
And, I might add, vitamin C has been endorsed by a Nobel Laureate as a
panacea for almost everything from the common cold to cancer.  


Wait a minute. S&K did NOT compare trends.  If they did, they would
have seen that the advent of Canada's gun law had no effect on
homicides, total or handgun.  Without a pre- vs. post comparison, one
cannot speculate as to the utility of anything.  All they have is a
correlation, and correlation DOES NOT prove causality.



Hold it again. You dismiss a point about demographics, then you ask
about socio-economic demographics? Very slick.

Once again, correlation does not prove causality.  Looking at pre-vs.
post data, the Canadian gun law had no effect.


Sir, if you were a Canadian, and owned a gun before the restrictive
gun laws were passed, and decided to hide it rather than turn it in,
would you answer truthfully a question about gun ownership from
someone who calls, writes, or asks you on the street?  That is one
problem with surveys.  Nobody will answer an incriminating question.
Another is that people will often tell you what they THINK you want to
here.


Does that mean no Vancouver citizens have handguns? I think not. You
are discounting guns purchased beforehand, and guns purchased for
purposes other than self-defense, which can also be used for defense.


He makes valid points about demographic differences.  You then resort
to the kind of argument that the "Politically Correct" movement often
uses to stifle any debate.  Nice, real nice.



One doesn't have to produce his own data in order to point out the
flaws in the methodology and conclusions of another's study. Again,
you resort to PC tactics.
