LogFAQs > #896533089

Selenara posted...

That is an oversimplification. The numbers went up and down for years before they began a downward trend prior to the enactment of gun control legislation.

Which ignores the fact that gun crimes were increasing in the years immediately prior to the NFA's implementation.

Selenara posted...

I have agreed there is a correlation. But just because there is a correlation between gun laws and gun homicides, that does not mean that the gun laws caused the gun homicides to drop. It is a complex issue with many factors in play besides gun control laws, as shown by the fact they were already declining by the time gun control laws were enacted.

Your third sentence invalidates your first two.

If gun laws and lower crime rates are correlated that means one exists whenever the other is present - either one causes the other or both are caused by a third factor.

Yet your third sentence implies that the lower crime rates were occurring due to factors other than gun law implementation - in other words, that they are not correlated and the fact they occurred at the same time is coincidence. Which fits in with your overall theme of what you're arguing. I mean, the very first thing you posted in this topic was "Gun control laws didn't really affect gun-related incidents and deaths in these countries", which is absolutely saying that the two are not correlated.

You need to pick a lane on this. The main thrust of your argument seems to be that gun laws don't impact gun crime, which is no correlation. If you're now saying that you've changed your mind and they are correlated, that either means that you think gun laws reduce gun crime (my argument*), a decrease in gun crime prompts the introduction of stricter gun laws (which seems backwards on multiple levels) or that a third factor both reduces crime and prompts tighter gun laws (possible, although you haven't elaborated on what this third factor would be).

*For the record, obviously gun laws are not the only factor in gun crime and I certainly acknowledge that other trends - improvements in policing and better social services, for instance - also play a role in reducing crime, which means that determining the full impact of gun laws involves no small amount of guess work. That said, given that every data set I've seen so far (including all the ones posted in this topic) shows gun laws either resulting in a decrease in gun crime or increasing the trend of an already-existing decrease, I do believe that gun laws reduce gun crime.

Selenara posted...

The average does not tell the whole story. If you look at your numbers, they were consistently dropping prior to gun control being enacted.

They weren't though. Look at the data again. From 1981 to 1991 we had No Change, Increase, Decrease, Increase, Decrease, Decrease, Increase, Decrease, Increase, Decrease, Increase - five year-over-year increases, five decreases, and one no change. That's pretty stagnant. From 1992 to 2002 we have decrease, decrease, no change, decrease, increase, decrease, decrease, increase, increase, decrease, decrease - seven decreases, one no change, and just three increases (and it should be noted that after the regulations were passed six of the next seven years either saw gun homicides decrease or not change).

Taken with the numerical analysis I gave before, that pretty much supports my assertion that while there was a slight downwards trend before the legislation, gun homicide rates were largely stagnant, while after the legislation there was a pronounced decrease.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!