moved it to the post above...

Your inter population study is your typical response Kasz. The initial argument wasn't about inter population gun crime, it was about international gun crime, you used the inter population argument to distract from the initial argument like you often do.

Actually the original article was on interpopulation gun crime.

But laying that aside... it's not being used to "distract".

It's being used to show that your international gun crime argument doesn't hold any merit.

Which said study actually does show.

The only difference between my graph and yours is that mine controls for more variables.  It disproves your graph by showing that when you elimiante some confounding variables you find that there is no statistical evidence.

For example.  Culture.

If your thesis had any merit said hypothisis would be seen in the inner population study.

Since it doesn't, the only logical conclusion is that your thesis is wrong... and the increased murder rates in the US are caused by something else.  Likely one of the confounding varaibles.

Like say... Culture.

Or to put it more simply in something less politically charged in which you have no opinion.


Say there is a study that says "Wearing Red makes it more likely people will get mad at you."

That showed in countries where red was more popular... people got angrier more.


Now say they did that same study in your home city. However found no real difference into anger based on color.


Which study is more reliable and trustworthy?

Clearly the second, yes? Because it accounts for many more factors.

They didn't collect any of the data.

The data are official sources.  All they did was graph it.

See the above example of wearing red and getting angry as the reason why it is more accurate.

It holds more merit because it's more statistically sound.

I mean hell.  I don't own a gun, and I don't want to own one.

I simply go where the statistics lead.

Thats not a good statistic.  There is a difference between Wyoming where many people own hunting rifles and live in rural areas, as opposed to major cities where gun ownership isn't as popular and crime is up.  You simply cant compare a state like Rhode Island to Montana.

I agree. 

However. it's far more accurate then Highwaystar's study.   Though similar states with different gun control laws are similar.

Both are fairly dubious though... since this also has some confounding variabeles.

Edit: I like your attempt at a ninja edit to make it looks like you didn't admit that highwaystars stats were bad though.

mod edit - trying to fix thread (Sqrl)

How did it twist something?

Gun ownership %

Murder rate.

Graph.

Nothing to twist.