Correlation is not causation.
This is a discussion on Is Lead Ban Reason for Fewer Killings? within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Murder mystery: Is lead ban reason for fewer killings? | Fox News This may be the most startling good news you will hear in a ...
Murder mystery: Is lead ban reason for fewer killings? | Fox News
Or, is the fact that more armed GGs can throw lead at their attackers?This may be the most startling good news you will hear in a while: Estimates suggest that this year the murder rate in the United States may sink to its lowest level in more than 100 years. And there's a good case to be made that the environmental movement is partly responsible.
Now, you can graph lots of correlations using historical data. The sales of Beatles records matches well with deaths of American soldiers in Southeast Asia, for example, but that doesn't mean one caused the other. But there are two strong indications that lead and crime are related.
First, it happened twice. The fact that both rates rose and fell, then rose and fell again, in sync, makes a coincidence more unlikely. Second, there has been significant medical and scientific investigation into the effect of lead on the brain, and it is more than plausible that exposure to this toxic substance in early youth could lead to violent behavior.
He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliott
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
Correlation is not causation.
Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.
That's it! It never was poor parenting and a nanny state contributing to the delinquency of our nation!
Whew, 'Glad they solved that one.
'Clinging to my guns and religion
I certainly wouldn't credit the advances in medical care! It makes sense to give the credit to environmentalists. Walks away shaking his head.
"He went on two legs, wore clothes and was a human being, but nevertheless he was in reality a wolf of the Steppes. He had learned a good deal . . . and was a fairly clever fellow. What he had not learned, however, was this: to find contentment in himself and his own life. The cause of this apparently was that at the bottom of his heart he knew all the time (or thought he knew) that he was in reality not a man, but a wolf of the Steppes."
Lead was not taken out of gasoline not for any environmental concern; it was removed because it clogged up catalytic converters rendering them ineffective. Funny thing when un-leaded fuel first came out it was cheaper than leaded gas.
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
"Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."
If there were an increase in murders in the U.S., they would have correlated it with global warming. No surprise here.
Vietnam Vets, WELCOME HOME
Crossman 760 BB/Pellet, Daisy Red Ryder, Crossman Wrist Rocket, 14 Steak Knives, 3 Fillet Knives, Rolling Pin-14", Various Hunting Knives, 2 Baseball Bats, 3 Big Dogs and a big American Flag flying in the yard. I have no firearms; Try the next house.
Its a correlation and more study will be required..another thing one may propose is why with guns why not with knife or other..
Here is the long-form article that made its rounds about six months ago, and which the Fox article may be based on: “America's real criminal element: lead”. Given Mother Jones's agenda and history, it should be take with a grain of salt, but it's an interesting read.
A crucial point, which is not repeated in the Fox article, is that the use of tetraethyl lead rose at different times in different countries, and in each country the crime trends followed. Now, that starts to hint at there being more than correlation going on. (Beyond that, I haven't studied the topic.)
So, can we credit the concealed-carry movement for the decrease in crime over the last two decades? Probably not—but that's not how I argue against gun control. Arguing against gun control by claiming that armed good guys reduce the overall crime rate is bad because it implicitly accepts the premise that self-defense is not a right, and that it should only be allowed if it's beneficial to "society." That's a collectivist premise. The proper objection to gun control is that it violates my invididual right to my life (and to defend it), just because someone else uses guns to commit crimes. A properly limited government cannot force me to sacrifice my life so that someone else may live. Harry Binswanger wrote a great article about this: “With gun control, cost–benefit analysis is amoral”