well thanks jon! i don't feel bad because i never claimed to have the
definitive answers here. in fact, what ticked me off was people proclaiming
the Lott book to be FACT, and that was why i posted a link to article with
an opposing viewpoint.
as somebody else just posted - crime rates involve much more than one
variable (gun-control) and to suggest otherwise is nonsensical. bradford
suggested a recent rise in crime in australia was the direct result of new
gun control laws - and i disagree. it's a radical oversimplification of
the situation and a bit of a sound-bite statistic.
anyway...
aaron
>on 4/21/02 11:40 AM, aaron tester at desktop_at_lavalink.com.au wrote:
>
>> you shouldn't confuse correlation with causality.
>
>That's what people say when they don't agree with the statistics. ;-) If
>they were in their favor, they would be declaring the cause-effect
>relationship. When they aren't, they call foul, and say the above. Don't
>feel bad, we all do it. ;-)
>--
>-Jon Glass
>Krakow, Poland
>>> and here is an opposing viewpoint (worth a read):
>>>
>>> http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/onepage.html
>>>
>>> i live in a country with quite tight gun control laws (australia). gun
>>> crime is very low. go figure!!!
-- Read the List FAQ/Etiquette: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html Read the Newton FAQ: http://www.guns-media.com/mirrors/newton/faq/ This is the NewtonTalk mailing list - http://www.newtontalk.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sun May 05 2002 - 14:04:39 EDT