How inconvenient for the liberal control freak douchebags.
If they are too dimwitted to understand the meaning of negative correlation, I’ll explain it for them. The more legally owned guns there are in a community, the LESS violent crime. Meanwhile, in the liberal shithole paradises of Chicago, Philly, Camden, New Orleans, Baltimore…… the strict gun laws have done their job.
Indeed, “data on fire‐arms ownership by constabulary area in England,” like data from the United States, show “a negative correlation,”10 that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”11 Many different data sets from various kinds of sources are summarized as follows by the leading text:
[T]here is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States, (2) U.S. cities, (3) counties within Illinois, (4) country‐sized areas like England, U.S. states, (5) regions of the United States, (6) nations, or (7) population subgroups . . . .12
It’s not a very difficult read and, IMHO, well worth your time.
If you care about objectivity, that is.
Now let’s add in another ugly little fact — we’re now talking about Obama intending to initiate violence against a nation which may, if undertaken, in fact be aiding terrorist-affiliated rebels.
It’s time to ask these would-be-Mussolinis an uncomfortable question:
Since we have the facts cited in the above paper — that there is a negative correlation between civilian firearms ownership and crime — exactly what is the real reason these very same politicians want to restrict civilian firearms ownership?