highwaystar101 said:
Is that so? Policemen don't need guns to do their job effectively. Now let's do a case study, USA arms their police with guns and allow open ownership of guns and Britain does not. Source USA has the 24th highest murder rate in the world with 0.042802 murders per 1000, where as Britain has the 46th highest murder rate with 0.0140633 per 1000. That is a large disparity, the country who do not arm their police with guns and do not allow guns to be owned as easily have a four times lower murder rate. What does that tell you about gun crime? |
Uhm...it doesn't tell us anything about gun crime...like at all....
Not trying to be rude but what it does tell us is that you don't really understand statistics.
Murder rates are influenced by a myriad of factors. And while gun availability is certainly among those factors you cannot simply choose to ignore the all other factors just to make your point. Not even to say simply that A "influences" B in a negative/positive way. The information needs to be examined in its full context or not at all.
But even then, if we assume for a second that gun availability is an extremely dominant super-factor and overwhelms the remaining factors...yes even then correlation would not neccessitate causation implicitly, you actually have to go beyond the correlation to an analysis of the information if you want to make that assertion statistically.
Put simply, you cannot use a murder rate statistic to make assertions about the impact of guns on crimes. You need an in-depth study on crimes involving guns that examines both their positive value as detterence (among other factors), as well as their negative value as antagonistic tools (among other factors).
The point you're trying to make here is pure and simple statistical nonsense.
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
