What Other Countries Think Of Yank Gun Laws

Nice Pseudo-critique - taking ONE study from a paper with over 125 references - and your support for your argument was.............

One anecdote

Yup folks all the peer reviewed papers (and it IS acceptable to use old data if that is what is available) are trash but an 'anecdatum' is fine and dandy and what you should believe

 

(((((((((((((((((((((((((sigh)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Once more with feeling

Correlation does not imply causation

 

I took the first "fact" in your post which seemed significant, the 272% number and found that the number is completely bogus. I took my time to research YOUR data and it took some time because the authors you quoted did their best to bury the data. They buried the data because they knew they based their "fact" on a single study which used data that is a minimum of 21 years old.

I also took my time to research prior data you linked. Again the data turned out to be garbage and propaganda.

You've established a pattern of posting links associated with biased sources and your data in each situation was badly flawed.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

Yeah, just because you see a 25 year old male Muslim carrying an AK-47 it doesn't mean he's going to shoot a bunch of people!

 

You don't understand.

You begged the question because you presume the "corruption" exists, and yet provide no evidence of the same; your question is no different that someone asking if you have stopped having sex with jars of peanut butter.

Can you show "corruption" in the NRA?
Can you show that ANY money fro the illegal arms trade makes it to the NRA?
No?
Thought not.

 

And yet this was in a peer reviewed journal

And you are making assumptions that the data was 21 years old - that was only ONE data set - they used another for living controls

I am not willing to concede that this research is flawed without looking at methodology - which at present I cannot do. However the journal it is in is a well respected peer reviewed journal, the article has been quoted in multiple academic papers so one would suspect that there is greater validity to the source than you are willing to acknowledge

And it still beats the use of a single anecdote as 'proof'

 

Like these people?

 

They based the 272% number you posted on one dataset which is in FACT 21 years old at minimum. That's a rock solid fact and I welcome anyone who thinks they have any evidence to the contrary to post it in this thread.

I'm not one bit surprised you cannot and have not investigated your data. I find that's frequently the case with people who are close minded.

 

Lol you don't know much about guns and apparently Muslims, not that I'm an expert on the latter. Where are the AK-47's? There aren't any in that picture.

Let me know when you find an AK-47 in your picture, ok?

 

Just because something is in a Peer Review journal doesn't make it fact, in fact the study states, "Additional studies are warranted to address study limitations and to better understand the implications of firearm ownership." so without understanding what is included in the study, for instance if it include drug economy participants, it is useless to say this is some kind of last word.

 

Causation necessitates correlation though.

If you assert that guns make people less safe, then the data needs to show that places without guns are safer than places with guns. If the dataset shows the opposite of that, then one of the following has to be true:

-There is a positive relationship between guns and safety.
-There is no relationship between guns and safety, but there are factors that cause greater gun ownership, that also cause greater safety.
-There is a negative relationship between gun ownership and safety, but this relationship is so weak that places with more gun ownership are safer REGARDLESS.

Neither interpretation bodes well for the restrictionist cause. The bottom line in any given case is that you are safer in a state/country where guns are more prevalent, than in one where they aren't.

 

It looks like these people are headed into a gun show.
Care to compare apples to apples?

 

Prevalence of guns is negatively correlated with gun deaths worldwide.

 

You mean responsible freedom loving Americans walking into a gun show with zip tied actions?