You 'lied with statistics' by inferring the murder rate difference between 1964 & 2013 had fallen ostensibly due to the presence of 'more guns', since the doubling of violent crime rates due more guns & less gun ownership, was my point.
I did no such thing. I never postulated any sort of causal relationship.
Readers will see how straw man 'lied with statistics', by ignoring intervening years between 1960s & 2000's, when murder rates ranged much higher to double the 1964 figure. Straw man simply took the start & end point murder rate stats &, 'lied with statistics'.
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. I was merely pointing out that you were cherry-picking data that supported your foregone conclusion and ignoring that which didn't.
His maths error was ignoring dozens of intervening years & merely taking a start year & end year & implying guns didn't affect murder rates long term, where national gunstock rose from 75 millions to 300 millions. Statistically invalid.
So what's the "national gunstock" now, Jimmy? Closer to 75 million, or closer to 300 million? If you're claiming a causal connection there, it would have to be the former figure in order to account for the lower murder rate. Simply put, you can't because it ain't.
I'm not making any errors, Jimmy, because I'm not drawing any conclusions. I'm citing the stats that you provided, and telling you why they don't support the conclusions that you have made: too many inherent contradictions. Correlation is not causation, Jimmy: that's axiomatic.
Furthermore, all the stats you cited are completely useless because they don't break down the crimes by weapon used.
= new reply since forum marked as read