Sunday, April 6, 2014

A Statistical Certainty - Packing More Heat Will Result in More Killings

Huffington Post

Only one thing is predictable with statistical certainty. If there are more guns in the schools, streets, offices, military bases, and homes. more of them will be fired and more people will be killed.
If we arm all the teachers and security guards, the most likely school mass murderers will be teachers or guards who flip out and turn their guns in the wrong direction.This is not a case where we can fight fire with more fire.
What does our favorite math guru have to say about that, I wonder? It seems pretty simple and straightforward to me.


  1. A hypothesis not bore out by reality. Carry is up, and killings are down.

    1. That doesn't prove carry is the cause of killings being down. Maybe because our prisons are overflowing with killers means they are not out killing. or other factors. Where is your hard proof that carry is the reason killings are down?

    2. I am not saying carry is the cause. What I am saying is that mike's "statistical certainty" certainly didn't happen.

    3. But it is happening, TS. If it weren't for the "more guns" thing, the violent crime rate would have dropped even more.

      You see how that works?

    4. Mike, that is NOT "Packing More Heat Will Result in More Killings"

      Maybe what you meant to say was "Packing More Heat Will Result in Fewer Killings, but packing less heat will result in EVEN MORE fewer killings..."

    5. Classic moving of the goal posts. If we allow carry, killings will skyrocket! It's statistically certain.

      Carry allowed.

      Killings go down.

      Well, that's just because we fixed a lot of society! Killings would have plummeted if we didn't allow carry--Our other fixes to society just managed to outweigh the increased number of killings caused by carry.


      And it's just one more uprovable claim proffered as something you expect us to believe.

    6. TS said,
      "Carry is up, and killings are down."

      Then you said,
      "I am not saying carry is the cause."

      I read it that way any any person would.

      Simon said,
      " If we allow carry, killings will skyrocket!"

      Not necessarily. You guys keep going back and forth trying to blame, or not blame more, or less killings on carry. I doubt very much carry has anything to due with the amount of gun killings one way, or the other. That's why I find the carry issue a straw man on both sides.

      There is proof that the sheer number of guns out in public has caused the number of gun incidents to go up, and that matches with simple common sense.

    7. It's not moving the goal posts, it's simple common sense and honesty. The availability of the most lethal most efficient killing tool is a major factor in violent crime and murder rates.

      But, being a true believer, you'll probably say that every single gun murder would have been done with a knife or baseball bat had there been no gun available, right?

    8. Common sense is what people call it when they're not honest enough to admit to committing a logical fallacy.

    9. Every single? No. I don't make bullshit remarks like that. Would some? Most likely. Might others have happened with those tools? Yeah. Might criminals have still found ways to get guns and commit some murders? Sure. Might they have been emboldened by defenseless victims, committed more crimes, and had more of them go badly and result in someone dead? Possible.

      All these possibilities are factors that could screw up your "certainty" that bloodshed will increase as a result of increases in carry.

      As for moving the goal posts, deny it all you want. Your side foretells increases in crime every time carry is allowed or expanded in a new place. Each time that it fails to materialize, you claim that crime would have really gone down, or gone down more. This would require us to believe that a previously stable crime rate, or a previously declining one, which shows no change after carry is allowed (staying stable or continuing to decline at the same rate), would have showed a sudden decline the year carry was allowed had carry not been allowed.

      Such a supposition, especially spread over so many states, strains credulity.

    10. What falicy is that GC? The truth that the more guns, the more gun abuses?

  2. You quote from the HuffnPuff article, but you didn't mention my comments there. The claim made is false on the facts, since more and more guns are being owned, while homicide rates and rates of accidental shootings are down.

    1. You don't cite any empirical evidence, just your opinion, which from experience with you on this blog means nothing but more BS from you.

    2. Greg, please refer to my comment addressed to TS above.

    3. Mikeb, I'm sure you like to believe that, but it's merely an article of your faith, since you have no evidence to support the claim.