Guys, you’re hijacking the column for your own debate. Note PJM guideline #2: Stay on topic. Of course, maybe this is an indication of the report’s popularity, if you take readers squared as a measure of how frequently two readers get into an argument over statistical validity during an exposé of Brady rhetoric.
In any case, John Lott’s third edition of More Guns, Less Crime contains all the statistical analysis you could possibly want. No matter the perspective from different variables, he continues to note that more guns SIGNIFICANTLY correlate with less crime. (Causation)
In real life, anybody looking to find the magic link of causation need look no further than websites like Armed Citizen: For those who successfully saved lives using firearms, their causal link was 100% significant. Beyond that, the theorists will plug in their pet variables to “prove” that more guns means more crime, continuing to obfuscate the preponderance of evidence I have uncovered over the years showing that they are wrong.
I have an idea: Why don’t you ask Brady Campaign to prove their point that more guns means more crime, and demand they make it statistically significant? Or do you give them special dispensation like I used to, based on the fact that they “care”?
