[–] Hippo-Canoe 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Let's quit worrying about the guns, and make the bullets $3,000 a piece. Then if somebody gets shot, you know they must have really deserved it.
{Chris Rock}
[–] toobaditworks 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I NEED TO POST A COMMENT ABOUT THE TITLE AND NOT TALK ABOUT THE INFORMATION IN THE ARTICLE SO PEOPLE KNOW HOW IMPORTANT I AM!
[–] [deleted] 1 point 7 points 8 points (+8|-1) ago
[–] sakuramboo 0 points 22 points 22 points (+22|-0) ago (edited ago)
I know that correlation doesn't equal causation, but when the numbers for both the decline in gun related homicide and the increase in gun ownership are almost identical, it gets really hard to see how they are not affecting each other.
Assuming you're genuinely interested in how you should approach this I can give you some ideas.
Let's assume you think A might have a causal relationship with B because of some sample. The first thing you want to do is to try to ensure that the relationship is not being caused by some other happening. The best way to do this is to resample. So for instance if the theory is that an increase in gun ownership rates results in a reduced homicide rate then you should be able to see a consistent trend over countries other than just the one you start with also having a similar trend. In this case you're kind of buggered from the start. Gun ownership rates in the US are lower than they've been in decades. Here is the article linked to from Breitbart which states:
...survey research has shown for several years now: the share of gun-owning households has been declining over the past 20 years and possibly more...
What you have in the US is a declining rate of gun ownership, but the households that do own guns own more than ever. So in a country of 100 people instead of 50 owning guns and having 1 each, we have a scenario in the US where we have only 30 people owning guns but they have 3 each. The number of guns has nearly doubled, but the number of owners has actually substantially decreased.
Beyond that the next step you should take is to consider the corollary. If gun ownership rates cause a decrease in gun homicide rates then a decrease in gun ownership rates would cause an increase in gun homicide rates. Here again you have plenty of test cases available since you can simply compare before and after gun homicide rates in countries that did enact gun control. And in none of them has there been any indication of an increase in gun homicide rates following tighter gun controls.
Lastly you might also want to look at the extremes of your samples to see how they match up with your hypothesis. So for instance in countries where gun ownership rates are incredibly high you'd expect to see incredibly low gun homicide rates. In countries where gun ownership rates are incredibly low you'd expect to see incredibly high rates of gun homicides. Again this doesn't match up very well with reality. Most countries with incredibly low gun ownership rates also tend to have incredibly low gun homicide rates. The other side of the scale (countries with very high gun ownership rates) is much more difficult to examine since so far as I know nearly all data on gun ownership I know of is done per capita similar to the United States which means 1 person owning 100 guns in a country of 100 people would show one gun per person, on average, which is misleading and irrelevant.
[–] anonlymouse 3 points -1 points 2 points (+2|-3) ago
It could be an issue of wealth. More money to buy guns, also more money to just do anything, therefore less murder. Wealthy countries tend to have lower murder rates than poor countries.
[–] sakuramboo 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago (edited ago)
Except for the fact that lower class is increasing and middle class is decreasing.
[–] physicscat 0 points 16 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago
Sometimes, many times in fact, correlation does equal causation.
[–] didntsayeeeee ago
I want to send this headline back in time so they think that we in 2015 have laser pistols. Pew pew pew!