Philosophical Vegan Forum

teo123 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:12 am

Red wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 7:23 am @teo123, google "means reduction" and see how removing easy ways to off yourself will necessarily reduce suicide rates.

Even if the US were on the low end of suicides compared to other developed counties (which it generally isn't), removing a huge cause of what causes those suicides would reduce that number further.

And what about all those studies showing guns save way more lives than they take, even if you count suicide?

Which?

Red wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:26 am

teo123 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:12 am

Red wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 7:23 am @teo123, google "means reduction" and see how removing easy ways to off yourself will necessarily reduce suicide rates.

Even if the US were on the low end of suicides compared to other developed counties (which it generally isn't), removing a huge cause of what causes those suicides would reduce that number further.

And what about all those studies showing guns save way more lives than they take, even if you count suicide?

Which?

Just Google "Defensive gun use". You rarely bother to listen to both sides of the story, right?

teo123 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:47 pm Just Google "Defensive gun use". You rarely bother to listen to both sides of the story, right?

Teo, you can't just say "there have been studies that show X" and not link any studies (I linked one about means reduction in my first post).

Red wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:11 am

teo123 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:47 pm Just Google "Defensive gun use". You rarely bother to listen to both sides of the story, right?

Teo, you can't just say "there have been studies that show X" and not link any studies (I linked one about means reduction in my first post).

The most famous such study is arguably one by Gary Kleck, that is the study that the widely-cited figure of 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year comes from.

Red wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:11 am

teo123 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:47 pm Just Google "Defensive gun use". You rarely bother to listen to both sides of the story, right?

Teo, you can't just say "there have been studies that show X" and not link any studies (I linked one about means reduction in my first post).

The fact that you are unaware of such studies proves that you are not qualified to talk about gun control. This is by orders of magnitude more ignorant than your claim that 30 million people would have died in the US if not for the lockdowns and mask mandates, and even that is a very stupid thing to say.

OK so I see you aren't interested in actually having a discussion and just want to be provocative. I'm not feeding into it, not this time.

You really never do learn, Teo.

Red wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:48 am OK so I see you aren't interested in actually having a discussion and just want to be provocative. I'm not feeding into it, not this time.

You really never do learn, Teo.

Well, to be honest, I am not too interested in what somebody who doesn't know about studies on defensive gun use thinks about defensive gun use. Had you said "That study that the figure of 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year comes from suffers from a number of methodological flaws (people surveyed are almost certainly exaggerating) and the number is implausibly high. The actual figure is probably more than an order of magnitude lower." or something like that, then I would be interested in what you have to say. Claiming not to know about studies on defensive gun use is not interesting, in fact, it is insulting to somebody who has actually researched the topic.

teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:25 pm Well, to be honest, I am not too interested in what somebody who doesn't know about studies on defensive gun use thinks about defensive gun use. Had you said "That study that the figure of 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year comes from suffers from a number of methodological flaws (people surveyed are almost certainly exaggerating) and the number is implausibly high. The actual figure is probably more than an order of magnitude lower." or something like that, then I would be interested in what you have to say. Claiming not to know about studies on defensive gun use is not interesting, in fact, it is insulting to somebody who has actually researched the topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j95kNwZw8YY

Red wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:50 pm

teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:25 pm Well, to be honest, I am not too interested in what somebody who doesn't know about studies on defensive gun use thinks about defensive gun use. Had you said "That study that the figure of 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year comes from suffers from a number of methodological flaws (people surveyed are almost certainly exaggerating) and the number is implausibly high. The actual figure is probably more than an order of magnitude lower." or something like that, then I would be interested in what you have to say. Claiming not to know about studies on defensive gun use is not interesting, in fact, it is insulting to somebody who has actually researched the topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j95kNwZw8YY

There are very few things that are not just opinions. But there is a big difference between an educated opinion and an uneducated opinion.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 2:37 am There are very few things that are not just opinions. But there is a big difference between an educated opinion and an uneducated opinion.

ok