13 Dead in Shooting in Thousand Oaks California

[EricHiggin]

sundin13 said:

EricHiggin said:

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?