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

[jimmy the one]

24. playing stupid?

straw man: Murder rates rose and fell rather precipitously, while the number of guns in circulation rose steadily and kept on rising. This suggests that any causal explanation that involves the availability of weapons is highly suspect, to say the least.

Are you playing stupid or what? Murder rate is incorporated into the violent crime rate, & accounts for only ~2% of violent crime & violent crime rate.
The correlations I note don't just involve rising national gunstock, but also rising & falling gun ownership rates, rising & declining violent crime rates, & the introduction of semi-automatic firearms post wwII - which had a lot to do with increasing violent crime, since by replacing the revolver as handgun of choice the semi-auto enabled much more kill & maim ability.
From mid 60's to mid 70's the national gunstock & the gun murder rate both doubled (75 million guns to 150 millions) It was well accepted then that guns were a prime mover - Nixon noted it, even lapierre-head & the nra noted it.

Reread the above thread, somehow you missed some crucial info: .. from early 90's to 2000, gun ownership declined approx. 30%, the same time period which saw dramatic declines in violent crime rates. Since 2000 gun ownership has also declined but not as large a rate, remaining approx. 2 in 9 personally own a firearm. Approx 3 in ten households own a firearm, iirc accd'g to GSS & Pew. In other words, since the early 90's there is a correlation between declining gun ownership rates & declining violent crime rates.

Since JFK was assassinated, & semi automatic firearms came en vogue, the violent crime rate sits doubled in the year 2013; Circa 1960's the national gunstock was approx. 75 millions, 300 millions today. In other words, national gunstock increased 300% since 1960's and the violent crime rate has near doubled since then. MORE GUNS MORE CRIME. Moreover, in intervening years between 60's & now, the violent crime rate hit the top end of the roller coaster ride at near quadrupling.

Another way of putting it: there were two distinct intervals involved; the first from approx. 1960 (even prior) to early 1990's which involved the dramatic upswing in both national gunstock & crime rates. Gunstock increased 200% (tripled) from 75m to 225m, while violent crime rate ~quadrupled & murder rate ~doubled.
The second interval was the dramatic decline in violent crime rates from early 1990's to now (~2014 stats), where national gunstock increased by 33% - in some good part to existing gun owners - while violent crime rates more than halved & similarly murder rates, concomitant with a ~30% decline in gun ownership rates from same time start to year 2000. The increase in national gunstock in interval 2 was largely due to existing gun owners, such that the percentage of gun owners did not increase at all, but rather decreased by approx. 30% from early 90's to 2000 (then lightly fluctuated to now).

In both intervals there is a logical connection involving - 1st interval) guns & increasing violent crime rates & increasing murder rates, or 2nd interval) a decline in gun ownership & a decline in violent crime rates & murder rates.

straw man: I don't have to disprove a causative effect, Jimmy. You have to prove one. Merely stating the correlation does nothing toward that end, yet that's all you're doing.

Where did I say you need disprove causation? post it; I claimed causation cannot be discounted simply by regurgitating 'correlation does not prove causation' every time an unpleasant correlation regarding guns, shows up. Gun crowd regularly cites this axiom as some sort of magic potion which exonerates guns from having much to do with crime & murder. Just another chapter from the 2nd Amendment Mythology Bible.