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.

Breaking News

Who's in Charge

Lessons From a Lamp Post: Why the numbers don't add up. Part 1 of 4

 

Until I joined the Navy I had never carried a hand gun, but while I was there I became comfortable with my semi-automatic side arm. After the Navy my first gun was a used single-action revolver my brother gave me. I shot it a lot, mostly on camping trips where I wore it out so I put it away. After quite a few years I purchased a new semi-automatic pistol and started shooting again. Now my options to own and use a firearm are being threatened by the Government that is supposed to be protecting my Constitutional Rights, and that makes me uneasy.

 

My relationship to firearms might have ended after the Navy if I was not convinced of their necessity. It hasn't happened overnight, but over time and especially in the last few years my Western liberal sensibilities while intact on other issues have shifted strongly in favor of firearm ownership and preparedness. I lived for years with a simple pump shotgun, with very little fear of the unknown intruder, but now I recognize other less obvious threats.

 

One concern is the days of à la carte politics seem to be over, if they ever existed, because of the growing divide in our Government. Any parent will tell you that children are rarely able to compromise, and this is exemplified by the far right with their unrealistic pronouncements arguing with the far left about their unsustainable goals. These are the children currently debating the solution to firearm violence in America and the Constitutional Rights of all Americans.

Missing Ingredient

Reality Check

The Sandy Hook School Shooting: The tragedy and the lesson. Part 4 of 4

I read an excellent article about school shootings that was very interesting, well researched, and well presented, but it was historical in nature dealing with ten years of school shootings prior to 2001. The results presented in this article concluded that bullying, not mental health, was the primary cause of school shootings. Those that support gun rights may or may not be off base about mental health being the primary cause, but everyone desperately needs to understand why kids are shooting kids. In any case, it’s almost a given that someone psychologically prepared to kill innocent people is suffering from some form of mental illness.

 

I would like to see a follow up study like this one done for mass shootings since 2001. For example: The Aurora Theater shooter had stopped seeing his psychiatrist. Thirty days prior to the shooting his doctor “reported to a police officer that her patient had confessed homicidal thoughts and was a danger to the public”, and he was threatening her in text messages and emails. The Sandy Hook School shooter was evidently aware of [his mother’s] petitioning the court for conservatorship and (her) plans to have him committed”. Even though it’s unclear whether his mother was really filing the paperwork because the records are sealed, his attack on the school children is understood to have been because he “believed she cared more for the school children than she did for him”.

 

A friend of mine works for a nearby police department directing a television program called Make the Call about unsolved crimes. On this show the families and friends of murder victims are interviewed, giving us a personal account of the drive-by shootings, gang shootings, and seemingly random shootings so common in this area. He contends that some of the victims were wonderful loving people and some were not, but we must never forget that they all had people who loved them.

 

The tragedy is that these people, or others, lost their way before they lost their lives and the hope is that viewers with helpful information will call an anonymous tip hotline. Ignoring the causes of these situations, I would agree that the grief of the families and friends is palpable and understandable. It is a sobering reality check that the one injured or killed by gun violence is not the only victim of the crime. It naturally inspires in us the desire to do what is possible to prevent this kind of violence.

 

I concur with the thoughts and analysis by Steven Pinkers and Chris Uggen who say, “A narrow focus on stopping mass shootings is less likely to produce beneficial changes than a broader-based effort to reduce homicide and other violence. These rare and terrible crimes are like rare and terrible diseases, and a strategy to address them is best considered within the context of more common and deadlier threats to population health.”

 

“We are compelled to pay attention to extreme events and we estimate risk with these vivid examples, but as much as we should try to prevent these horrific events from taking place we should not use them as the sole basis for making inferences that determine policy. The outliers are a tragic part of the overall story, but we must pay attention to the rest of the distribution.” Whether the cause of the more recent shootings is bullying or mental health, that is where the focus needs to be: Focusing on the tool is still not the answer.

Speak Up

The Big Mistake

The Sandy Hook School Shooting: The tragedy and the lesson. Part 3 of 4

There are a lot of reasons a firearm feels right in my hand but one of most important is the protection of my family. I hope I never have to use one for this purpose and I doubt I ever will, but I am my family’s last line of defense. I have chosen to meet this responsibility, in part by being armed and prepared. I disagree that “most criminals are not violent”, but I recognize that most of them do not want a confrontation. Interviews with prison inmates confirm, “If they know a gun is in the home they will pick another target”. Unfortunately, using window stickers to advertise the presence of firearms or the intent to use one for home defense isn’t acceptable behavior at this time.

 

In the weeks since Newtown Connecticut, I’ve watched news feeds full of dispatches divorced from reality. Almost everyone seems to be making the same mistake, focusing their anger on the tool instead of the problem. When a deranged bomber kills people we blame the bomber, when a drunk driver kills people we blame the driver, but when a disturbed shooter kills people we blame the gun. Some go so far as to insist that a world with exactly zero guns in it would be a safer place, even though that’s never going to happen, and although it seems intuitive I seriously doubt that it’s true.

 

For now, with one side calling firearm owners “a bunch of inbred rednecks” and the other side labeling everyone as “gun grabbing liberals” there hasn’t been much in the way of rational discussion. I can't stand the anti-government, partisan rants, and one sided arguments found on some radio stations, so I listen to National Public Radio and Catholic Radio; but although I agree with most of what I hear I don't agree with their positions on gun control.

 

Lots of people on both sides of the aisle own firearms, or don’t, for reasons that supersede their broader political and cultural affiliations. The Obama Administration’s proposals make him sound responsive following the horrific shooting at Newtown, Connecticut, but I don’t think there is much he can do without Congress and with Congress things are not going to change much. Most states, like California, already have very tough firearm laws that are ignored by the criminal element, and more laws applied to law abiding citizens are not going to help. These proposals may be a good starting point for a rational discussion, but so far the proposals in California are simply an attempt to push the limits of gun control “while the issue is hot”.