It works like this. Whenever a pro-gun guy offers statistics which supposedly show that John Lott was right, you know the old more-guns-equals-less-crime idea, he is in violation of the correlation / causation rule. In other words, assuming the stats in question are accurate, there are other factors involved. Sometimes crime goes down IN SPITE of the guns.
On the other hand, when the gun control folks point out that gun crime went up as gun ownership increased, there is a guaranteed causation factor built in. All gun crime, by definition, includes the use of a gun. Gun availability is ALWAYS a factor.
Does that make sense to you? Please leave a comment.
Actually, no, it doesn't make sense. Lott's books don't claim what you are saying, in fact he goes to great lengths to show the multipule causes of violent crime. Your second statement also doesn't hold true because there hasn't been any evidence presented that more legal guns purchased have caused gun crime to go up. In fact, the opposite is true. One only has to look at the past two years to see the increase in firearm purchases and the decrease in crime. Is there a direct relationship, of course not. But by the same token, crime didn't go up either.
ReplyDeleteMikeB: “All gun crime, by definition, includes the use of a gun. Gun availability is ALWAYS a factor.”
ReplyDeleteWhich is why “gun crime” and “gun deaths” can not be used as a measure of success. It is your way of inventing causation when there is none.
By the same token: All DGUs, by definition, includes the use of a gun. Gun availability is ALWAYS a factor. What did we just learn by that statement? Nothing.