Actually it means that both the "math was done right".. and that the comparison is a valid one.
Explain your understanding of the statistical context of "control"
And how this could possibly be applied to Mexico in a comparison relating to gun control
Sure. Many other factors are potentially "intervening variables"..when it comes to violent crime. In other words..there are multiple other things that may contribute to violent crime. For example poverty.. or rural vs urban.. or cultural aspects like inequality/inequity.
So.. you take lets say a comparison of Canada with the US. Well.. we are very close when it comes to violent crime. we have a lot of intervening variables that we share... and we also don't have large differences in our gun control really. It becomes very difficult to try and figure out which variable has the most influence on violent crime. You see a difference and assume that it must be gun control because that's what you want to believe..
But any scientific researcher would understand that it could be the difference in rural vs urban.. it could be due to the safety nets they have in place.. it could be due to not having as much inequity or cultural issues etc.. that would account for the differences in violent crime.
Now.. you take comparing Mexico and the US.
Mexico.. has a very very disparate gun control law than the US.. and Canada by the way. They only have ONE lawful gun store in the WHOLE COUNTRY. Their gun laws are draconian compared to the US.
And their other variables.. like inequity.. like poverty,, are much higher than the US. SO.. the high inequity.. and high poverty.. act as controls... IF gun control was the primary factor in lower violent crime.. then Mexico should have much lower violent crime than the US.. who has much much less gun control. But it doesn't...which means that factors like poverty and inequity.. have a much higher effect on violent crime.
Where's your evidence that gun control is a major factor in reducing crime ?
That's the point.. there is no evidence that it is a major factor.. as evidence by mexico above.
What places are you aware of that saw a significant crime drop after a gun ban ?
See above.
A gun ban reduces GUN crime. Take a look at the UK, guns are hardly ever used in crimes since the last gun legislation of 1997
Bingo. Now there is evidence to support that. However.. as I pointed out.. that statistic is not valid. Yep.. it reduces gun crime. But whats the validity in that statistic.
If you are murdered.. does it really matter if you were killed with a firearm.. or killed by a knife,bat etc?
If you are robbed and your money taken.. does it matter if they used a gun to do it.. or a knife bat etc?
From a validity standpoint.. no.. it doesn't matter. From which is safer standpoint.. what matters is violent crime statistics... which include "gun crimes"..
If I live in a community of 10,000 people and we have one murder a year.. and its done with a gun..
And you live in a community of 10,000 people and have 100 murders a year and they are all done with a knife...
I live in a safer community.. despite having higher "gun crime"...
that's just how statistics and validity work. Its the objectivity of science.
That's why even you have admitted that SYRIA and Afghanistan are much deadlier places to live than the US.. despite the fact that they have LOWER gun death rates than the US.
Explained above.
If gun ownership reduces violent crime (as the gun lobby says it does), why do Alaska and Arizona have amongst the highest violent crime in the USA ?
Because other factors than gun ownership (lots of gun ownership OR very little gun ownership) .. have a much greater effect on violent crime. Which is why we should focus our resources on those things that have greater influence on violent crime.. rather than on diverting needed resources on firearms.. which has very little evidence to suggest it has an effect on violent crime.
What studies have you done in statistics since High School ? Any ?
Well considering that I used to teach statistics to college students and masters degree students.. and that I have been published in peer reviewed journals.. I would bet on my statistics credibility. Look.. just go take what I said to anyone that actually understands statistics and they will tell you I am correct. Especially when we discuss validity of gun deaths etc.