13 Dead in Shooting in Thousand Oaks California

[sundin13]

EricHiggin said:

sundin13 said:

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.