Disordered Post Hoc
How a Gun Controller Pretends Post Dunblane U.K. Laws Were Effective
by dischord
(distribution permitted and encouraged)

There is a logical fallacy called Post Hoc, which is short for the Latin hrase “post hoc ergo propter hoc.” Loosely translated, that means, “One event followed another, so the first caused the second.” Consider the following sentence, and you’ll understand how this fallacy works. “I wore these socks and won the game; therefore, the socks helped me win the game.”

Gun controllers often take this fallacy one step further to what I call Disordered Post Hoc. Not only do they make a Post Hoc error, they get the order wrong. An event is somehow caused by a later event. You’ll see this especially with their claims about England ? they pretend that low murder rates followed gun control when, in fact, the rates already existed before gun control.

This Disordered Post Hoc is at the center of a Dunblane laws “fact” sheet floating around written by some fellow named Philip Alpers who fancies himself a “gun policy researcher? (Dunblane laws are those enacted after that madman shot up a school in Dunblane Scotland in 1996). Alpers April 2000 “fact” sheet is at various places, including the Bell Campaign (Million Moms) web site at http://www.bellcampaign.org/fact/Pubs/britishguncrime.htm .

Alpers writes, ?As the UK handgun ban took effect, the most closely related category of crime also dropped: ?The number of handgun offences…fell by 21% in 1997, near which level they have remained?? (his ellipses; he?s quoting the UK home office in the latter half).

Read that carefully: “As the UK handgun ban took effect.” Laws don’t cause change simultaneous to their passage; they cause change afterwards. The ban was passed in id 1997. As Alpers states elsewhere in his “fact” sheet, the confiscation program took until March 1998. How can the 1997 drop be attributed to a 1997 law (a piece of paper) that took until 1998 to put into effect?

Further, look at the last clause: “near which level they have remained.” This means handgun offenses **did not drop** after 1997 ? they stayed at the same level that they were the year the ban was passed. Since the true measure of a law is what happens *after* its passage, then we have to conclude from this that ? at best ? it had no effect.

Now, consider this sentence from Alpers’ “fact” sheet: “The number of gun-related deaths has also declined markedly. In 1998/99, 49 people were victims of firearm homicide in Britain, down 66% since 1993.”

1993? 1993?? 1993????

What does a measurement from 1993 have to do with the effectiveness of a ban passed in 1997 and not fully effected until 1998? What this sentence shows is that there already was a downward trend in gun homicides prior to the law, raising doubt as to whether it was the Dunblane laws or the already existing trend that was responsible for any decline after 1997.

In fact look at the numbers for all the years, from 1993, and we see that the downward trend preceded the Dunblane laws http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-056.pdf)

Gun Homicides
1993 – - – 74
1994 – - – 66
1995 – - – 70
1996 – - – 49
1997 – - – 59
1998 – - – 49 (Alpers’ number, not in my source)

But what strikes me is the focus on “crimes involving guns” rather than crime overall. Does a reduction in “gun related homicides” translate into a reduction in murders overall? That?s important, after all: Small consolation to the family of a victim “lucky” enough to be stabbed to death rather than shot.

In fact ? leaving aside that the trend has nothing to do with the Dunblane laws ? the downward trend in gun murders did not equal a reduction in murder overall.

Overall Homicides (% by gun)
1993 – - – 565 (13%)
1994 – - – 632 (10%)
1995 – - – 663 (10%)
1996 – - – 584 (10%)
1997 – - – 650 (9%)

For 1993 to 1997, despite a nearly 34% drop in gun homicides, there was a 15% increase in overall homicides. Gun murders simply become a lower percentage of overall crimes ? it looks like the theory of weapon substitution played out.

Not only does Alpers’ make a Disordered Post Hoc argument, he makes the worst of all gun controller mistakes: forgetting that the goal is saving lives overall.