Correlation and causation: guns and violence
The largest mass shooting in America (so far) happened last night in Las Vegas.
Societal and political commentaries are once again spotlighting guns.
If you read the various articles, the pro-control articles characteristically point to how the United States has more guns per capita than any other country, and how there are so many more gun-related crimes, violence, and murders than in countries with fewer guns.
Some articles might actually mention how there aren't more murders per capita, as there are other countries that surpass the US.
But all of these articles, and all of gun control advocates, fall into the statistics error where they believe correlation is causation.
That is they believe more guns equates to more gun violence, and they believe that less guns must equate to less gun violence.
While it may be a fact to consider that fewer guns might reasonably mean fewer crimes, murders, violence, etc. which would involve a gun, it does not mean less guns equates to less crime.
Crime, violence, and murders have not gone down. Even in those countries with tight gun control laws, crime, violence, and murders have not gone down.
Those who commit crimes just use other methods to terrorize, hurt, maim, or kill.
If we want to go down the road of correlation equals causation, then we need to first address other societal ills, such as access to harmful drugs (including marijuana) and alcohol.
It could actually be argued that alcohol is a contributing factor to causing the death of someone.
If alcohol is not consumed, it cannot affect the body. But when it is consumed, there is a reason people are said to be "under the influence."
Yet, nobody can be "under the influence" of a firearm. The firearm does not make anyone shoot it.
But, alcohol, and other drugs, can have a mental affect and can influence people to make choices they might otherwise not make.
Before guns are more restricted and regulated, and second amendment rights further eroded and taken away, the nation needs to look to sources which kill a great number of Americans and more tightly regulate those factors. Consuming alcohol is not a constitutional right, unlike possessing a firearm.
As a side note, the 18th Amendment banned "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution), and the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th. Nowhere, at least not that I could find, was the drinking of alcohol prohibited, or even guaranteed as a "right."
So, why are guns the target and not alcohol (which kills far more people than guns do)?
Second Amendment supporters are usually more conservative, so regulating guns fits in the liberal movement. Guns are an easy scapegoat. Alcohol is consumed by conservatives and liberals, so it is poor choice for rallying a specific base of supporters. Gun violence is also more sensationalized by the media than alcohol-related violence. And those who might be proponents of increased regulations on alcohol are generally fearful of more restrictions because of how the prohibition turned out.
Politicians don't want to regulate alcohol any more because it might affect the tax revenue. The primary motivator for politicians to legalize marijuana, especially for recreational use, has been the increased tax revenue.
On a more sinister side, consumers of drugs and alcohol may be more easily controlled, particularly when under the influence. But, addictions also play a role. If you wanted to control a population, which would be better: make sure the populace has freedom to possess and use firearms, or provide access (with some token regulations) to alcohol and drugs?
Guns do not equate to violence, crime, murders, etc. Those who choose to commit illegal and immoral acts do so out of their own choice, They are not influenced by a firearm to suddenly become violent, or to kill someone, or to steal, or commit any other act. Guns are just a tool being used.
If guns were not accessible, we would be seeing more mass killings using vehicles, or homemade explosive devices, or improvised chemical weapons. And those crimes that did use guns would be using illegally obtained firearms.
Nobody in a right and reasonable mind can honestly say that they believe a criminal will not get a gun just because it's illegal to do so. A criminal doesn't care about the law, so why would they care if guns are illegal? Gun control laws might make it a little more difficult for a few would-be criminals to obtain a firearm, but it would make no difference in the overall number of criminals who have guns.
Gun control advocates use the arguments that more gun control laws are needed to protect our children, protect our communities, and if the law can "save only one life" then it is worth it.
Not to diminish the value of life, but what is more important: freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, or the illusion of "safety" by giving up our Constitutional liberties?
The real issue is not guns. More guns does not mean more violence, more crime, more murders. Guns do not cause these problems.
The real issue is a deeper problem in society. It is a complicated issue, but I believe the crux is that our society has been abandoning traditional morals. Families are rarely the foundational strength that they need to be, and traditional, nuclear families are becoming a scarcity. Turning away from God is a big part of the problems in our country. Technology, with its increasing focus on "connectedness" has resulted in increased emotional and mental disconnectedness.
If you want to look at correlation and causation, look at the negative (inverse) correlation of how crime, drug use, murders, violence, and related acts have been increasing in correlation to how traditional families, God centered lives, prayer, and traditional morals have been decreasing.
It is interesting that last night's mass shooting happened after Yom Kippur, the day of atonement (which started at sundown on Sep 29 and ended at sundown on Sep 30). The shooting was at a concert on the final night of a three-day Route 91 Harvest Festival. Why didn't the shooting happen on another night?
There will be conspiracy theories on this shooting. Whether or not they are true, what is true is that the powers behind the scenes will be trying to use this event to further enforce controls on the people. It will make people more used to police control and enforcement. I'm sure they will hope this pushes gun control further along, but whether it does or doesn't there will be more shootings. There will be more events to make people feel less safe, to make more people petition the government to "protect" them, and to protest the government for failing to provide protection.
Societal and political commentaries are once again spotlighting guns.
If you read the various articles, the pro-control articles characteristically point to how the United States has more guns per capita than any other country, and how there are so many more gun-related crimes, violence, and murders than in countries with fewer guns.
Some articles might actually mention how there aren't more murders per capita, as there are other countries that surpass the US.
But all of these articles, and all of gun control advocates, fall into the statistics error where they believe correlation is causation.
That is they believe more guns equates to more gun violence, and they believe that less guns must equate to less gun violence.
While it may be a fact to consider that fewer guns might reasonably mean fewer crimes, murders, violence, etc. which would involve a gun, it does not mean less guns equates to less crime.
Crime, violence, and murders have not gone down. Even in those countries with tight gun control laws, crime, violence, and murders have not gone down.
Those who commit crimes just use other methods to terrorize, hurt, maim, or kill.
If we want to go down the road of correlation equals causation, then we need to first address other societal ills, such as access to harmful drugs (including marijuana) and alcohol.
It could actually be argued that alcohol is a contributing factor to causing the death of someone.
If alcohol is not consumed, it cannot affect the body. But when it is consumed, there is a reason people are said to be "under the influence."
Yet, nobody can be "under the influence" of a firearm. The firearm does not make anyone shoot it.
But, alcohol, and other drugs, can have a mental affect and can influence people to make choices they might otherwise not make.
Before guns are more restricted and regulated, and second amendment rights further eroded and taken away, the nation needs to look to sources which kill a great number of Americans and more tightly regulate those factors. Consuming alcohol is not a constitutional right, unlike possessing a firearm.
As a side note, the 18th Amendment banned "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution), and the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th. Nowhere, at least not that I could find, was the drinking of alcohol prohibited, or even guaranteed as a "right."
So, why are guns the target and not alcohol (which kills far more people than guns do)?
Second Amendment supporters are usually more conservative, so regulating guns fits in the liberal movement. Guns are an easy scapegoat. Alcohol is consumed by conservatives and liberals, so it is poor choice for rallying a specific base of supporters. Gun violence is also more sensationalized by the media than alcohol-related violence. And those who might be proponents of increased regulations on alcohol are generally fearful of more restrictions because of how the prohibition turned out.
Politicians don't want to regulate alcohol any more because it might affect the tax revenue. The primary motivator for politicians to legalize marijuana, especially for recreational use, has been the increased tax revenue.
On a more sinister side, consumers of drugs and alcohol may be more easily controlled, particularly when under the influence. But, addictions also play a role. If you wanted to control a population, which would be better: make sure the populace has freedom to possess and use firearms, or provide access (with some token regulations) to alcohol and drugs?
Guns do not equate to violence, crime, murders, etc. Those who choose to commit illegal and immoral acts do so out of their own choice, They are not influenced by a firearm to suddenly become violent, or to kill someone, or to steal, or commit any other act. Guns are just a tool being used.
If guns were not accessible, we would be seeing more mass killings using vehicles, or homemade explosive devices, or improvised chemical weapons. And those crimes that did use guns would be using illegally obtained firearms.
Nobody in a right and reasonable mind can honestly say that they believe a criminal will not get a gun just because it's illegal to do so. A criminal doesn't care about the law, so why would they care if guns are illegal? Gun control laws might make it a little more difficult for a few would-be criminals to obtain a firearm, but it would make no difference in the overall number of criminals who have guns.
Gun control advocates use the arguments that more gun control laws are needed to protect our children, protect our communities, and if the law can "save only one life" then it is worth it.
Not to diminish the value of life, but what is more important: freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, or the illusion of "safety" by giving up our Constitutional liberties?
The real issue is not guns. More guns does not mean more violence, more crime, more murders. Guns do not cause these problems.
The real issue is a deeper problem in society. It is a complicated issue, but I believe the crux is that our society has been abandoning traditional morals. Families are rarely the foundational strength that they need to be, and traditional, nuclear families are becoming a scarcity. Turning away from God is a big part of the problems in our country. Technology, with its increasing focus on "connectedness" has resulted in increased emotional and mental disconnectedness.
If you want to look at correlation and causation, look at the negative (inverse) correlation of how crime, drug use, murders, violence, and related acts have been increasing in correlation to how traditional families, God centered lives, prayer, and traditional morals have been decreasing.
It is interesting that last night's mass shooting happened after Yom Kippur, the day of atonement (which started at sundown on Sep 29 and ended at sundown on Sep 30). The shooting was at a concert on the final night of a three-day Route 91 Harvest Festival. Why didn't the shooting happen on another night?
There will be conspiracy theories on this shooting. Whether or not they are true, what is true is that the powers behind the scenes will be trying to use this event to further enforce controls on the people. It will make people more used to police control and enforcement. I'm sure they will hope this pushes gun control further along, but whether it does or doesn't there will be more shootings. There will be more events to make people feel less safe, to make more people petition the government to "protect" them, and to protest the government for failing to provide protection.
Comments
Post a Comment