Home > Archive > Cobol > January 2005 > Re: "Right to bear arms"
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: "Right to bear arms"
|
|
| Richard 2005-01-10, 3:55 pm |
| "4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons
have lower crime rates than those that don't.
True. ..."
Regardles of whether it is true or false there is no indication that
there is a causal relationship such that "concealed wepons" -> "lower
crime rate".
It may well be, for example, that areas with higher crime rates have
tried legislation such as banning concealed weapons but this had no
effect on the crime rate.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-01-11, 3:55 pm |
| In article <1105079123.126207.229540@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>"4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons
>have lower crime rates than those that don't.
>
>True. ..."
>
>Regardles of whether it is true or false there is no indication that
>there is a causal relationship such that "concealed wepons" -> "lower
>crime rate".
What's this, Mr Plinston... you don't follow, blindly, in the steps of
'post hoc, ergo propter hoc'? Consider:
Germany, in the late 19th century, had a larger number of nesting-sites
for storks and a higher population of storks. As different types of fuel
became more popular fewer buildings were designed with chimmneys on which
storks could nest and the stork population declined. The average
birth-rate declined, as well...
.... so one *must* conclude that storks bring babies, no?
DD
|
|
|
|
|