Of course, any student of statistics and history would already know that there is no correlation between firearm ownership and crime rates, and what correlation there might be is negative (in that as firearm ownership increases, crime rates typically decrease). But, then, “history” and “statistics” do not exactly fit into the anti-rights nuts’ misappropriated concept of “common sense”, so what do you expect?Of course, Linoge didn't offer any reference as to what "student[s] of history and statistics" have read or studied to come to Linoge's frankly idiotic conclusion. OTOH, there are literally scores of studies by real, honest-to-Jeebus professors and researchers that prove his statement false. In the past, I have posted and discussed many of these studies. Invariably, gunloons will scoff at them for a number of reasons, such as:
1. they haven't read them (reading is hard) and thus feel free to pretend the study has overlooked or omitted something they feel is crucial;
2. they believe studies are conducted by universities, Government organizations, and professionals who are all biased against guns;
3. the gunloons don't understand statistics(math is hard). In fact, recently, a gunloon claimed all statistics are "hogwash."
An excellent case in point is Kellermann's case control study on gun ownership and homicide. This study concluded a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one. Gunloons have attacked this study vehemently--with little success. Since they cannot attack the study on its merits or lack thereof--they often attack it by making claims that show they have never read it. Frequent claims are:
1. the study only looked at criminals and people with drug and alcohol problems;
2. the study did not look at the beneficial effects of gun ownership (e.g., DGUs);
3. many of the victims were black;
4. Kellermann didn't look at enough or the right kind of risk factors.
Each of these claims could easily be dispelled had the gunloon read the study.