Concealed carry predictions way off target (No blood in the streets)

[jimmy the one]

22. your inherent weakness

straw man: I only posted those statistics to show the inherent weakness of equating correlation with causation.

You 'post' 2 figures - the murder rate in 1964 & 2013 - to demonstrate the 'inherent weakness of equating correlation with causation'?
That's laughable in itself; explain how you demonstrated this correlative 'inherent weakness' by simply taking the start & end points & ignoring everything in between.

straw man: 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"?

It's logically unsound, unrealistic & a stretch, to link more computers with more violent crime - there isn't a plausible link.
Your example is a good one to cite the post hoc ergo propter hoc axiom.

To argue against this simply by continuously citing 'correlation does not prove causation', as if that in itself disproves a causative effect, demonstrates a sophomoric understanding of the axiom itself.
--- off for the day.