't that surely cause chaos? The answer to that seems to be 'who cares, we'll just change the second amendment, big deal, it'll be for the greater good.' Well so would banning vehicles based on that logic. It would decrease CO2 emissions, it would decrease healthcare spending do to less people in accidents or allow that to be put towards others who require medical attention, etc. There's a lot of things that could be done to fix a lot of problems in terms of deaths and injuries, but the left seems to like to go with the ones that least impact them first.

 The authors knew that future generations would reinterpret their ORIGINAL words vis-a-vis our PRESENT day morals and values.  Which is what they wanted as the US Constitution is a LIVING and FOREVER EVOLVING document. Original intentions expire as time unfolds....which they predicted.

Bottom line...the 2nd Amendment gives all American citizens the right to own and bear arms ....as long as they obey present laws relative to those rights. In other words...You don't have the right to own a grenade launcher, or a cruise missile, or Sarin gas, or Anthrax, or a Plutonium bomb, etc.....

Okay, first of all "specific medical locations" means "cities"?! Okay, I clearly misunderstood you there. I thought you were talking about wound locations. That said, thats how studies work, friend. It would be almost fundamentally impossible to do a study covering all stab/gunshot wounds across the country without a system which reports these things independently which I don't believe exists.

As for your anecdote, I don't know why you brought it up. It is an anecdote. Like, a study across five years with thousands of cases is going to be a little more statistically valuable than one experience. To produce a usable statistic, you need wider data. While looking specifically at Philly isn't representative for the whole country, there are several studies presented from several different locations which all demonstrate the same trends, and there isn't really any reason presented within the study design to assume that these would have a high degree of regional variability. Extent of damage is the primarily variable driving the difference between the different types of wounds, as a stab vs gunshot wound would still typically be handled by the same individuals.

The "what about cars" argument is also just so played out and kind of ridiculous. Like, not only are the two things tremendously different, but vehicles are highly regulated, and safety is one of the primary things driving that market forward. Tremendous leaps have been made over the past few decades. And now we have a push for driverless vehicles which is getting tons of money and R&D pumped into it which would fundamentally change the market in what seems like the exact way you are requesting.

Would removing guns cause chaos? I mean, first of all, that isn't a position I support, but second, no. I really don't think so. The economy would not come to a screeching halt if guns suddenly disappeared. The worst outcome would likely be the gun nuts who decide to start shit. There is a widely different cost benefit analysis here. Cars run our country. Guns kill people.

This whole "whataboutist" argument is such a massive non-sequitur, that seems to fundamentally ignore reality as a way of avoiding the actual issues. It is saying "I don't have an argument to defend my stances (or "I don't feel like defending my stances") so I'll just distract you with some other nonsense for a while". I'm not going to get into that any more than this because it is fundamentally a distraction tactic.

EDIT: As I say this, I found a national study:

"There were unadjusted differences in prehospital mortality (GSW: early, 2.0% vs. late, 4.9%; SW: early, 0.2% vs. late, 1.1%) and in-hospital mortality (GSW: early, 13.8% vs. late, 9.5%; SW: early, 1.8% vs. late, 1.0%) by both mechanisms."

To translate:

Gunshot wound Prehospital mortality: 2.0 and 4.9
Stab wound Prehospital mortality: 0.2 and 1.1

Gunshot wound In Hospital mortality: 13.8 and 9.5
Stab wound In Hospital mortality: 1.8 and 1.0

So, you are about 5-10x more likely to die of a gunshot before you make it to the hospital and about 7-9x more likely to die of a gunshot after you make it into a hospital. The two data points are two different periods (I believe 2007-2010 and 2011-2014 respectively).

https://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Citation/2018/07000/Nationwide_trends_in_mortality_following.25.aspx

Right off the bat you mention the problem. Not enough study and not enough data, and not enough collection and analysis of all that. Without that, we can take cases from certain places and certain time periods, but's that's far from hard evidence. You could't use GSW stats from Europe around the early 1940's because that wouldn't be an honest representation.

Guns are also highly regulated now, compared to when they first were produced. What, when, and who are we comparing them to exactly, and is that the correct comparison to use? We've made huge leaps in vehicle safety, like seat belts and speed limiters, yet some people still disregard them, and so we have cops to enforce it, yet people still die everyday. No mention of banning vehicles though.

The economy is practically based on those guns and the industry they come from. Just look at the defense budget. What do you think that money goes towards? What about it's direct and indirect effects on the rest of the economy? You think even a small civil war would be a lower cost than banning vehicles?

The returned "whatabout" is due to a lack of thought into the argument brought forward. Arguing something you haven't thought about enough is a case for disaster, like banning guns cold turkey would be.

How much more likely are you to be stabbed when guns are no longer legal? Carrying a knife isn't a big deal compared to a gun, and way more people are likely to carry a knife. If GSW decreased heavily due to banning them, but SW doubled or tripled because of it, would that be better or worse?

I presented you with a national modern study on mortality rates with over 400,000 patients, yet you still haven't actually addressed any of that information. I'm not sure what more you want. Also, I find it slightly entertaining when people try to draw the "I'm not going to believe you unless you do something literally impossible" line. Like, there is good evidence. You can't just ignore it because there isn't evidence from literally every single instance of injury across the world for the last three thousand years. The evidence is solid and unless you can rebut it, it is perfectly sufficient to make the point that was being made. You haven't yet presented any rebuttal.

As for the defense budget, that is entirely irrelevant. Nobody arguing for the banning of guns (which again, is not something which I support) is arguing that the military shouldn't be allowed to have guns. I don't even know what point you are trying to make here. Further, when Australia banned guns, their economy didn't suddenly crash. You don't really have any evidence to actually back any of your points. It seems to just be based on what you feel might happen.

As for the rest, I am not going to argue in support of banning guns. I don't know why you are so adamant to bring this conversation there, when all I was doing was making a point about differential mortality rates based on weapon type, something which you still refuse to acknowledge.

Sure I can. Imagine if everyone immediately believed in the science behind global cooling way back before global warming became a thing, and we started pumping out CO2 far beyond what we've been doing for the sake of heating up the planet as quickly as possible. Would that have been a good idea, or should we have concluded the evidence isn't good enough and to keep asking questions and keep looking, only to find it was the opposite of what we initially thought? Which was still wrong apparently based on today's science.

You said earlier that "the economy would not come to a screeching halt if guns suddenly disappeared." I took that to mean pretty much anything related to guns. While I still think it matters, if it didn't impact that sector, then the chaos that would ensue would probably tank the economy anyway. You make the point of evidence, yet you pointed out my own personal evidence earlier would not have been good enough. How is that any different then me saying the evidence you've provided isn't good enough?

What's the point in talking about the difference in mortality rates between different weapon types, if there's no point to be made about that in the first place? Or is there?

Global cooling has never been an accepted or dominant scientific hypothesis, but even if it had been, we are not talking about an extremely complicated aspect of our planet involving literally hundreds of variables that we knew little about several decades ago. It is simply the question "How often do people die when they are shot". There is no equivalence between the two. They are not remotely the same thing and bringing them up in the same breath seems to be little more than desperation to justify a point in the face of evidence that you continually refuse to acknowledge.

Beyond that, again, there is a different level of statistical significance between one event and FOURHUNDREDTHOUSAND events. One is going to be just a tiny bit more representative than the other. This point is absolute nonsense, man.

As for what the point in talking about this is, I feel like it is fairly self evident. I feel like you are getting hung up on the radical idea that gun control doesn't mean "taking everyone's guns". There are about a million different steps between where we are now and that point, some of which I support and some of which I don't. That said, the point in this discussion is to counter the "yeah, but what about knives" response that tends to come up whenever someone talks about gun control. Knives are significantly less deadly than firearms, so even if there was a 1:1 replacement, we would still typically be better off in terms of crime outcomes.

Yes, a Marine with PTSD. People don't take mental health seriously, especially the military where this is most common. They leave soldier out in the cold often to save a buck.

It happens more often than it should...
And often even outside of the military in other fields where PTSD is actually common.

There were people back then who were sure they were correct even if it wasn't a solid majority, and they were proven to be wrong. There are people who are convinced that guns should be more regulated or banned, and some that are not. Even more recently, they found their climate changes predictions were way off and created new ones that seem even more dire than before. I'm not asking for why global warming or cooling is happening, just a yes or no, just like I'm not asking about how these people were injured specifically, and why etc. We also don't know whether or not these people should be considered directly killed by the gun because you don't know for sure if another medical team/facility could have treated them in a manner that aloud them to live. What if harsh weather slowed the trip to the hospital and that much needed time lost caused the death? You could go down the same rabbit hole either way if you really wanted to.

One event that potentially implicates 7.7 billion human beings, every last person on earth, plus the other living creatures, vs 400,000?

Knives show based on the stats presently available, to be less deadly, yes. That isn't a very strong argument though because of the "whatabout" factor. Nobody really knows what will happen to the rate of violence, or stabbings, or other unanticipated weapons that could be created and or used if guns are heavily restricted or banned. A lot like climate change. Nobody really knows what's going to happen for sure, whether we do something about it or not. We have stats that give us an idea, but that's proven so far to only be a fraction of what is necessary to factually know, if we ever really can, taking every single thing related to the weather as well as harmful violent acts with weapons into account.