From: Gerhard Kessell-Haak (gerhard_kessell-haak@mail.tait.co.nz)
Date: Mon Jul 06 1998 - 20:42:23 MDT
>>You're confusing causative agents with simple correlation. There are
so
>>many possible reasons for the reduced crime rate in the rural areas
>>(ranging from differences in lead ingestion and fluoride concentration
in
>>drinking water, to population density, socioeconomic indexes, to gun
>>ownership) that it becomes almost impossible to ascribe a causative
>>element to any one of them. >
>>I have yet to hear of any study which takes all other factors into
account
>>to show a causative connection between gun ownership and reduced
>>crime rates.
>>
>At what point does the study become meaningless from the addition of
>too many variables? What is your control group?
You tell me, and we'll both know - I'm not a statistician.
A number of years ago there was a study done in Germany (I think)
which showed a positive correlation between the reduction in the birth
rate and the reduction in the crane population. Amazingly, almost every
peak and trough in the crane population was reflected in the birth rate.
So, do cranes deliver babies in Germany?
Anecdotal connections between gun ownership and crime rates mean
very little to me. I'm neither pro nor anti gun, though I'm for the * right * to
own a gun. With regard to the connection between crime rate and gun
ownership, I'm sitting on the fence until someone with a big and logically
powerfull enough documented study knocks me off; and untill then I'm
staying firmly put.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:18 MST