This is a serious question and something that has been bothering me. I'm baffled by what antis often present as evidence. For instance Piers Morgan likes to throw out the comparison between the US murder rate and the UK's as evidence that guns laws reduce crime. When I hear stuff like that I instantly think about if you what to show the effect a policy has you have to show change over time, otherwise it tells you nothing. Maybe their murder rate got worse and ours got better as a result. Still you'd have to control for certain factors to attribute any causation. I think that should be blatantly obvious. Other examples are anecdotal evidence like how during the Giffords shooting they were able to take him out during a mag change. Similarly, the fact that the last few shooting were done by AR-15s is used as evidence that they lead to either more mass shootings or more people dead. Do people not realize that this is statistically meaningless? I find it disturbing because not only are these people pushing for a sweeping national prohibition on equipment they are ignorant about but often what they present as evidence for it should be absurd to anyone educated in calculus, statistics or just basic logic. I'm not making a pro-2A argument in this post. I'm not asking about their intentions. I'm seriously asking, are most antis oblivious to these concepts?