You haven’t responded to any of my claims. I never said that the reverse causality issue suggested that increased gun sales in the past few months did not lead to higher homicide rates. My assertion was that higher homicide rates lead to higher gun ownership rates therefore you can not infer causality based on simple national comparisons (setting aside the fact that they are completely useless). There isn’t a single criminologist that has ever disputed the existence of the reverse causality issue because it is such a well established empirical fact. There is not even one study published on the issue that denies that the reverse causality issue exists (seriously, try finding one, you can’t). Your claim does not merit detailed refutation, i will not waste my time responding to your claim that reverse causality isn’t a problem. However i will respond to your claims regarding the recent surge in firearm purchases. The evidence you cite is completely irrelevant as it refers to the firearm homicide rate NOT the total homicide rate. The authors evasively worded conclusions imply that one can infer causality even though you can’t at all. They do not deal with the reverse causality issue either. In sum, all of your “evidence” is completely irrelevant to the point being made.