2+2 = 4 demonstrates a provable causal relationship. See the difference?
I wrote: national gunstock increased 300% since 1960's and the violent crime rate has near doubled since then.
straw man wrote: Yet the murder rate was actually lower in 2013 than it was in 1964 .
straw man remarked: I never postulated any sort of causal relationship.
I postulated you implied a positive gun effect by citing murder rates in 1964 & 2013, ostensibly to negate the resultant & concomitant doubling of violent crime rates.
You were wrong. That's what happens when you make unfounded claims about other people's intentions. I only posted those statistics to show the inherent weakness of equating correlation with causation.
I did not make a causal relationship between guns & violent crime, other than 'more guns more crime', which is demonstrably true what with the violent crime rate doubled since 1960's. 'More guns more crime' declares a correlation exists in the instance it is cited.
If there is no causation, then your post is pointless. We have more computers than we did in 1964. Shall we also broadcast the correlation of "more computers, more crime"?
If one answers 4, to the question what is 2 + 2, is that a foregone conclusion? My conclusion was based upon current & dated statistics I provided which I've realized for years, sometimes using earlier data.
What
was your conclusion? Since you're disavowing causation, all we can say is that there are more guns and there is more violent crime. There are also more computers, not to mention electric cars, portable audio devices, and designer drug. Relevance?
And are gunnuts ashamed that national gunstock has risen from 75 to 300 millions in the past 50 years? I thought that was a bragging point?
It really doesn't matter to me one way or another. However, it's completely irrelevant unless you're claiming causation, in which case you've got some pretty heavy lifting to do.
= new reply since forum marked as read
