Very briefly, yes. Imagine that there is a twin Earth, the same as here in all respects except that human beings never developed the technique of mining and combustion of fossil fuels. This twin Earth has lower levels of atmospheric C02 and temperatures than our Earth. From these data, it would be possible to conclude that combustion of fossil fuels caused the observed difference in levels of atmospheric C02 and temperature (remember that all other factors are the same on this twin Earth). This example may seem far fetched, but remember that we have multiple countries available for comparison.
ebola
I certainly have to acknowledge the example. It's an intriguing idea. I think it's pretty clear though that I'm dealing in real world data and real world calculations. If we have to create imaginary parallel realities to satisfy the requirements, then it seems this particular issue (AGW) can't be examined in this manner (at least now). It's pretty clear you're trying to poke holes in my logical thinking, which is understandable, but I don't think it's unreasonable for me to confine such attempts to things that
can actually be examined. On the gun/murder issue, I see what you mean. You've indicated two very important constraints though. Clearly it's been demonstrated that comparing only two countries can produce opposing results. So correct me if I'm wrong, but the only viable way to do this would be to compare multiple countries in series, no? Of course that leads us to your second constraint, that all other factors are equal. Comparing multiple countries in series AND holding all other factors equal seems like a monumental task. That's just seems like way too many variables.
I'm not understanding why my time-series comparison within a country isn't infinitely more palatable. While we still have the constraint of not having "all other factors equal/same," therefore we cannot make a final determination on one example only, we can at least evaluate the factor qualitatively in relation to other potential factors within the country. In my comparison, it's clear that there are massive overriding factors. Therefore, it's
more probable that either the contribution of # of guns to murder rate is marginal or non-existent, than it is that the contribution is significant. It's not wrong to accept a probability as likely or true, as long as it holds out in other examples. And since we have such agreement in the available data, we have a trend. I still maintain that the conclusion, based on the currently available data, is correct. Maybe in the future we'll get different/more data and then we'll see.
This is the flaw in your argument. You have picked and chosen data sets purely on the basis that they support your argument. It has been shown that the ways in which England and the US acquire this data (i.e. the legal definition of assault) are not the same.
No, you're blatantly twisting the argument. I have picked and chosen nothing. Even gun ownership / murder rates in the USA support my claim, since gun ownership per capita has steadily increased over the decades yet we are at our lowest murder rate since the 1960's. I used the only available countries where we can see a clear separation of before gun bans and after. That is the most useful illustration of the effect of gun ownership on murders/rates. AT BEST we can concluded a marginal effect, because we see exactly what happened IN THE REAL WORLD when these bans went into effect. Until more countries institute strong gun bans, we will have to rely on what we have. Why the strawman on data collection? Except for my first couple posts, where I mentioned violent crime in general, I have focused exclusively on murder/murder rates. I have never mentioned assaults. Are you asserting that the US and UK count murders differently?
Bardo pointed out that culture also plays a huge influence, but amongst the countries with which the US likes to compare itself it isn't doing so hot in terms of murder rate.
BOOM! Now you're finally starting to a hint of the problem. It's not the guns, it's the culture. A culture that glorifies violence in general. A culture where people who shoot up movie theaters or schools get reported on in the news for weeks or even years. Instant fame. A culture with multiple genres of music dedicated to glorifying the violent lifestyle. A culture where the lower classes are told that they are victims of societal oppression, instead of being encouraged to develop their talents to the fullest. It's us, not the tool. And moreover, this lends credence to the socialists desire of a more egalitarian society, as much as I dislike admitting so.
Moreover, you fail to acknowledge the completely different sets of circumstances in which one can even legally acquire and use a firearm in either Norway or Switzerland. If you look closer, and stop using superficial information (start analyzing how the data was gathered in the first place) and data sets then you would see that real world data does support the claim.
I think I see your point, which is that with proper regulation guns are not the problem. I agree with this to some extent, but my problem is that if properly maintained a gun can last far longer than the stability (and ability to enforce regulation) in a region. Moreover, the purpose of guns are very limited, and there are already way too many out there. I always like this saying about the law of the instrument (Maslow's Hammer), "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail".
I am using real-world data, straight from the governments of first-world countries. Governments that all count murders the same way. We have the proper regulation. WE AREN'T ENFORCING THEM. Screw patient rights, we need to tie mental health to the NICS, like the NRA wants. We need to investigate 100% of attempted illegal purchases. And we need to require more safety training and education, while also opening up CCW permits to those who can pass periodic mental checks, stringent training, and prove proficiency. We need to identify the source(s) of illegal guns that get into the hands of criminals/gang members (the vast majority of guns used in crimes) and find a way to curb that supply. We need to stop focusing on the types of guns people want ("assault" rifles, etc.), because that's mostly a red-herring (as long as our screening process is better). And handguns are the real problem anyway, but you're never going to make headway on that issue with the 2nd amendment as is. So forget it. And finally, do away with "gun free zones." That idea is about the dumbest thing ever in the history of trying to stop gun violence.
