13 Dead in Shooting in Thousand Oaks California

[sundin13]

EricHiggin said:

sundin13 said:

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.