Except that people on this thread have been arguing that the negative correlation between increased gun ownership and incident rate of violent crime does not disprove that increased gun ownership increases violent crime. A completely different argument than arguing that increased gun ownership decreases violent crime. While the fact of increased gun ownership coupled with decreased violent crime does not prove that it causes the decrease, it does prove that it does not cause it to increase. People are arguing that this is flawed logic. It is not. While it is still possible that increased gun ownership may contribute to increased violent crime (A position I believe is wrong), it is clear that it does not cause it.

Incumbents are not using public campaign finance. They are sending out information to their constituents about laws that have been passed. They are appearing at ribbon cutting ceremonies. They are mentioned in news articles about laws they proposed. They are mentioned in news articles about current events. You cannot prevent incumbents from gaining publicity due to the fact that they are in office without making them completely unaccountable for their actions.

However, they have increased in cities which enact tougher gun laws and decrease faster in cities which loosen their gun laws.

What other factors need to be controlled for? In order for your argument to carry weight, you must propose factors that might account for the observed facts in such a way as to support the theory. It is not enough to say, "Well, there might be unaccounted for variables." You have to specify what those variables are and explain why they might account for the observed facts. Otherwise, I can just say about any discredited scientific theory , "Well, there might be variables which haven't been accounted for."

What confounding factors have not been taken into account?

Yes, it is possible that there exist explanations which would allow the preservation of the theory, just as in the time of Copernicus there existed explanations which allowed the preservation of the theory that the sun circled the earth. However, it is not enough to say, "There could be explanations." You have to actually propose what those explanations are. At this point, the burden of proof rests on those who claim that increased gun ownership leads to increased violent crime. It is possible that they are correct, but the evidence , as currently available, says that they are not. By the standard you are setting, nothing is ever disproven, because there could be variables which have not been taken into account.

Well, there are two ways to reach the OP's conclusion. The first is to examine the history of "campaign finance reform", where you discover that the re-election rate for incumbents has gone UP after the passage of each such bill. The second is to examine the nature of elections. An incumbent can use government funds in order to make his constituents aware of who he is. A challenger, on the other hand, needs to make people aware of who he/she is.

After which they became even more dangerous.

UM, Washington,DC and Chicago both used to have gun laws that basically made it impossible to someone who was not politically connected, or a member of certain other edge case groups, to legally possess a gun within city limits. These gun laws were over turned by the Supreme Court not that many years ago.

No, the negative correlation is not airtight disproof of the claim that increased gun ownership leads to increased violent crime. However, it puts the burden of proof on those who are making the claim that increased gun ownership leads to increased violent crime...and that proof needs to be more than "Well, this could be causing the decrease."

Jane Q Public's argument is sound. If the incidence of X increases while the incidence of Y decreases, X clearly does NOT cause Y. If X causes Y, then when X increases Y must also increase. The conclusion reached by Runaway1956 does not necessarily follow (it is a logical conclusion, although the logic is far from conclusive). Jane Q Public's argument is basic application of the scientific principle. If we have increased gun ownership couple with decreased violent crime, the theory that increased gun ownership leads to increased violent crime is disproven. This is insufficient to prove any other theory (such as that proposed by Runaway1956), but it is sufficient to disprove that theory.

I'm sorry, but I do not trust the assertions of your source. I do not trust the newspaper that still brags about receiving a Pulitzer Prize for denying the Stalin era famines in the Ukraine and promoted Jayson Blair for publishing stories from towns he never visited. Feel free to Google "federal crop insurance" for yourself, rather than rely on sources with a vested interest in promoting climate change alarmism.

The cause of increased payouts for flood insurance is primarily due to the increase of the value of the properties in the flood plain..to the degree that any other contributing factor is insignificant. The cause of increased payouts for federal crop insurance is changes in the law...to the degree that any other contributing factor is insignificant. Neither of these facts mean that global warming is not happening, not do they mean that it is not caused by human activity. What these facts mean is that global warming alarmists are either misinformed or disingenuous to use the increased payouts as evidence of global warming (my bet would be that you are misinformed, but that your sources are disingenuous).

You are right, I have never seen one that for north...but that does not mean that they have not occurred. In fact, in my lifetime hurricanes hitting the northeast U.S. have been at historical lows. Before the 20th century, hurricanes hit the northeast with greater frequency and strength than they have since the middle of the 20th century until now.
The Farm Bill of 2008 drastically changed the way federal crop insurance works, meaning that as a result, payouts have increased. This is a result of a change in the law, not of an increase in damage.

Linux is a strong competitor (or as strong as any competitor can be if no one ports their software to it).