Violent crime still going down.

[Hermit]

But if you like I'll restate it slightly: More guns =/= more crime.

It would be easy to do the kind of cherry-picking to claim More guns =/= less crime. I won't bother, though, because neither claim is borne out when looking at the statistics in toto.

Look, it's quite simple: Has the number of guns in US society gone up or down in the last 30 years? The answer is "up, by tens of millions of guns."

What direction has the crime rate been going in the last 30 years, up or down? The answer is "down, by a lot."

Ergo, more guns, less crime.

Whether correlation means causation is irrelevant, the facts speak for themselves. More guns, less crime.

More cherry-picking. There is a clearly discernible trend in that period where crime rates have risen for a decade. Is it because gun ownership has dropped in those years? I think not. Once again: if there was even a correlation between gun ownership and crime the two lines in the graph would form more or less a mirror image of each other. They manifestly do no such thing. Neither in toto nor your selected time frame.

The alleged simplicity of the situation is only obtained by brazenly ignoring inconvenient facts. Both the gun lobby and the anti-gun lobby seem to be quite good at that.

[Hermit]

I still say violent crime is falling in many places with or without restictions in gun laws, because of mobile phone use, predominantly (there are other major factors). If everyone can film you committing a crime there is less opportunity to do so anonymously.

That may well be true. But the fact remains that in places where there are more guns, there is less crime. If you care to take it on you might do more graphs from data from before the concealed carry movement began and from now showing the delta in gun ownership versus the delta in crime as related to the existence or non-existence of "shall issue" concealed carry laws with due consideration for the respective percentages of CCW permittees in each jurisdiction. I suggest you do this study at the county level rather than the state level because that will give you a more accurate data set and help you deal with other variables you might want to control for.

Oh, wait, that's what John Lott already did, a couple of times.

Never mind.

Sure, one can make many correlations. However there is also the fact than in many other places where gun control is strictly regulated there is less crime. Which suggests that lots of guns is not the causative factor for less crime (nor for more crime either it seems). I find it perfectly plausible that one could find correlations between increase in urban rat population and less crime and also that areas who have better resolution on T.V.'s and less crime but I stil do not think one could reasonable claim they are causative factors. If it's not guns and it appears that it is not guns, that is the causative factor, why use it as an argument for or against ownership of guns?

Exactly.

[pErvinalia]

Pity you lot couldn't discuss some other interesting topics on this board with the same fervour.

[Blind groper]

Researchers analyzed data collected in all 50 states between 1981 and 2010 and found a "robust correlation" between estimated levels of gun ownership and gun-related murders at the state level, according to the study, which was published online Sept. 12 in the American Journal of Public Health.

After controlling for other factors associated with murders, the researchers concluded that for each 1 percent increase in gun ownership, there was a 0.9 percent increase in a state's gun-related murders.

Http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/ ... key=173556

[Hermit]

Pity you lot couldn't discuss some other interesting topics on this board with the same fervour.

Start one instead of creating a seemingly unending string of parody threads. If the topic merits it, we'll give it a go.

[Seth]

Sure, one can make many correlations. However there is also the fact than in many other places where gun control is strictly regulated there is less crime. Which suggests that lots of guns is not the causative factor for less crime (nor for more crime either it seems). I find it perfectly plausible that one could find correlations between increase in urban rat population and less crime and also that areas who have better resolution on T.V.'s and less crime but I stil do not think one could reasonable claim they are causative factors. If it's not guns and it appears that it is not guns, that is the causative factor, why use it as an argument for or against ownership of guns?

Indeed. It's presented as a rebuttal to the fallacy that BG and other hoplophobes persist in tossing out. I do prefer the "if guns are not the causative factor then there is no need to further regulate guns" argument myself, but it's extremely difficult to get past the narrow-minded arguments of hoplophobes who simply reject the idea that guns are not the problem even in the face of overwhelming and compelling evidence that they aren't. Most times you just can get beyond their a priori knee-jerk opinion that "gunz is bad."

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

[Hermit]

I provided statistics that show clearly that this is not the case.

You provided a Wiki reference which you converted to graphs. I provided a Harvard University reference that revealed a clear connection between more guns and more murder state by state.

Since there are no official statistics of gun ownership state by state (or by any other measure), we have to assume that whoever ran the survey knew what he/she was doing. I have more faith in Harvard than in Wiki. You may disagree, and that is your prerogative.

The Wikipedia is a pretty good starting point for gathering information. If you are sufficiently interested in a topic you are looking up on that site you'll find plenty of links you can drill down to in order to find out more about it.

And no, you did not provide statistics about anything. You linked to several articles that all made assertions of one sort or another, and none of which backed any of them up with a single grain of evidence. Perhaps you accept bald assertions as long as they agree with your mindset. I don't. In fact, an examination of suicide trends, murder rates and violent crime generally led me to change my mind about the desirability and efficacy of Howard's gun control legislation.

[pErvinalia]

Pity you lot couldn't discuss some other interesting topics on this board with the same fervour.

Start one instead of creating a seemingly unending string of parody threads. If the topic merits it, we'll give it a go.

I've started quite a few, and no one gives a fuck. Others start interesting threads and no one gives a fuck. Why don't you start an interesting thread? Why don't you address the reply I made to you in one thread of mine after you whinged I wasn't paying you enough attention? Nah, stay here and bleat endlessly on the world's most over-hyped topic.

[Hermit]

Why don't you start an interesting thread?

I'm not complaining about the lack of them.

Why don't you address the reply I made to you in one thread of mine after you whinged I wasn't paying you enough attention?

My interest in metaphysical matters is fleeting at best, and that particular thread was rapidly heading in that direction. Also, I cannot recall whinging about anybody not paying me enough attention.

[rainbow]

Sure, one can make many correlations. However there is also the fact than in many other places where gun control is strictly regulated there is less crime. Which suggests that lots of guns is not the causative factor for less crime (nor for more crime either it seems). I find it perfectly plausible that one could find correlations between increase in urban rat population and less crime and also that areas who have better resolution on T.V.'s and less crime but I stil do not think one could reasonable claim they are causative factors. If it's not guns and it appears that it is not guns, that is the causative factor, why use it as an argument for or against ownership of guns?

Indeed. It's presented as a rebuttal to the fallacy that BG and other hoplophobes persist in tossing out. I do prefer the "if guns are not the causative factor then there is no need to further regulate guns" argument myself, but it's extremely difficult to get past the narrow-minded arguments of hoplophobes who simply reject the idea that guns are not the problem even in the face of overwhelming and compelling evidence that they aren't. Most times you just can get beyond their a priori knee-jerk opinion that "gunz is bad."

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

Is hoplosexuality legal in the US?

[pErvinalia]

Why don't you start an interesting thread?

I'm not complaining about the lack of them.

Of course not, given you think that this thread is an interesting thread worthy of your time..

I wonder if this inane topic will be just as interesting on the 3 millionth telling as it apparently is on the one and half millionth telling? Why not, eh?

[pErvinalia]

Why don't you start an interesting thread?

I'm not complaining about the lack of them.

Why don't you address the reply I made to you in one thread of mine after you whinged I wasn't paying you enough attention?

My interest in metaphysical matters is fleeting at best, and that particular thread was rapidly heading in that direction. Also, I cannot recall whinging about anybody not paying me enough attention.

The thing is, you had a whinge that I wasn't addressing your apparent needs for a suitable reply, so I took the time to give you one, and you didn't even bother addressing it. Not surprising, really, given you could barely manage anything more than an inane smiley as your part of an honest to and fro conversation.

[FBM]

Pity you lot couldn't discuss some other interesting topics on this board with the same fervour.

[Hermit]

Pity you lot couldn't discuss some other interesting topics on this board with the same fervour.

Interesting contribution, that, but I fear the smiley lacks a certain amount of, uhm, fervour.

Anyone who wants to focus on serious debate can do worse than participate in forums like RDF Mark II if they manage to tolerate - and be tolerated by - the prefects with swagger sticks.

[FBM]

It wasn't intended to be a fervent statement.