Science Provides Few Facts On Effects Of Gun Policies, Report Finds

[C C]

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/03/g...ationships

EXCERPT: . . . For decades, social scientists and other researchers have pointed to a profound, and purposeful, lack of federal funding for gun research and a lack of federal data-gathering on guns as enormous impediments to studying gun violence. The federal government has spent much less on research into gun violence than on similarly lethal issues, such as motor vehicle crashes, liver disease and sepsis.

"Most of the effects that we were looking for evidence on, we didn't find any evidence," says Andrew Morral, a behavioral scientist at RAND and the leader of the project.

They found, for example, no clear evidence regarding the effects of any gun policies on hunting and recreational gun use, or on officer-involved shootings, or on mass shootings or on the defensive use of guns by civilians.

There were some categories with better data, however, Morral says. There is relatively strong evidence, for example, that policies meant to prevent children from getting access to firearms — such as laws that require guns to be stored unloaded, or in locked containers — reduce both suicide and unintentional injury and death.

Previous work has also found that places that require a permit (issued by law enforcement) for the purchase a firearm do reduce violent crime.

There is also some evidence that prohibitions against purchase by people who have been diagnosed with mental illness reduce violent crime, and that "stand your ground" laws, which allow citizens who feel threatened in public to use lethal force without retreating first, lead to an increase in violent crime.

In general, however, good studies were few and far between, the RAND researchers say....

MORE: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/03/g...ationships

[Syne]

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/03/g...ationships

EXCERPT: . . . For decades, social scientists and other researchers have pointed to a profound, and purposeful, lack of federal funding for gun research and a lack of federal data-gathering on guns as enormous impediments to studying gun violence. The federal government has spent much less on research into gun violence than on similarly lethal issues, such as motor vehicle crashes, liver disease and sepsis.

How similarly lethal?

Septicemia - 40,773 (2015)
Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis - 40,326 (2015)
Source: National Center for Health Statistics.
All motor vehicle accidents - 35,398 (2014)
Assault by firearm - 10,945 (2014)
Firearms discharge (accidental) - 586 (2014)
Source: National Center for Health Statistics; National Safety Council.

Not very.

"Most of the effects that we were looking for evidence on, we didn't find any evidence," says Andrew Morral, a behavioral scientist at RAND and the leader of the project.

They found, for example, no clear evidence regarding the effects of any gun policies on hunting and recreational gun use, or on officer-involved shootings, or on mass shootings or on the defensive use of guns by civilians.

"...the effects of these laws on defensive gun use...have not been evaluated rigorously."
- https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html

There were some categories with better data, however, Morral says. There is relatively strong evidence, for example, that policies meant to prevent children from getting access to firearms — such as laws that require guns to be stored unloaded, or in locked containers — reduce both suicide and unintentional injury and death.

And safety training. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-acci...story.html

"How much have accidental shooting deaths declined? Lee figures that, adjusted for population growth, it fell by about half from 1999 to 2015 (from 824 to 489). Looking back as far as 1981, when 1,871 people died that way and again adjusting for population change, the rate of accidental shooting deaths has dropped over five-fold. Meanwhile, the number of civilian firearms owned in America rose from perhaps 173 million in 1981 to over 350 million by 2015. Looked at as a proportion of guns available, the reduction in accidental shooting deaths, as from shootings overall, is even more dramatic.
...
State laws “requiring” guns and ammunition to be stored locked up are becoming more popular, mostly in blue states, but there has been no evidence for any reduction in shootings of any kind because of them. Just as laws banning certain forms of consenting adult interactions never did, neither can they dictate what people do in the privacy of their own homes with their guns. This is a fool’s errand, the kind that “people control” is all about.

The much-touted “drop in the number of households that have guns” comes from generic surveys about crime experience and lifestyle in which touching upon gun ownership often arises incidentally in pursuing other primary lines of inquiry. There have been no reliable, focused analyses of household gun ownership done, and this is unlikely to be possible. We do know that gun owners have become understandably more reluctant over time to answer such questions, whether asked by strangers taking surveys, their physicians or on any record. Just as registration is a precondition for confiscation, we know that identification is a precondition for registration."
- https://drgo.us/why-have-accidental-shoo...plummeted/

Previous work has also found that places that require a permit (issued by law enforcement) for the purchase a firearm do reduce violent crime.

No, it actually says "The evidence from this study is consistent with the hypothesis that PTP laws restrict criminals’ use handguns in violent crime and the findings above on homicides." - https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-a...-brief.pdf
Dishonestly conflating violent crime in general with gun crime.

There is also some evidence that prohibitions against purchase by people who have been diagnosed with mental illness reduce violent crime, and that "stand your ground" laws, which allow citizens who feel threatened in public to use lethal force without retreating first, lead to an increase in violent crime.

Self-defense is not a violent crime. "A committee analyzing the Florida statute has found no increase in violence as a result of the law." - https://www.npr.org/2013/01/02/167984117...n-homicide

[Magical Realist]

Self-defense is not a violent crime. "A committee analyzing the Florida statute has found no increase in violence as a result of the law."

Au contrare cherrypicker..

From the same article:

"Hoekstra recently decided to analyze national crime statistics to see what happens in states that pass stand your ground laws. He found the laws are having a measurable effect on the homicide rate.

"Our study finds that, that homicides go up by 7 to 9 percent in states that pass the laws, relative to states that didn't pass the laws over the same time period," he says.

As to whether the laws reduce crime — by creating a deterrence for criminals — he says, "we find no evidence of any deterrence effect over that same time period....

Stanford law professor John Donohue, on the other hand, praised the study done by Texas A&M's Hoekstra. Donohue has been studying crime and violence for more than two decades and is working on his own independent analysis of stand your ground laws. So far, he says, he's getting the same results Hoekstra did.

"The imperfect but growing evidence seems to suggest that the consequences of adopting stand your ground laws are pernicious, in that they may lead to a greater number of homicides — thus going against the notion that they are serving some sort of protective function for society," he says."

[Syne]

Still from the same article:

"It's important to remember that the data Hoekstra is analyzing depend on how police classify shootings. Police guidelines likely vary from state to state, and police in different places may be interpreting shootings differently in light of stand your ground laws."

And that study was obviously flawed. Not only did it only mention 20 out of the 24 states that enacted what he collectively calls "castle doctrine" laws during his time period, but one of the states mentioned didn't even pass such laws during that same period. Nor even were all the laws he conveniently lumped together the same ones he cited as reasons the homicides increased, like civil liability protection. He includes burglary, even though self-defense may increase property crime while reducing violent crime.

[Magical Realist]

And that study was obviously flawed. Not only did it only mention 20 out of the 24 states

Trivial...20 states is enough.

[Syne]

Not when they are comparing the aggregate.