I'm not arguing about that. I'm arguing about whether your argument based on the specific example of Orlando is valid. Allow me to state, once more, with feeling:
I'm not anti-gun. I'm not pro-gun. I think the entire argument is beside the point.
You want to argue the moral or philosophical points? You want to overturn centuries of British jurisprudence on the subject of self-defence? Fine, go ahead - I'm not particularly interested. This is a democracy, and you have every right to campaign for a change in the relevant laws. You do not, however, have the right to insist that your view is the only valid one, and that anyone who disagrees must necessarily be arguing in bad faith based on an irrational dislike of guns. As soon as you step into moral or philosophical arguments, it ceases to be an empirical matter.
I'm purely focussing on the misuse of statistics, because it's something you have repeatedly criticised others for whilst indulging in yourself, and it's something that winds me up.
I'm not trying to make any positive claim about any correlation between gun ownership, "shall-issue" legislation, and crime stats, in either direction.
I'm not anti-gun. I'm not pro-gun. I think the entire argument is beside the point.
You want to argue the moral or philosophical points? You want to overturn centuries of British jurisprudence on the subject of self-defence? Fine, go ahead - I'm not particularly interested. This is a democracy, and you have every right to campaign for a change in the relevant laws. You do not, however, have the right to insist that your view is the only valid one, and that anyone who disagrees must necessarily be arguing in bad faith based on an irrational dislike of guns. As soon as you step into moral or philosophical arguments, it ceases to be an empirical matter.
I'm purely focussing on the misuse of statistics, because it's something you have repeatedly criticised others for whilst indulging in yourself, and it's something that winds me up.