you can't find broad academic consensus against me- more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun contr

Pro has taken the lazy route. Rather than directly addressing the data presented before him of showing that more guns did not equal more crime, hes chosen to rely on a copy and paste method of providing links and referencing not 1 of these links individually. The information I have provided yet to be addressed or dispelled with other data has shown cases in Ireland, Jamaica, the U.K. and DC where an absence of guns and gun control measures, has only seen homicide rates rise during various years and in general. Keep in mind pro specifically stated: "gun control correlates with less homicide" if this statement were true, there would be 3 countries I could pull from where after gun control measures were taken, homicide rates went up as well as my mention of the D.C. area. Pro is so lazy with his argument it didn't seem they even read their own articles In pro's harvard study it is stated: "found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide" a risk factor. keep in mind pros original contention is that "more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun control correlates with less homicide". This source fails to mention anything about homicide rates being on the rise but that death by gun is more likely in an area where guns are owned. This is like saying death by the sword is more likely in places where all citizens own swords. naturally it will be the tool of choice. pro did not mention in his Harvard link that "After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide." pro never made any statement that any kinds of controls were necessary to make the data look the way he wants it to. However Harvard not being dishonest about their methods makes this quite clear. If more guns in an area automatically always means more homicides then why do they need to control for poverty and urbanization pro? Again we see that "after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty)." why would one need to account for these variables and remove these homicide figures? Its probably because your case would fail. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu... apart. Homicide rates are still prone to rise guns or no guns. pros American Journal of Medicine citation: "Among the 27 developed countries, there was a significant positive correlation between guns per capita per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths " Again we have firearm related deaths cited. This has nothing to do with an overall homicide rate. Specifics are not even mentioned. Vox citation "There is actually no simple correlation between states' homicide rates and their gun-ownership rates or gun laws," VerBruggen wrote. "This has been shown numerous times, by different people, using different data sets." In fact there is a rather brilliant chart here contained in pros own article that disproves pro's assertion. It is located just below the 2nd paragraph of this very article. No correlation whatsoever. http://www.vox.com... In pros thinkprogress article again it is stated that controls must be used. Even race... "age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate" I find it interesting that race/ethnicity would have anything to do with more guns=more homicide. Or any of these other cases for that manner. Again Pro went out of his way to specifically state: "more guns corerlates to more homicide" yet as mentioned before pro never took the position there would be a need to account for any variables. Pro wants you to just think its a simple equation where more guns = more homicide. Guess what the study is based on by the way? "No good data on national rates of gun ownership exist (partly because of the NRA"s stranglehold on Congress), so the authors used the percentage of suicides that involve a firearm (FS/S) as a proxy. The theory, backed up by a wealth of data, is that the more guns there are any in any one place, the higher the percentage of people who commit suicide with guns as opposed to other mechanisms will be." Now if by the authors admittance there is no good data on national rates of gun ownership, how can anyone claim to know if there is a higher rate of gun ownership in this place as to that place? This theory that is in place is to use suicides as a proxy. I thought this debate was about homicide rates? Care to mention any at all? I find this particular chart interesting that pro posted: http://www.motherjones.com... Not only is it a scatter plot some random individual just chose to draw a nonsensical line through that hits almost no data points but also in it you will find for example that South Dakoda has a 60% gun ownership and roughly 9 gun deaths per 100,000 Yet in the same chart Maryland with its 23% gun ownership has roughly 10 gun deaths per 100,000 Now the chart itself has nothing to do with the debate as this is about homicide rates however whatever point pro was trying to make and I'm interested in hearing it, We have a clear example of a state having about 3 times the ownership and 10% less gun deaths per 100,000. But again pro stated "more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun control correlates with less homicide" Maryland had 33.8 per 100,000 and South Dakota had 2.3 http://www.city-data.com... http://www.disastercenter.com... It would appear either pro was hoping to cover this fact up, or was simply too lazy to actually investigate the rates of all 50 states and rather chose to paint everything with a broad brush. South Dakota has about 3 times the amount of gun ownership and about 15 times less murders. Again I remind everyone what pro said: "more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun control correlates with less homicide" again pro's link does nothing in the way of showing an increase in the homicide rate "it was found that states with a greater availability of firearms had higher firearm suicide rates and higher firearm homicide rates." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... In this link yet again we find the suicide rate with guns being used to determine gun ownership which has no proven value https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... In this link hunting licenses are used to determine gun ownership. Did they ever stop to think that most people who own guns don't go hunting? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Another link that has nothing to do with Pros original statement: "We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates" Here we find nothing of value AGAIN http://heinonline.org... In this very link again nothing is talked about except gun related homicides. http://tewksburylab.org... would pro like to explain what those 9 other countries with about 1/10th the guns are doing with far more deaths? As I said Pro took the lazy route and got caught. Pro still needs to find any evidence this statement is true in every case: "more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun control correlates with less homicide" Also pro still has not elaborated a word on all the data presented in my original argument...