🚀 go-pugleaf

In <NEWTNews.19076.782802392.woolfson@woolfson.unicom.net> woolf@unicom.net Eric Woolfson writes:

>
>/> >In article <NEWTNews.4814.782702587.woolfson@woolfson.unicom.net> Eric 
>/Woolfson <woolf@unicom.net> writes:
>/> >
>/> >    Well, the prohition-era ban on machine guns reduced their use 
>/> >   in crime to zero. In fact, the Bush ban on imported assault 
>/> >   weapons has resulted in a 45% drop in THEIR use in crime, just
>/> >   since 1989. But when the ban is being extended to domestic makes
>/> >   as well, the cry goes up that it "just won't work".
>/> >    Why not? 
>/> 
>/> [This is an example of the sort of disingenuous reasoning that seems
>/> to crop up all the time in the gun debate.
>
>      "Disingenuous reasoning?" 
>      Just what is "disingenuous" about the simple reporting
>      of a statistic?   

Nothing.  However, that's not what you did.  You reported an event, a
statistic, and then claimed causality between the two.  If you chart
violent crime against 'prohibition' (of alcohol, drugs, etc.) you find
quite a high correlation.  If you want to decrease violent crime,
legalize drugs.  It'll work better than any gun control wet dreams you
can imagine.

>
>     AND it leads to a 45% drop in the criminal use of the
>   banned weapon. Period. 

1) You can't prove causality.

2) Such weapons were practically not used in crime in the first place,
so a 45% drop is pretty meaingless.

[Followups redirected to tx.guns.]


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
merlin@annwfn.com -- I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.