Previous Post
Next Post

Professor Michael Siegel (courtesy

Correlation (a connection between two or more things) does not equal causation (cause and effect). For example, per capita cheese consumption correlates closely with the number of people who died by becoming tangled in their bedsheets. It does not necessarily follow that eating cheese in bed increases the risk of becoming tangled in your bedclothes and dying. So when you read this [via] — “American women living in states with high rates of gun ownership are more likely to be shot and killed by someone they know than those residing in states with fewer firearms” — it’s important to skip down a bunch of paragraphs and read this . . .

[Boston University School of Community Health Services professor Michael] Siegel acknowledged that the study doesn’t establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship between greater gun ownership and women’s murders. Other factors may influence the association, he said.

Which kinda makes you wonder why — and the resolutely anti-gun Journal of Violence and Gender — bothered with this “story” in the first place. Any guesses?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. It would be interesting to see some comparisons based on total assaults between gun/nongun states as well as all fatal assaults, not just gun fatal assaults. Strangulation is traditional amongst abusers as I recall.

    • That’s a good point–so much so that in Texas domestic-violence law, an otherwise “ordinary” assault (ie no deadly weapons, no serious injury) is specifically enhanced to a higher-grade offense if it involves grabbing the victim’s throat.

    • But only murders involving guns matter. Focusing on anything else takes the focus away from getting guns banned.

    • Hell yeah, this guy gets it!

      Of course, more guns equal more crime, criminality drop to nearly zero when guns are not present – statics prove it.

      Well, unless you count 1000 coordinated sexual assaults in one night by unarmed Muslim refugees in the statics….

      Which we don’t, because, you know, guns.

    • Another issue is there might be causation but with the reverse causation: Maybe people buy guns because crime is high in their area and they want to defend themselves.

      Finally, of course, crime with guns is not the whole picture of violent crime. If we just take guns away from everyone, are violent men going to stop being violent towards women? No, violent men will just use knives, hands, whatever, and women will be without a gun to defend themselves.

  2. None of these studies acknowledge that an overwhelming majority of these “the person you know” stories include bad outcomes involving a prohibited person. So a woman living with or in close proximity to a prohibited person has a higher chance of being attacked than someone who doesn’t.

    It is also true that most of these kinds of incidents occur in jurisdiction that have been under long term Democratic Party control. Therefore women are more likely to be attacked where Democrats run things. See what I did there?

    • Therefore women are more likely to be attacked where Democrats run things.

      Oh, now that’s rich! It so obvious … I cannot believe I never noticed that. (No sarcasm here.)

      We seriously have to start trumpeting this from the mountain tops. Every time gun-grabbers (which are almost universally democrats) harp about stats, correlations, or women, all we have to do is shout out that women are more likely to be attacked where Democrats have run local politics for decades. Just make sure you are wearing laboratory safety goggles when you say that — heads will be exploding left and right!

  3. There have been several research reports which attempt to link the percentage of households (or people) who own guns in a particular state with the number of “gun deaths” in that state. The percentage of households (or people) with guns was determined by phone surveys. Suppose someone called you on the phone and said they were taking a survey. They also said that your answers would remain anonymous. They then asked if there are any guns in your household, and if so, how many? They also ask if you personally own guns and how many?

    I don’t know very many people who are trusting enough or dumb enough to answer truthfully. The statistics on the number of households and people with guns should be regarded with skepticism and suspicion. The calculations presuming to show correlations are meaningless unless the researchers can prove their survey numbers are accurate. In other words, I call bs.

  4. I have to question the premise that anti-gun articles accomplish anything. Guns sales are all time high, record number of CCW permits issued, crime is down, Bloomberg and Moms are a snickering joke. Anti gun elected representatives are chucked out of office. Space cadet and mumbles voices are a distant echo. Even in CA one can get a permit, which if you apply, one gets bordering states permits as well. Not suggesting we stop the fight cause deep down honest folks know a gun is the only thing between them and a bad guy. The sooner legislators embrace carrying in public the faster we live in a crime free society.

    • Ain’t no such thing as a “crime free society”. You see, despite all the propaganda to the contrary, crime actually does pay.

  5. The civilian disarmament movement doesn’t really conduct research, so much as engage in the statistical equivalent of CIA interrogations, where numbers are tortured until they tell them what they want to hear.

  6. “American women living in states with low rates of gun ownership are more likely to be beaten to death or strangled by someone they know than those residing in states that allow women to defend themselves.”

    It’s crazy world and I’m here to help.

  7. Because he is an educated idiot , trying to blind folks with bull, while wanting others to appreciate his advanced level of educated idiotness.

  8. I amazed at how many years people were killed by their bedsheets. We have to do something! Maybe lower the thread count levels?

  9. Facts at the end of an article with an obvious agenda are meant to be ignored.
    It’s just common sense.

  10. It’s pretty flimsy if not outright meant to be deceptive. How does the prevalence of gun ownership in a community increase one’s chances of getting shot by another specific individual? I think it’s just as earth shattering as saying that if you live in a snowy state, you are more likely to slip in the driveway of someone you know.

  11. lol. Chemistry and statistics are my grift, and you would be amazed at the number of people who abuse both disciplines! The so-called “News” agencies are the worst, with Reuiters leading the pack by a nose.


  12. goddamn RF that was a funny as analogy, i seriously laughed out loud. MOTHERS FOR EATING CHEESE IN BED SENSE IN AMERICA!!!!!

  13. It makes you wonder why they even did that study in the first place. I really wish there was a way to know if they’re being deceptive or if they’re just dumb.

Comments are closed.