Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's a strange way of admitting your "proof" will not convince the rational and reasoned, but OK.True, nothing I say can convince closed minds, or anyone suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Yes. I want you to prove your claim beyond correlation, because, as you know, correlation does not prove causation.Ah, so you want me to provide a confounder....Sadly I neither have the time, nor if truth be told the inclination to perform such a statistical feat of gymnastics.
Then you would be well aware of the French laws on self defence:
Article 122-5 of the Penal Code says "a person who, faced with an unjustified attack on themselves or a third person, simultaneously commits an act necessary to legitimate defence, shall incur no criminal liability except where the means employed are disproportionate to the seriousness of the attack." What is the law on self-defence?
You would also know what forms of self defence are allowed: What are the defensive weapons authorized in France?
The situation is very similar in Germany:
German law permits self-defense against an unlawful attack. If there is no other possibility for defense, it is generally allowed to use even deadly force without a duty to retreat. However, there must not be an extreme imbalance ("extremes Missverhältnis") between the defended right and the chosen method of defense.
Here's a useful article: German Self-Defence Law | Iain Abernethy
True, nothing I say can convince closed minds, or anyone suffering from cognitive dissonance. I, and many millions like me feel safer living in a society with effective gun control. I can walk about unarmed and not have a constant fear that someone at my local pub, will not take offence at a chance remark and start shooting, or not like the way their hamburger was cooked and start shooting the staff, or having a family argument spiral out of control and start shooting each other, or being so frightened of being burgled, that I'd shoot my wife or daughter, returning late from work or a party. All of the aforementioned are fairly common occurrences in America.
Ah, so you want me to provide a confounder. Interesting. I suppose you are aware of perhaps the most well known and important example of a correlation being clear but causation being in doubt? Smoking and lung cancer in the 1950's, where it was found that the rate of lung cancer had increased dramatically in the proceeding decades. Nobody at the time disputed that there was a correlation between lung cancer and smoking, but to prove that one caused the other would be no mean feat. It took a study involving more than 40,000 doctors in the UK 6 years to show conclusively that smoking really does cause cancer!
Sadly I neither have the time, nor if truth be told the inclination to perform such a statistical feat of gymnastics. I will maintain however that a well regulated system of firearms control significantly reduces the number of shootings that would otherwise occur without such control.
And the majority of murders are committed by a specific demographic, against a specific demographic.You foreigners just don't know the reality of crime in the US. We know that 70-80% of all murders with or without a gun occur in a literal handful of the poorest parts of the country's major cities.
And the majority of murders are committed by a specific demographic, against a specific demographic.
I don't care about skin colorAnd the majority of murders are committed by a specific demographic, against a specific demographic.
View attachment 698448
View attachment 698449
View attachment 698451
Maybe not - but the numbers tell the story.I don't care about skin color
True, gun crazies make things up all the time.Making up stuff isn't the sign of an open mind.
Says he who can only offer post hoc fallacies to support his positions.True, gun crazies make things up all the time.
Oh, OK, a well planned terrorist attack can be prevented by a granny with a gun, eh? Fun fact,Yeah, we are. And there are 130 dead Parisians because they weren't allowed to have guns to defend themselves when those four assholes went on their shooting rampage.
DURRRRRR
Pretty lax.Oh, OK, a well planned terrorist attack can be prevented by a granny with a gun, eh? Fun fact,
"With nearly 20 guns for every 100 people, the French rank high on the European gun ownership ranking. What’s more, it is relatively straightforward to obtain a gun license in France. You simply need to tick these boxes;
- Be older than 18 (or over 12 with permission for shooting sports);
- Be affiliated with a shooting range;
- Have followed at least three shooting sessions with an instructor;
- Submit a medical certificate stating you are physically and mentally fit
So do mine, so don't you have to prove the necessary relationship? As you are so fond of spouting, correlation does not prove causation...Maybe not - but the numbers tell the story.
You can only offer a post hoc fallacy as a "proof" of your claim - thus, your numbers don't tell anything other than there is a difference between A and B.So do mine,
I didn't claim causation, sport. Pay attention.so don't you have to prove the necessary relationship? As you are so fond of spouting, correlation does not prove causation...
www.gov.ca.gov
Maybe the French are more civilised.Why is it again gun-related violent crime is so much lower in France than it is here?
What story?Maybe not - but the numbers tell the story.
I disagree, but I've made my case and I'll leave it to the more rational gun owners out there, to decide for themselves. (66% of American gun owners already want stricter gun control, fun fact.)You can only offer a post hoc fallacy as a "proof" of your claim
