There is an obligation imposed by the rules of logic. The person who makes the claim is obligated to provide the proof for that claim.
But once proof is provided there is no obligation to provide more proof, or to continue examining all possible alternative solutions. Those who challenge the proof have the obligation to provide the evidence for the challenge. Again, I note that so far nobody has provided anything that indicates any alternative that works better than compliance as the primary responce.
Yes, and I provided support for those claims. Support which, AFAIK, nobody has countered with anything other than some version of "well, there may be something else out there so what you say doesn't count." Again, John, how about holding yourself and some other folk up to the same standard you seem to think I should meet?
I demonstrated with a very simple example how that statement was false.
No John, you didn't, and I explained why. An explanation that you have failed to show any problems with, BTW. See, there is a "proof" obligation on your part also that you keep ignoring, and that is when you assert a claim you have an obligation to prove it, and when you offer an example that is shown to be defective you then have an obligation to show why the argument against it is not valid.
Besides the fact that you have not provided evidence that supports this claim,....
Once again, John, you are making a dishonest statement. Evidence has been provided and that evidence does support the claim. You may not like the evidence but to say it has not been provided is just plain false.
I have been exclusively concerned with minimizing the probability of injury to the victim.
That's nice, but that is only one small part of the discussion. I tend to look at overall loss, of which injury is a part, sometimes a small part. That is why one needs to look at the total picture.
We agree, but only because you contradicted yourself.
Now it appears you have trouble understanding English. "Should" is not the same as "shall."
Unfortunately disagreement in this situation means that you are simply incorrect. It's not a matter of a difference of opinion, the facts are clear and they do not support your position.
No John, you are simply incorrect. It is not a mattter of a difference of opinion, the facts are clear and they do not support your position.
It is neither pro- nor anti-compliant, it merely provides a probability based on statistical data.
And that probability indicates that compliance will lead to no physical injury 87% of the time.
If one had other data to compare to the quoted FBI data then one could form a conclusion that would be either pro- neutral- or anti-compliant based on results of the various strategies. In the absence of further data it is not possible to do so.
But there is other data. I know you keep denying it, but if you'd quit arguing for the sake of argument and go do a little reading and research you might actually learn something about this so you could argue from a position of knowledge.
I find it distressing and confusing that it is necessary to explain how to interpret basic statistics to a person who claims to have an academic background that involves a good bit of interaction with statistical data.
Perhaps you will share with us your statistical background, John, so we can compare our knowledge, skills, and experience in the fields of research design, statistics, and analysis. I find it distressing and confusing that it is necessary to explain how to interpret basic statistics to a person over and over when that person obviously has no idea what they are talking about but refuses to admit it.
But that is what happens every time we get into this sort of stuff, just as I pointed out last time. We have now spent a large amount of time discussing who should have to prove what, whether evidence should be looked at or not, what different stats mean, whether one interpretation of a stat is right or another one is right, and all this stuff that has little or no bearing on the OP. I'll also point out that despite many requests for cites to the claims I have made you apparently still have not read them when given, with one possible exception.