Incendiary Image of the Day: Correlation Does Not Equal Causation Edition


Anti-gun agitprop with misleading, unverified statistics. Who saw that one coming?


  1. avatar ST says:

    In states without universal background checks, women can defend themselves at a lesser expense and hassle.

    We must throw the leftist playbook right back at them.The best way to expose the other side as a fraud is to be a mirror .

    1. avatar BDub says:

      If that were true it would be working for Congress right now.

  2. avatar Don says:

    I wonder if they realize they lose credibility with smart people when they publish stuff like this, and that smart people are the underlying engines of the world. Consumers and voters are fuel, the rich and powerful are drivers, but the smart people are the engines.

    1. avatar ErrantVenture11 says:

      So if I’m a smart, powerful person who consumes and votes, does that make me a perpetual motion machine?

    2. avatar DanRRZ says:

      I only wish we had more engines here in America. I can’t help but wonder as to the average American’s understandings of research methodology and how figures like the one above are absolutely worthless.

      There seems to be a real problem with taking statistics at face value without a clue on how to work backwards through the manner in which the number was derived to see if any useful generalizations can be made.

      1. avatar VAgunguy says:

        I didn’t realize how much BS these were until i took a college statistics class

      2. avatar Don says:

        Most of the engines we build here now are made with foreign parts, and then we send them over to benefit their home countries.

        Domestic parts would rather be made into lawyers and financial instrument salesmen and politicians who are more like a parasitic loss mechanism and a dragging on the national vehicle.

    3. avatar surlycmd says:

      Apparently not so smart people vote more for dumb people.

    4. avatar Dyspeptic says:

      “I wonder if they realize they lose credibility with smart people when they publish stuff like this”

      No they don’t, but it doesn’t matter. The people who run the civilian disarmament complex are themselves quite smart. They often have Ivy League degrees and high IQ’s (Josh Sugarman is not dumb, just dishonest and misguided). Being smart is no defense against believing stupid ideas and it doesn’t mean you are immune to irrational thinking, especially if it is emotionally satisfying. Aside from that, their goal is to bamboozle the ignorant, low information voter into accepting the myths of gun control. They aren’t after the smart voter, it’s the stupid voter they need because there are lots of them.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        And by the way, an awful lot of “smart” people still believe socialism and communism are the perfect political systems, if you only let THEM decide how to make it work.

        You may or may not be able to educate “smart” people out of their delusions, but you can’t fix stupid.

        1. avatar Don says:

          Lol, those aren’t smart people. Lots of idiots have PhDs and lots of smart people never set foot in a college.


      2. avatar Mad Max says:

        I work at a university. I am surrounded by PhDs on a daily basis.

        They may be especially smart in a specific discipline but most have no common sense and are out of touch with reality.

  3. avatar Bret says:

    Well at least they finally learned how to keep their finger off the trigger in anti gun propaganda.

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      I saw that too. Someone in the anti crowd is actually learning from us despite themselves.

      Let’s not tutor them too much. It’s preferable they look like the fools they are.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Don’t anybody tell them to point the gun away from their head…

  4. avatar Freeheel says:

    Interestingly, in countries where women can’t vote or express their opinions, 100% of them are happy and satisfied……..

    1. avatar Tom says:


    2. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      and men in those countries find Burkas and a little ankle showing sexy. . . . .

    3. avatar Venator Magnus says:

      The “multicultural” movement wants the world to become Saudi Arabia.

      Look how well it’s worked in Europe.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        That’s not necessarily what they want, but it’s what they’ll get. Are getting.

  5. avatar ensitue says:

    so in Chicago there are NO gun deaths?

    1. avatar BillF says:

      Or NYC.

  6. avatar Mk10108 says:

    I’ve finally had enough. When Demand Action rolls into Chicago approaches hard core gang members, unarmed, on the street and demands the end of violence every day for 6 months will I give any credibility to the organization.

    Zero chance of that happening.

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      If they roll into Chicago and approach hard core gang members, unarmed, they might get their “Demand” answered in a not to pleasant fashion.

    2. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      zero chance of them making it out of Chicago alive if they try that . . . .

  7. avatar ErrantVenture11 says:

    But how many are stabbed/beaten to death? You know, because bullets make you so much more deader than a knife or baseball bat.

    If there isn’t a similar infographic out TOMORROW by the NRA, SAF, or some other organization to point out that overall violence against women by their “intimate partner” is not affected by background checks, then we’re failing.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      No, that would be validating and encouraging those harpies.

  8. avatar racer88 says:

    68% of statistics are made up on the spot. 🙂

    1. avatar Alex Peters says:

      Sex Panther – “60% of the time it works…every time”

  9. avatar cwp says:

    Why have we not opened the NICS yet? If I had the ability to verify whether someone buying a gun from me in a private sale was forbidden by law from owning a gun, I would absolutely do so — and I think most sellers would, even in the absence of an intrusive and unenforceable mandate.

    If there are privacy issues, let’s get them on the table so we can fix them. But the NICS is a resource that could, and should, be used to help address the issues that the MDA crowd claim to be concerned with. If they won’t accept anything less than a de facto universal registration scheme, they at least ought to have to explain why they refuse to support a “sensible, life-saving compromise.”

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      NICS is a closed system because it’s not about the check, it’s about the 4473. The ATF can force FFLs to keep the 4473 under threat of loss of licence. But it can’t force private sellers to maintain the records, and that’s what the ATF really wants.

      1. avatar sid says:


      2. avatar cwp says:

        Understood — my question was more rhetorical than actual (hence the reference to de facto universal registration). What I’m getting at is, isn’t this something that we should be hammering MDA and their ilk on? Isn’t it something pro-gun politicians should be forcing anti-gunners to either vote for, or appear hypocritical for refusing to support a measure that could actually pass? It seems like a win-win for us; I’d actually be pleased if the NICS opened up, and if the Senate refuses to pass it or the President refuses to sign it, their supporters will be demoralized and their opposition will be energized.

  10. avatar CT Resident says:

    Clever Ad, use a little fact and a lot of bias! It reminds me of Biden’s comment about “garden variety slap” in reference to domestic violence. They don’t care about domestic violence if a gun isn’t involved. They are in effect saying violence is ok if no guns are involved. “Fewer women shot to death by intimate partners” It implies they are fully aware of stabbings, beating, asphyxiations, poisonings, and burnings, but lack of interest about non gun related deaths. Internal to their ad is their concern with “gun deaths” but lack concern for the problem of domestic violence. It is so twisted.

  11. avatar KevinMA says:

    Here in MA only 29% of female murders are by firearm, so yes, you’re less likely to be shot, but dead is dead.

  12. avatar Taylor Tx says:

    Unfortunately, as we POTG ALL know, the relevancy and truth of statistics are important when emotion is involved. They could write that 150% of gun sales lead anything, the truth will not set them free.

  13. avatar Alex Peters says:

    Curious to know the stats on how many women use a gun to protect themselves from an abusive “intimate partner”.

  14. avatar Howdy says:

    How’s that 90% working out for them?

  15. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    63% of statistics are 42% accurate.

  16. avatar Jeremy says:

    And ~100% of football teams that take a knee to end the game win.

    Try taking a knee when you’re down 21 and see if confusing causation and correlation helps you there.

  17. avatar A-Rod says:

    Looks like a Glock 26 with a pinkie extension. Some people should ‘Man Up’ and practice shooting like you are going to carry. OHHHH! Ya’ll are talking about the text. I was too fixated on the firearm. sorry.

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      actully, I think it is a Glock 30 . . . . that is no pinkie extension. I have several for my G26.

      1. avatar A-Rod says:

        Thanks for the correction.

  18. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    {sigh} no pictures of Shannon Watts.

  19. avatar Bob says:

    How about background checks on intimate partners?

    Seems to me the gun is not the root cause; the shitbag abusing their intimate partner is the problem. Me thinks someone was raised wrong. Someone let those MDA folks konw that they’re failing.

    I’m sure this goes both ways man v woman and woman v man but only one targets their demographic and the resultant emotions.

    1. avatar CT Resident says:

      If you accept that correlation is causation, it points to intimacy as the cause of death.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        And there you have it! Quick, to the cloisters…

  20. avatar Hank says:

    Sounds to me more like an argument for Date-Control. Apparently women should run background checks on their “intimate partners”.

  21. avatar TheSleeperHasAwakened says:

    Typical divide-and-conquor tactic……pit women against men to try and win the gun debate.

    The only counter is to unite women and men against the Anti-Gun crowd.

  22. avatar Kelly in GA says:

    So many words, so little said.

  23. avatar Chip says:

    The joy of twitter and hashtags like that….. You can use them to counter-broadcast information.

    “Because a restraining order is just a piece of paper. #savewomenslives

    If you cut and paste that http bit of short code you can see the ‘updated’ infographic I made.

  24. avatar JoshuaS says:

    It is my firm belief, that crime stats comparisons are almost entirely worthless. There are many many factors that arguably affect crime. Crowded or sparse, rich or poor, families or deadbeats. One would like to clone a city and change nothing except make one pro-gun, one anti-gun and then compare. But even then, the effect of any particular gun law (or lack thereof) cannot be determined.

    So let us assume, arguendo, that proportionately, fewer women are shot to death by “intimate partners” in say California. Is that because of virtually universal background checks? Or is it because fewer households have a gun? Or is it because partners are less likely to use a gun due to noise in a more crowded environment? Or ad nauseam.

    So I propose this. Rather than looking at generic comparisons between places that differ wildly in other aspects, look at the general trends in each. E.g. Britain has always had a far lower murder rate than the US….but ours has been steadily dropping, theirs have hit higher than the average for the last century. The trend shows betterment here, things getting worse there. This while we have more carrying and owning guns than before, and they less. Even here we cannot attribute the trend to just gun laws. But it undermines a correspondence of more guns=more violence.

    Anyhow, no way of easily checking the random assertion even on the face of it. And what exactly is UBC? In one sense, only California and RI have UBC, whereas other states have background checks for gunshows, say. But in any case, is the population of the 2-15 states, I don’t know, equal to the combined of the rest, less than it, more than it? If less, say 38% less, there would be, with an equal rate of incidences, 38% FEWER women shot…

    Chicago had 27% fewer murders than the entire state of California. So Chicago is safer, right? But its murder rate is almost 4 times higher. They want to assert less of a chance of getting killed. But what they state is just a matter of fewer. Which means nothing. Most states do not have UBC. So, yes such stats will be FEWER as there are FEWER people for them to apply to.

  25. avatar Tom says:

    Even if that claim was true, someone who is determined to harm a “intimate partner” will find other ways. The kitchen for example has plenty of items that can be used with lethal results.

    Interesting to note that this group doesnt acknowledge that women also shoot “intimate partners”

  26. avatar int19h says:

    I find it ironic how people here are outraged about “misleading statistics” and such, and happily repeat the oft-quoted “there’s lies and then there’s statistics” when it’s anti-gun, yet immediately bring up similarly poorly verified “more guns, less crime” stats when it’s time to defend 2A.

  27. avatar The Pit Boxer says:

    “38% Fewer women are shot to death by intimate partners”

    My guess is it’s something like a percentage of total firearm murders of women. In those states where there are more restrictive firearm laws and more murders, the rate of women shot by their partners will be lower.

    The percentage of women assaulted by their partner is 99% less on the streets of Chicago than on Main Street in Disneyland.

  28. avatar JoshuaS says:

    I just realize I made a mistake. It should have been Chicago has 73% fewer murders than California, yet 4 times the murder rate (Chicago: 516 murders, California: 1884, or 19.1 per 100k versus 5.0 per 100k ) I can both say there were fewer murders in Chicago and Chicago has a much higher murder rate. Saying “fewer” means nothing without any sense of proportion

  29. avatar Mike Crognale says:

    They are traitors. They lie. Next question.

  30. avatar Pat says:

    Stop voting for these libtard (democrat) monsters.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email