I wrote: national gunstock increased 300% since 1960's and the violent crime rate has near doubled since then.
straw man wrote: Yet the murder rate was actually lower in 2013 than it was in 1964 .
straw man remarked: I never postulated any sort of causal relationship.
I postulated you implied a positive gun effect by citing murder rates in 1964 & 2013, ostensibly to negate the resultant & concomitant doubling of violent crime rates.
straw man: I could just as easily say that you "lied with statistics" by drawing cause-and-effect conclusions that ignore all other possible factors in the correlation.
DonP 'ignored' all other possible factors in his post. I clarified his oblivion with some salient facts.
I did not make a causal relationship between guns & violent crime, other than 'more guns more crime', which is demonstrably true what with the violent crime rate doubled since 1960's. 'More guns more crime' declares a correlation exists in the instance it is cited.
strawman: I was merely pointing out that you were cherry-picking data that supported your foregone conclusion and ignoring that which didn't.
If one answers 4, to the question what is 2 + 2, is that a foregone conclusion? My conclusion was based upon current & dated statistics I provided which I've realized for years, sometimes using earlier data.
And you used the murder rate figures which I 'cherry picked', for the crux of your argument. So I didn't 'ignore' data which didn't support my position, did I?
And are gunnuts ashamed that national gunstock has risen from 75 to 300 millions in the past 50 years? I thought that was a bragging point?
my 'cherry picked' post #10: 1) Circa 1960's the national gunstock was approx. 75 millions, 300 millions today.
2): ...... pop .......... total crime...... viol ... property ... murder
1964 .. 191,141,000 .. 2,388.1 .. 190.6 .. 2,197.5 .. 4.9
1993 ..257,908,000 .. 5,484.4 .. 746.8 .. 4,737.7 .. 9.5
2013 .. 316,128,839 .. 3,098.6 .. 367.9 .. 2,730.7 .. 4.5
= new reply since forum marked as read