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

[jimmy the one]

30. scrutiny

I wrote: Where did I say you need disprove causation? post it;
..straw man wrote: OK -- here: {JTO}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.

I'll repeat, where did I say you need disprove causation? having problems with sentence comprehension again?

.. that you cite 'correlation does not prove causation', does not equate to me saying that you need disprove causation.
I made an observation that is commonplace with pro gun crowd, that the axiom is used as some blanket denial of there possibly being a causative effect from a correlation. But I did not contend anyone need 'disprove' causation.
.. another saying: absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

straw man: You are defending your position by saying that I haven't disproven a causative effect; that much is abundantly clear. And I am telling you that I don't have to.

... I say that the axiom 'correlation does not prove causation' does not disprove a causative effect. You argue as if it did. The axiom as intended means that correlations need logical & scientific scrutiny before being linked to causation, causation cannot just be arbitrarily applied.
You certainly don't have to disprove causation, but don't act as if you did, by merely citing the axiom.