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.