LogFAQs > #896573784

@darkknight109

No matter how many paragraphs you write, you STILL do not understand the phrase "correlation does not equal causation." Correlation means that we know two factors have occurred at the same time. You seem to think this term means causation, but it does not. Causation refers to the factor that made the two factors occur. You have been arguing that because gun control laws correlated with decreases in gun homicides, gun control laws must be responsible. I have been trying to tell you for several pages, and you cannot seem to understand, that just because those two things correlate does not mean that gun control laws caused the reduction in gun homicides. That is what "correlation does not imply causation" means. You have to show proof that the gun control laws were indeed the cause of the correlation. If you cannot understand this point, there is no use in discussing this issue with you any further.

darkknight109 posted...

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).

You are saying that decreasing and increasing is "stagnant"? That is preposterous. The numbers fluctuated before settling in a downward trend, and you are trying to spin it to fit your assumptions. Perhaps you should set aside your assumptions and look at the data before you form a conclusion.

darkknight109 posted...

But listen to what you're arguing. You're saying that the positive effects that Canada, Australia, et al saw because of their gun legislation wouldn't apply to the US because those places didn't have as much gun crime as the US (though you haven't specified why that makes a difference).

My point is that no one in the developed world has the gun crime problems the US does, which makes your assertion baseless. You can't say "gun control doesn't work here, because we have high gun crime and gun laws don't work in places with high gun crime", because there is no other country suffering from the same soaring gun crime that you can use to back up that argument.

My point was that those countries did not have a significant problem with gun violence prior to the enactment of gun control legislation. If those countries had similar levels of gun violence comparable to the US and gun control legislation resolved it, you would have a point. There are also other countries with more gun homicides than the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

darkknight109 posted...

And this all ignores the fact that individual states within the US *have* tightened gun laws and have seen those same positive effects, which sort of sinks your argument.

No, it does not, because you have not established that the gun control laws were responsible for a reduction in gun homicides. You have not even established that this occurred in Connecticut, because the number you gave combined accidents with homicides and suicides. Without firm numbers of each one, it's very likely that suicides and accidents dropped but not homicides. And it's very possible those suicides were simply carried out by different means.