Are we pretending that post hoc, ergo propter hoc is not a fallacy? If a crime has multiple contributing factors, that does not necessarily make any of those f

Are we pretending that post hoc, ergo propter hoc is not a fallacy? If a crime has multiple contributing factors, that does not necessarily make any of those factors a crime in itself. One might as well say that because murder with a firearm is a crime, that possession of bullets should also be considered criminal. It is perfectly reasonable to say that crimes may be related to non-crimes. But in our system, the crime should be defined by objective criteria, or elements, such that a judge and jury can determine whether they exist or not based on evidence and testimony. And while is it possible to define a crime without a victim's complaint as an element, my own opinion is that such laws should be relatively rare, or severely limited in their application and scope.