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.
I understand all the facts
I understand that correlation does not equal causation
You're trying to say that because two things are correlated that one caused the other.
No, not me. The liberals who are blaming gun ownership for gun homicides and violent crimes are doing that, and erroneously so, as I and many others have already proven.
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
Horrible analogy.
Fact is you can decrease gun violence without decreasing the amount of guns that are in circulation.
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?
A part of your logic that seems forever missing is that there are conservatives who also don't agree with you...
Fact is, the demographic differences between those who are more or less inclined toward forms of gun control have a bit more to do with lots of other issues, most certainly including local/region rather than levels of comprehension, but the quien es mas smarter game is fun to play too. Of course. I get it. As you were...
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.
Nope. I am saying that as A increased, B decreased. Therefore, A is not directly proportional with B, nor can it be as the slope of A is positive and the slope of B is negative. That's basic math and the definition of "directly proportional."
Given the inversely proportional relationship of the two graphs, you can say that increase in A does NOT cause increase in B. You cannot say that increase in A necessarily causes a decrease in B, but you can say for certain that increases in A do not increase B because B has not increased at any time during the increase in A (over the observed time period).
Increasing per person gun ownership has not increased gun related homicide because there has been no increase in gun related crime, but rather a decrease.
This is not true. Gun control was expanded under the Weimar Republic after WWI. The Hitler regime actually encouraged gun ownership for most Germans except for Jews.
Chalk up yet another person who believes it's OK to give government the authority to restrict private citizens' guns.
Despite the long history of governments who were given that authority, using it to disarm their citizens and leaving them helpless before criminals, rapists, murderers etc., letting crime rates soar. And the many governments who then went on to commit huge massacres of their own people.
Historians have concluded that Americans would be much better off, safer, and more prosperous if government had NO authority to restrict guns in any way, than if we gave govt that authority. Even if some madman occasionally brought a bunch of guns to a restaurant, concert, etc.
And no one has yet tried to refute their conclusions on this forum.
Yet hysterical Democrats who know that, inexplicably keep calling for government "gun control" anyway.
Anyone want to guess why they do that?
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.