Gun control’s shaky empirical foundation
Date: Jan 15, 2007 2:34 PM
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32165.html
AOL users click here
************************************************************
Reason Magazine

Shots in the Dark

Gun control’s shaky empirical foundation

Jacob Sullum | October 10, 2003

In November 1988 The New England Journal of Medicine
published a study that noted Seattle’s homicide rate was
higher than Vancouver’s and attributed the difference to
stricter gun control in Vancouver. Although the study had
serious flaws, including the failure to take into account
important demographic differences between the two cities, it
received generous coverage in two major newspapers known for
their sympathy to gun control.

The Washington Post covered the report in a 600-word,
staff-written story on page A4 under the headline “Impact of
Gun Control Indicated in Medical Study.” The New York Times
story (“Gun Curbs Linked to Homicide Rate”) was about the
same length, although it was by a stringer and appeared
deeper in the A section.

The Times made up for those lapses with an editorial about
the study later that month. Under the headline “Guns Do
Kill People,” it said “the study appears to buttress
common-sense wisdom about public safety [i.e., our position
on gun control].”

This month, when a government-appointed panel of experts
announced that their comprehensive review of the relevant
scientific literature (including the Seattle/Vancouver
study) had failed to find evidence that gun control works,
The Washington Post gave the story about 200 words in its
“Findings” column. The New York Times (D.C. edition) ran
fewer than 150 words of an A.P. story on the bottom of page
A23, under a tiny headline that gave no indication of the
report’s conclusions.

So far the Times has not run an editorial conceding that the
research review?which by a strictly scientific or
journalistic reckoning ought to carry considerably more
weight than a single inconclusive study?”appears to
undermine common-sense wisdom about public safety.” I’m
guessing it won’t, even though the report was commissioned
by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), usually a gun control booster.

It’s natural, of course, to highlight information that fits
one’s preconceptions while downplaying information than
doesn’t. With that in mind, it’s important to note that the
CDC panel’s review, in addition to criticizing studies
purportedly showing that gun control reduces violence, finds
fault with economist John Lott’s research on the
crime-deterring benefits of allowing people to carry
concealed firearms.

The panelists considered 51 published studies examining
seven different kinds of laws, including bans on specific
firearms, restrictions on who may own a firearm, and waiting
periods for gun purchases. They “found insufficient
evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the
firearms laws or combinations of laws.”

In other words, after more than half a century of local,
state, and federal gun control legislation, we still don’t
know whether these laws do what they’re supposed to do. The
report’s most consistent finding was inconsistent findings:
Sometimes gun control is associated with reduced violence,
and sometimes it’s associated with increased violence.

The world is messy, and it can be difficult to control for
all the relevant variables when you’re trying to determine
the impact of a particular law. Not surprisingly, the CDC
panel calls for more and better research, and it cautions
that “insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness
should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.”

But it’s scandalous that politicians have been legislating
in the dark all these years, promising that the gun control
solution du jour would save lives when there was no evidence
to back up such claims. If gun control laws have any
positive effect at all, it must be pretty modest to have
escaped documentation so far.

How could it be otherwise? The typical gun control measure
is laughably inadequate to accomplish its ostensible goal.

Regarding criminal background checks, for instance, the CDC
panel notes that “denial of an application does not always
stop applicants from acquiring firearms through other
means.” Assuming that a buyer with a disqualifying record
is seeking a gun to use in a crime, there are plenty of
sources where no questions are asked. According to the
report, Americans own some 200 million guns, with around 10
million changing hands every year; retail sales account for
less than half of these transactions.

Even if gun availability could be dramatically reduced, any
restrictions would disproportionately affect law-abiding
people. Criminals have no compunction about breaking the
law, and they’re highly motivated to obtain the tools of
their trade, so anything short of a magical spell that makes
all guns disappear is not likely to have a noticeable impact
on violence.

The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security !