Virginia: Gun Sales Rise, Crime Falls

[gunsmith]

The Media is the opposition. This from Breitbart. More guns, less crime, literally.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... n-Virginia

In a real life demonstration of scholar John Lott's maxim "more guns, less crime," violent crime has dropped in Virginia as gun ownership has increased.

According to a Fox News report, firearms sales in Virginia were 16 percent higher in 2012 over 2011 and violent crime went down by 5 percent.

Perhaps the significance of this is best seen in the raw numbers: In 2012 licensed gun dealers sold 490,119 guns in their state, while the number of violent crimes for the same time period was 4,378.

Virginia Commonwealth University assistant professor Thomas R. Baker commented on the numbers: "This appears to be additional evidence that more guns don't necessarily lead to more crime."

[Heffay]

Correlation does not equal causation.

[Shawski]

Correlation does not equal causation.

Except in Virginia, obviously.

[Hmac]

Correlation does not equal causation.

They used to say that about cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

[Heffay]

Correlation does not equal causation.

They used to say that about cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

Well, do we have similar evidence that the reduction in crime is due to gun ownership rates?

Also, does that mean we now support abortion, because there is a correlation between legalization of abortion and a decrease in crime as well?

[Hmac]

Correlation does not equal causation.

They used to say that about cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

Well, do we have similar evidence that the reduction in crime is due to gun ownership rates?

It took almost 18 years of study to get that cigarette evidence. First they noticed the empiric correlation, then they had to take the time to establish the cause/effect.

So, the answer to your question is..."not yet".

[Heffay]

It took almost 18 years of study to get that cigarette evidence. First they noticed the empiric correlation, then they had to take the time to establish the cause/effect.

So, the answer to your question is..."not yet".

Ok, so maybe we should stop saying that increasing guns decreases crime until the studies are complete? Just makes us look like we don't understand the scientific method, and the gun community already has a hard enough time sounding legitimate when talking sciencey stuff.

[Hmac]

It took almost 18 years of study to get that cigarette evidence. First they noticed the empiric correlation, then they had to take the time to establish the cause/effect.

So, the answer to your question is..."not yet".

Ok, so maybe we should stop saying that increasing guns decreases crime until the studies are complete? Just makes us look like we don't understand the scientific method, and the gun community already has a hard enough time sounding legitimate when talking sciencey stuff.

I agree with that. The only studies I've seen (two) where any form of regression analysis was applied showed NO correlation where more guns = less crime, but iirc they were crappy studies with deep political overtones.

Unlike smoking/cancer back then, I suspect that all the data is already out there but the substantially greater number of variables and the politics may disallow proving either way.

[Jeff Bergquist]

It took almost 18 years of study to get that cigarette evidence. First they noticed the empiric correlation, then they had to take the time to establish the cause/effect.

So, the answer to your question is..."not yet".

Ok, so maybe we should stop saying that increasing guns decreases crime until the studies are complete? Just makes us look like we don't understand the scientific method, and the gun community already has a hard enough time sounding legitimate when talking sciencey stuff.

It is however, decent circumstantial evidence to counter the anti's "blood in the streets" arguments, since while causation is not proved, it does make it much harder to support their position.

[Hmac]

It took almost 18 years of study to get that cigarette evidence. First they noticed the empiric correlation, then they had to take the time to establish the cause/effect.

So, the answer to your question is..."not yet".

Ok, so maybe we should stop saying that increasing guns decreases crime until the studies are complete? Just makes us look like we don't understand the scientific method, and the gun community already has a hard enough time sounding legitimate when talking sciencey stuff.

It is however, decent circumstantial evidence to counter the anti's "blood in the streets" arguments, since while causation is not proved, it does make it much harder to support their position.

I think that's valid. Increasing guns doesn't necessarily result in decreasing crime, but there certainly is no data to support the idea that more guns = more crime