Email to the author of LA Times article "Crime is down -- and so is gun ownership"

[viet4lifeOC]

When there is causality, such as in your example, there is always correlation. Causality implies correlation. Correlation does NOT imply causality.

+1
+1 Phalse
+1. Shy 7th
+100 "lies, damn lies, and stats"

[Texas Boy]

Let me start by commending the OP for calling this "journalist" out. While he may not have changed his mind, at least the guy knows he is going to have to defend his statements. If every one of us took the time to call the media out on errors we might see more accurate reporting.

There has never been such a claim. It's the number of guns that's growing. The proportion is irrelevant both for our side of the argument and the author's.

Good point. The claim was "guns cause crime" and the "journalist" attempted to prove this by stating gun ownership (as a percentage of the population) was down and so was crime.

While the OP's arguments are good, a more effective debate strategy is to prove the number of guns has dramatically increased (regardless of what percentage or absolute number of households own guns), and the real story is there are more guns out there, not less, and yes, crime has gone down.

Of course any good science person knows correlation does not prove causation, so there may be any number of reasons crime is down, and it is still possible that guns cause crime, but that there are stronger factors that are driving crime down faster than guns can drive it up...but I wouldn't mention that in a debate.

Oh, and for those who don't get the correlation/causation thing, here is a good place to start - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...mply_causation (or a simple google search). Some of my favorite examples:






And again, thank you OP for speaking up. Well done.

[wildhawker]

If every one of us took the time to call the media out on errors we might see more accurate reporting.

Funny you mention that. I have this plan that tracks just such a train of thought...

-Brandon

[Texas Boy]

Funny you mention that. I have this plan that tracks just such a train of thought...

-Brandon

Oh? Do tell. This could get fun!

[wildhawker]

Oh? Do tell. This could get fun!

It certainly will be fun.

When you see the "new Calguns Foundation website" news, it's "that time".

-Brandon

[Excelsior]

There has never been such a claim. It's the number of guns that's growing. The proportion is irrelevant both for our side of the argument and the author's.

The "proportion" is critical. It's a prime indicator of how many pro-RKBA citizens there are.

[IVC]

The "proportion" is critical. It's a prime indicator of how many pro-RKBA citizens there are.

True, but the article is not about how many people are pro RKBA. If it were, a more appropriate question would be directly to ask about RKBA support, not about the gun ownership (which is subject to systematic underreporting).

It's like trying to put a triangular peg into a square hole. Every individual corner can fit if you wriggle it around a bit, but you can't make them all fit at the same time. That's why so many antis try to fudge the details and switch between concepts such as "number" and "proportion" at their convenience, hoping nobody would notice.

[usmcchet9296]

It's really sad to see a good and reputable newspaper like LA Times becoming a propaganda outlet for the anti-civil rights movement.

there is nothing reputable about the LA times
they have been a leftist rag for decades

[Excelsior]

there is nothing reputable about the LA times
they have been a leftist rag for decades

The LA Times is actually a decent paper. Yes, I would say its political commentary is skewed but their news reporting and fluff pieces are just fine.

[Excelsior]

True, but the article is not about how many people are pro RKBA. If it were, a more appropriate question would be directly to ask about RKBA support, not about the gun ownership (which is subject to systematic underreporting).

It's like trying to put a triangular peg into a square hole. Every individual corner can fit if you wriggle it around a bit, but you can't make them all fit at the same time. That's why so many antis try to fudge the details and switch between concepts such as "number" and "proportion" at their convenience, hoping nobody would notice.

Still, the measure is critical.

[tankarian]

there is nothing reputable about the LA times

I lied when I said that.

they have been a leftist rag for decades

I know.

[AeroEngi]

Maybe we should email the author this article by the SFGate.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/California-gun-purchases-nearing-record-3739037.php

[RuskieShooter]

NICS check does not equal SINGLE gun purchase.

Some people try to buy firearms but are prohibited so the purchase is denied. This is all that the phrase "They do not represent the number of firearms sold" is all about, nothing more nothing less. I used to work part time in a gun store and sent the data for the FBI background checks, we called the process DROS. Out of every hundred people applying for a firearm purchase an average of 8%-9% were denied for reasons of ineligibility.

Actually, I think that disclaimer is there because I believe you can put multiple firearms on a single NICS check. There are probably more multi-gun NICS then there are disapproved NICS.

-Ruskie