Only in Republican’s imaginations

Or, y’know, gun control at a state level is pointless? What’s the purpose of strict gun control in California if you can just go to Nevada and easily get guns?

Or whatever point you were attempting to make I guess

It doesn’t prove anything? California has the strictest restrictions, and their rates of gun violence are among the lowest in the country. Rural Wyoming has the third highest.

The point we should be looking at is why are we even debating gun laws at a state level? They’re meaningless.

California has 20 times the population of the three states you listed.

whispers I agree, but I like to see the mental gymnastics people put themselves through to explain why it’s different.

I’m Not saying there’s a correlation. I’m responding to someone who is implying a correlation between stricter gun laws and gun violence.

So we should legalize all drugs then?

Places with more lenient gun laws have more gun violence.

Skinny pancake! Their food is just absolutely delicious, and it’s in a beautiful location

Do I think that there’s an issue that will lead to a trend in rising murder rates? Probably not. Do I think issues that exist that by solving would probably lower the crime rate in general? One hundred percent.

That’s you making assumptions about my intent. I’m not responsible for your assumptions.

Care to show where I said we should take no action?

They don’t pertain to what we’re talking about.

However many it takes to see a trend.

“Burlington had more murders in 2022”, and, “There’s no indication that murder rates are on the rise in Burlington” can both be true statements.

Really setting up the straw men now aren’t we?

Seeing a one time bump in stats after the stats have remained consistent for X years is the definition of a statistical anomaly. My initial comment literally said “Statistical anomaly until WE HAVE MORE DATA IN THE FUTURE.”

It doesn’t prove your point, because we know the actual number, and I based my statement on that. Making me defend that statement based on different numbers is the definition of a straw man argument.

I haven’t avoided the question once. I didn’t think this needed to be clarified. The data we’re dealing with is “number of murders per year.” Unless that number stays the same, or goes up over several years then a trend can be identified. Until then it’s a statistical anomaly.

You understand that making up huge numbers doesn’t prove your point right?

I did answer the question. Based on the actual data available 5 murders is a statistical anomaly. When more data is available then trends can be identified.

Hypothetically- On Monday you find a dollar on the ground. Tuesday you find nothing. Wednesday you find a dollar. Thursday you find nothing. Friday you find nothing. Saturday you find a twenty.

What’s the likely outcome for Sunday? It’s entirely possible that every day after you find a twenty, but the data you have suggests that MOST LIKELY you find nothing, and that Saturday was a statistical anomaly.

You can’t assume the worst, because of hypotheticals. You have to use the actual data available at the moment, and adjust when new data becomes available.

Statistical anomaly until we have more data in the future.