Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A 50% increase in the number of guns owned by Americans has resulted in...
The rate of gun homicides decreasing by 50%, and the rate of nonfatal violent gun crimes decreasing by 76%.
Are you bad at math?
*Emphasis mine
Are you bad at English, logic and math?
Correlation does not equal causation.
The standard "correlation does not equal causation" example, adjusted
Since June, coat purchases have decreased 50%
Since June, drownings have increased 50%
You, good at math: Coat sales result in fewer drownings.
Me, bad at math: Perhaps there are other factors to consider
Well, I can only think of what will prevent me from getting killed. I stay away from dangerous neighborhoods(regardless of what ethnicity inhabits the area. I would never want to step foot in many parts of East LA or Compton). No law has stopped violent people from getting guns. How do we address a culture of violence? That is something that no one asks.
The question you think no one asks is nothing of the sort...
Obviously there is what we all need to do to stay safe well beyond what any law can do for us, but to suggest any of those sorts of realities means we don't have the laws we do for the sake of public safety? Ridiculous that...
What's next? We do away with airport security checks because we can die in so many other ways too and/or can't prevent all other forms of terrorism? Also ridiculous...
I completely agree with your analysis, but we can conclude given that statistical data that the increase in gun ownership DOES NOT cause nor correlate with an increase in gun related crime. We can say that, because as an increase happened on side A, there was a decrease on side B, therefore, A cannot be directly proportional to B.
Yes, we can conclude that.
Quote:
This speaks to the "guns are not the problem" theory, does it not?
Cigarette smoking is not directly proportional to lung cancer.
The vast majority of knowledgeable and intelligent people still believe that smoking is a problem.
I completely agree with your analysis, but we can conclude given that statistical data that the increase in gun ownership DOES NOT cause nor correlate with an increase in gun related crime. We can say that, because as an increase happened on side A, there was a decrease on side B, therefore, A cannot be directly proportional to B.
This speaks to the "guns are not the problem" theory, does it not?
Actually not true. There could well have been a significant increase in gun deaths caused by more guns that was more than offset by other factors. Again you are confusing correlation with causation.
At least my mentality allows me to consider what you are trying to get at here, perhaps the difference between distribution and possession? Is this an argument that we should make possession of crack or heroin or meth legal, and/or that possession is not related to distribution?
I completely agree with your analysis, but we can conclude given that statistical data that the increase in gun ownership DOES NOT cause nor correlate with an increase in gun related crime. We can say that, because as an increase happened on side A, there was a decrease on side B, therefore, A cannot be directly proportional to B.
This speaks to the "guns are not the problem" theory, does it not?
Indeed, it does.
But you're asking liberals to have a working comprehension of both logic AND math.
Don't you think that's asking at least a bit too much?
Well I'm not the one who goes on about not answering questions, but I am still interested to know the answer to the question I asked of you, if your C-D moniker has anything to do with guns?
As opposed to right wingers who do not understand elementary statistics...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBeisbol
*Emphasis mine
Are you bad at English, logic and math?
Correlation does not equal causation.
The standard "correlation does not equal causation" example, adjusted
Since June, coat purchases have decreased 50%
Since June, drownings have increased 50%
You, good at math: Coat sales result in fewer drownings.
Me, bad at math: Perhaps there are other factors to consider
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
The question you think no one asks is nothing of the sort...
Obviously there is what we all need to do to stay safe well beyond what any law can do for us, but to suggest any of those sorts of realities means we don't have the laws we do for the sake of public safety? Ridiculous that...
What's next? We do away with airport security checks because we can die in so many other ways too and/or can't prevent all other forms of terrorism? Also ridiculous...
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
Actually not true. There could well have been a significant increase in gun deaths caused by more guns that was more than offset by other factors. Again you are confusing correlation with causation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
