[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Except that, judging by your past evaluations, you always find flaws in everything, and thus use that as a reason to reject using those numbers. Your comprehensive study is going to have flaws, and if it supports your position, what will you say when someone goes, "Oh, but there are flaws, so we can't use it for anything, or put much weight in it." ?

Again with your hyperbole and twisting of words. Show me where I rejected a comprehensive study. I'll be waiting.

And FYI, if that was the case, then I'll take a look at the alleged flaws and apply the same standard to which I've always do.

Global Warming studies have taken years to get to this point. And it's also interesting because Global warming relies on a multitude of factor stretching over the entire planet... it's a lot of data.

Indeed, it's a lot of data, and there have been tons of very comprehensive studies on them, I doubt you'll find a global warming studies that only takes into account two factors.

Do you believe the scientists when they say the planet is warming, and that it is because of humans? Or do you say that there is too much data to accurately compare, and thus we can't do and shouldn't give it much weight?

Sure, I'll bite, I do believe the planet is warming, and I'm pretty sure humans most likely have something to do with it, now whether there's anything we can realistically do about it... that's another question entirely, and outside the scope of this thread.

How are you going to know how a policy works, until you actually implement and judge the effects? We didn't know that prohibition was going to lead to an increase in violent crime and give power to a rising mob. Sometimes, you just have to try something different. A lot of people in the US are dying due to guns. Sure, a small fraction of the populace feels protected because they have a gun... bu the vast majority of Americans are paying the price for it. If I had something that was causing my neighbor harm, I'd be willing to consider getting rid of it. Then again, that's just me.

again, an idealistic view, not one I agree with, but I can at least applaud the sentiment, but politically and legally completely unrealistic, it's simply not how the world works.

Also, I'd contest your view about "small fraction of the populace", if gun owners really ARE a small fraction of the populace, gun control legislature would've rolled through congress a long time ago.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Public Safety vs. Individual Liberty. I kinda agree with him that it is not an easy decision to make, and is a decision we have to make in more areas than just guns. But at this point, with regards to guns, I am leaning toward Public Safety. In other matters, I may lean toward Individual Liberty. It's a personal decision.

Japan is also an extremely homogenous, both ethnically and culturally, which is also (forced to be) extremely pacifistic after WW2. Compared to the US, one is very individualistic, the other has extreme social pressure and conditioning to conform, the two is really nothing alike.