[spaceman_2020]

We weren't analyzing school shootings statistically, since the statistical incidence of that happening should be as close to zero as possible.

But since you walked down the statistical path anyway, the least you can do is not be completely wrong about it.

[rjbwork]

I see that you have a hard time following an argument and the rhetorical techniques I used. I will break it down.

I compared the rate of school shooting deaths to suicide deaths for the purpose of pointing out the outsized amount of resources the issue takes up.

You claimed that it is wrong to analyze gun violence statistically.

I, for the purpose of demonstrating the absurdity of such an assertion, analyzed gun violence using a non-statistical and binary approach.

You then took exception to me conceding your point for the purpose of argument and using said non-statistical approach by then bringing statistics back into the mix and arguing that the frequency of gun violence is much higher in the US than other places.

So, which is it? Can we, or can we not use statistics to analyze gun violence? If we can, then we can compare the statistics across regulatory regimes and social, economic, and cultural contexts and show that gun violence can be affected in degree by those factors. If we cannot, then we cannot show that regulation is effective, since gun violence still happens in highly varied regulatory regimes and social, economic, and cultural contexts.

I would argue that statistics is an appropriate approach since, in my opinion, it allows us to come to a better reckoning of reality. Ultimately, your view is up to you. But you can't have your cake and eat it too here - you have to either admit that the use of statistics is appropriate, or that aforementioned factors are irrelevant to gun violence occurring. They are simply mutually incompatible views.

[CTmystery]

> I see that you have a hard time following an argument and the rhetorical techniques I used. I will break it down.

In this one sentence you betray yourself as uninterested in debate, and instead just like to hear yourself talk. The person you are responding to offered an interesting comparison, that of stats from the US versus other countries (and, I might add, they gamely came to your turf, which you subsequently tried to dismiss). Instead of doing the hard work of revising your views in the face of a potentially fruitful comparison, you dismiss it out of hand and assert your self-righteousness.

[rjbwork]

>The person you are responding to offered an interesting comparison, that of stats from the US versus other countries

They did the exact opposite of this. They asserted that it is wrong to examine this issue statistically.

[CTmystery]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32163602

[umanwizard]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32162996

[CTmystery]

Right, that was spaceman's original post.

Spaceman posted > rbj challenged that stats should be used > spaceman answered, alluding to stats widely searchable > rbj dismissed the use of stats.

Edit: Re-reading through all posts, I see I am incorrect in this summary.

[spacemanmatt]

> I see that you have a hard time following an argument and the rhetorical techniques I used. I will break it down.

Classic. They're not having trouble following your argument. They just disagree.

[rayiner]

They’re not just disagreeing. They’re asserting that you shouldn’t analyze the issue statistically (I.e. they reject the notion of putting it into context) but defending the non-zero rate of gun deaths in other countries with statistics.

[rjbwork]

They clearly disagree. But they've done so very poorly, as I'm sure you can see.

[closewith]

> But they've done so very poorly, as I'm sure you can see.

This reads as appalling smug. Whether spaceman_2020 made a good argument or not, you are quibbling over ultimately unimportant figures when the situation remains that mass shootings of children in their schools are orders of magnitude more common in the US than other developed countries.

You should also be appalled by the adolescent suicide rate involving firearms - that's also not normal.

[rjbwork]

Yeah, it's really fucked up.

I just think that, given the status quo, the best approach to reducing all forms of gun violence is to just generally make life better for everyone, and that the resources spent on trying to wrench guns from the hands of the citizenry are much better spent on just about anything else.

[spacemanmatt]

> But they've done so very poorly, as I'm sure you can see.

Can't really hear your argument, if any, over the smug.

[rjbwork]

Fair. I've been told I can be a real asshole when I get to arguing. Sorry.

[housingisaright]

How do I report a comment on HN? These comments can’t be serious

[umanwizard]

They seem serious to me, and well-argued.

[ineptech]

click on the "1 hour ago"