Anti-Gun Researchers Undermine the Anti-Gun Narrative…Doh

Opinion

California Flag Guns Gun Control
Anti-Gun Researchers Undermine the Anti-Gun Narrative

Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)-  We have good news from a joint effort between the Violence Prevention Research Program at the UC Davis School of Medicine and the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins University.

Comprehensive background checks and prohibitions based on violent misdemeanors had no effect on homicide rates in California.

The latest study published by the highly-credentialed researchers in these well-funded programs, “California's comprehensive background check and misdemeanor violence prohibition policies and firearm mortality,” was designed to evaluate the effect of California’s 1991 comprehensive background check and prohibiting those convicted of violent misdemeanors policies on firearm homicide and suicide. The study period was 1981-2000, with secondary analysis up to 2005.

Using a synthetic control methodology, the researchers found that the comprehensive background check and violent misdemeanor prohibitions were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide.

In conversational language, the two policies had no effect.

We credit the researchers for publishing these findings that run contrary to their own established opinions regarding firearms. There are, naturally, some methodological questions. For instance, the violent crime index only had a low predictive value and so was not included in the final model. The variables that did make the cut included specific age groups, race, gender, poverty level, veteran population, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and the proxy for gun ownership rates. Violent crime is often associated with homicide rates in other studies, yet was not included here.

The general design of the synthetic control model also raises questions. In this methodology, other states were combined and weighted to match California before the new policies were implemented. Eleven states were used to create this “synthetic” California but the contributions each of these states made to the synthetic California are not presented in the paper. The donor pool of states was limited to those that did not have policies similar to the comprehensive background check or prohibiting violent misdemeanor at the start of the study period and did not enact major firearm policy changes during that period, but…the differences between California and Alaska, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin are not limited to the social and demographic variables included in the model.

But back to the findings. You will recall, from just a few short paragraphs ago, that the notable anti-gun researchers – at least one of whom joined the anti-gun march on Washington this past March – found the comprehensive background check and prohibiting violent misdemeanor policies had no effect on firearm homicides or suicides in California.

The article about the study on the UC Davis website presents that finding with some spin: “Study does not find population-level changes in firearm homicide or suicide rates…” Maybe our understanding of the anti-gun bias driving this research colors our perception, but “does not find” and “were not associated with” seem like two sides of two different coins.

The discussion section of the study itself is dedicated to explanations for the lack of an association.  The authors suggest that the problem may have been limited records in the background check system, a lack of enforcement, or maybe that there were just too few purchase denials.

Their first explanation is not enough gun control. The authors note their findings conflict with some of their own prior research on other states. They claim the difference is that the other states’ comprehensive background check policies included a permit to purchase component. That must be the key difference, right?

Ignore the fact that all three studies to which they point were reviewed by the Rand Corporation for The Science of Gun Policy. In fact, two of these three studies were the only studies considered in the section for the effect of licensing and permitting requirements on violent crime. Rand found, based on these two studies alone, that licensing and permitting requirements have uncertain effects on total homicides and firearms homicides because the evidence is inconclusive. The third study was focused exclusively on suicide rates, and was one of two studies included in that section in the Rand review. Rand also found that licensing and permitting requirement have uncertain effects on total suicides and firearm suicides, due to inconclusive evidence.

So, yes, ignore that and let’s get back to the point the authors make about permit to purchase. They fail to consider that California enacted a permit-to-purchase system, the Basic Firearms Safety Certificate, in 1994 – right in the middle of their study’s postintervention period.

Still, we credit the researchers for sharing these results and we look forward to sharing their evidence when anti-gun organizations demand further obstacles to law-abiding gun owners.

We’d like to thank the Joyce Foundation and, perhaps unwittingly, California taxpayers for making this study possible.


National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

  • 5
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    5 Comment threads
    0 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    5 Comment authors
    Leonard MartinoRev Andrew MarcellFirewagonGregMacofJack Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    Leonard Martino
    Guest
    Leonard Martino

    To so-called Catholic gun banners-is it ok to lie in order to further a speculative theory about crime, to push an agenda built on your pride and lies of others, to refuse to learn what the other side has to say to be stubborn and not even research truth based on a dogmatic edict you have memorized but not learned Even a 50-50 doubt is enough to reject gun control. BTW Christ’s teaching about swords applied to Him alone. He certainly didn’t need anybody’s help. He had legions of angels to protect Him not us

    Rev Andrew Marcell
    Guest
    Rev Andrew Marcell

    New Jersey has had background checks ,mental health checks , personal references (two) just to purchase a handgun (individual permits for each handgun) or acquire a Firearms ID card ( necessary to buy or transport rifles ,shotguns and ammunition) since 1966. It has had not reduced crime. The assault weapon ban was put into law in 1990. Again crime did not suddenly drop. Yes it bad in California, it can and will get worse. The NRA supports Republicans who do not overturn anti gun legislation,even when they owe their election to the gun lobby. Political action by grassroots pro gun… Read more »

    Firewagon
    Guest
    Firewagon

    Background checks, licenses to purchase? At what point do these dweebs come to understand that most ANYONE inclined to ‘murder’ others, or commit other crimes with firearms, ARE NOT worrying about filling out some background check or acquiring some license! Even if they can’t acquire a gun, like say every gun in America became non-existent, it doesn’t take a computer chip designer to find myriad ways to kill dozens of people at one time! The question ALL, but a very few, are NOT asking is, ‘what has changed in America’ that has ‘insane’ (?) people killing other people with guns,… Read more »

    Greg
    Guest
    Greg

    Isn’t this interesting? An article from the “Association” that supported misdemeanor prohibitions (even Ex Post Facto), and helped to create the database that held names of “Prohibited Persons” for which the Government has been incrementally increasing.

    Here’s my question NRA; “When you going to give em’ back their bullets, for something that ‘Shall not be Infringed?” You are complicit, Period!

    MacofJack
    Guest
    MacofJack

    LOL, not that’s funny!