Jim De Arras said:
Well, Mr. Lambert, lets have the numbers for .au, and see where the trend leads
Here are all the numbers I have.
Country % at-home % gun homicide burglaries ownership rate Netherlands 48 2 0.9 England 26-59 5 0.7 Australia 10 20 2.0 Canada 10 31 2.1 USA 14 49 8.8
The Australian “at-home” burglary rate is actually for Victoria. The
range given for England is because the rate is 59% for attempted
burglaries and 26% for completed burglaries, so the overall rate must
be somewhere in between.
The GB example at least cancels the Canadian one, so (6) is disproved if
(3) also is.
My point is that is nonsense to take a correlation with two data
points and call it a proof.
And while not having the raw numbers, I still suspect Canada is far
from unarmed, much farther than GB, and so the 4% difference between
the USA and Canada is in the noise. There would be a threshold
above which the assumption is that the home might be armed, and so
better to wait until they are not there.
Well, if your threshold theory is true, the threshold must be
somewhere between 5% and 20%. However, the same reasoning will also
prove that greater gun ownership causes more homicides. Do you
concede this, or do you think some other factor is involved?