Did I ever claim the LA Times article wasn't pro gun control? Yet they still stopped short of reaching the conclusions that you seem to find so self-evident.

Let's look at the qualifiers in your quoted material:

"... probably plays a major role ..."

"... perhaps due to ..."

"... may also be down ..."

"... could also reflect ..."

In other words, it's speculation. Lacking your crystal ball, these professional journalists are reluctant to make unsupported claims. Pay attention and learn.


Nowhere did I make such a claim. I believe that it's an important reason, but neither I nor you have the data to conclusively determine the relative importance of the various causes.

I'm no longer inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt on your misrepresentations. Let's call them something else, shall we? How about prevarication?