Research Continues

Lessons From a Lamp Post: Why the numbers don't add up. Part 2 of 4

 

There isn't yet adequate data on the link between gun deaths and gun laws, even though a more recent study suggests that states with the most laws had lower gun-death rates than states with the least number of laws. The authors acknowledge that the research has limitations: “Just because the two factors are present, doesn’t mean that one caused the other”.

 

The researchers and critics agree that this study falls short of proving a direct link between the number of gun laws and gun violence. The study did not include a complete list of gun laws; it does not account for differences between a state’s specific laws; it does not include measures for how hard states work to enforce their laws; and it does not evaluate the effect on the flow of firearms between states with different laws.

 

One of the main points that limit this study’s conclusions is how the rate of firearm ownership in states impacts the correlation of gun laws and gun deaths. States generally fall to either end of the spectrum, strong laws with fewer deaths or weak laws with more deaths. The problem of associating the rate of firearm ownership with the rate of violent deaths is that it’s easier to enact these laws in states that have a low rate of firearm ownership to begin with, because gun ownership is not as important in those states. This study cannot say that these laws, individually or in aggregate, drive firearm death rates up or down.

 

For example: The Brady Campaign named California as the state with the strongest gun control laws in 2011, and yet, according to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's uniform crime reports, California, with a population of about 37 million, had 1,220 gun murders in 2011; 68 percent of all murders for that year, or 3.25 murders per 100,000 people.

 

"What is very unusual is that California also has a program by which guns can be removed or “recovered” from people who subsequently become prohibited from owning firearms. While it might make sense that it would have a high number of murders due to its high population numbers, notice that gun control has not had an impact on gun crime.

 

Texas has a population of about 25.6 million and it had 699 total gun murders in 2011 (nearly half that of California); or 2.91 murders per 100,000 people. The Brady Campaign named Utah, with a population of 2.8 million as the state with the weakest gun controls in 2011, and it experienced 26 gun murders in 2011; or 0.97 murders per 100,000 people. Notice that in Utah gun crime isn’t high like the Brady Campaign might argue, and notice again that gun control is not a predictor of gun crime.

 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation's data also notes that Washington, D.C. had the highest murder rate per 100,000 people. The nation's capital saw 12 gun murders per 100,000 in 2011, even though in 1976 the District of Columbia required all guns be registered, banned new handgun sales and required guns stored at home to be dissembled or locked up. These measures which lasted more than three decades didn't have the desired effect, demonstrating that the tool is not the problem.

 

In 2013, the Wall Street Journal reported, “The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454”.

 

Though it should be noted that the gun murders started decreasing in 1994, once the gun ban was struck down murders in the District went down steadily, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, which is the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976. Today, Washington, D.C. still has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and yet the gun murder rate remains the highest in the United States. Once again, focusing on the tool is not the answer.