XponentialChaos
Platinum Member
- Jul 25, 2018
- 29,289
- 10,700
That's fine. You can question the relevance all you want, and I've said this a few times because I get that you don't agree with the measurement I'm using. All I'm saying is that the math, for that variable you don't want to use, is fine.
The numbers aren't "way off". You just disagree with the measurement.
This wasn't supposed to be this big of a big deal, lol. Let's just call it what it is.
Yes.....change a measurement by a 1/4 inch and the math still works, but the building collapses...the math was right, the numbers were just the wrong numbers that were needed for the end result...
There we go. Now we're on the same page again.
And here is an example...
More Minnesotans Own Guns, Violent Crime Remains Low | Ryan McMaken
Like numerous northern states with fairly high rates of gun ownership, Minnesota also enjoys very low homicide rates.
First of all, as noted here at mises.org, homicide rates in the United States vary considerably by state and region. Claims about homicide and violence "in the United States" are usually meaningless because of the large variations from place to place in the United States.
In Minnesota, the homicide rate in 2016 was 1.8 per 100,000. That's about equal to the homicide rate in British Columbia, Canada.
------
Secondly, it is also true nationwide that homicide rates do not increase with increasing gun ownership. In fact, as we've shown here at mises.org, from 1994 to 2013, gun ownership increased substantially, while homicide rates fell. Moreover, homocide rates are now near 50-year lows, and have falled considerably from the 1980s and 1990s.
This is the same argument all over again. We already agreed that a reason for the declining crime rates and homicide rates is the police, among other reasons.
However, when we remove the time period and just compare gun ownership rates to violent crime rates, there's a slightly positive correlation. This number negates the effects of police efforts over time and just looks at gun ownership vs violent crime rates.
And now....to throw in Concealed carry laws and gun ownership.....they do, in fact, help to decrease gun crime.....
You can't take away the fact that more guns did not lead to more gun crime......you want to, but you can't. You aren't factoring everything you need to make that conclusion.....
Normal people who own guns are not using those guns for crime...that is a fact.....so the mere existence of guns does not equal higher gun crime rates......... Lax policies toward criminals are not in your equation.... the effect of single parent homes and violence is not in your equation.....there are so many variables you can't account for, that your number fails to be even remotely accurate.
I haven't said anything about concealed carry laws. I'm not sure this applies to what I've said.
States with more gun owners have a positive correlation with violent crime. That's a fact. I'm not implying anything other than what I said in that sentence. That sentence is a fact.
I didn't say "gun crime". I said "violent crime". I haven't run the numbers with gun crime.