UC David Researchers Claim Americans Have Too Much Liberty

Including airsoft and pellet-gun crime to pad gun stats? UC David may as well have included how many digital enemies were killed in Call of Duty over the weekend.  IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- The anti-gun activism machine is getting desperate. Researchers at UC Davis allege in a new paper that “excess” firearm purchases over the last few months may have led a significant increase in “gun violence.”

The authors – with at least a baker’s dozen advanced degrees and millions of dollars of funding from California taxpayers – claim that an excess number of firearms were purchased this spring. They’re referring, of course, to the then-record number of Americans who legally purchased firearms to protect themselves and their loved ones.

A natural right, affirmed by the Constitution, cannot be exercised in “excess.” The authors don’t claim a small “excess,” either – they say 2.1 million excess firearms were sold from March through April.

The paper has not been peer-reviewed or published in a journal. It is not designed to identify causation. It cannot identify causation. It does not identify causation. It’s important to stress all three realities there, as anti-gun activists are already presenting this unreviewed fantasy as fact.

The data used in this study is from the Gun Violence Archive, a shadowy web scraping operation that only shares its data with certain parties. We have, in the past, identified problems with their coding and those same issues may be at work in this study. We have even identified cases in which the Gun Violence Archive has included non-firearm-related injuries in their tally of injuries.

We cannot verify the data used because the Gun Violence Archive will not grant public access to their full data, but it readily authorizes its use by anti-gun pseudo-scientists. What we can do is try to build the same query the UC Davis team used to measure the association between legal “excess” gun purchases and gun violence and then examine the limited results. Those limited results included incidents with these characteristics:

Gang-involved. Drive-by shootings. Targeting rival gang members. Drug deals. Felon in possession of a firearm. Stolen firearm. Motorcycle club fights. Airsoft and pellet guns. Rubber bullets fired by police officers (with no firearms involved).

Do any of those seem like the perpetrators waited in line, filled out state and federal paperwork, presented positive identification, and paid any necessary taxes to acquire their firearms?

Of course not. We know where criminals get their guns because they’ve told researchersRepeatedly.

Again, we cannot verify if those incidents were included in the dataset or what percentage of incidents in the dataset included any of those characteristics because the Gun Violence Archive is not public. We have requested access countless times over several years and have yet to receive a response.

The limited data we could review included at least one incident in which a concealed carry permit holder in the District of Columbia shot a man who threatened him with an illegally carried firearm.

The basic premise of this study – that firearm ownership and violence are connected – is rooted in flawed, disgraced, and ridiculous studies including the very study that led to the prohibition on the use of CDC funding for anti-gun advocacy.

Ignore the fantastical premise. Look past the skewed data and its misuse. Put objections to the determination of “excess” aside, for just a moment. Let’s take the authors at their word and review their findings.

The “excess” is measured in terms of “excess” purchase rate, which they created by predicting the rates based on background check data from 2011 through February 2020 – before the pandemic raged across the country.  The two states with the most excess purchases were New Hampshire and Wyoming. Those just happen to be two of the safest states in the Union. But how did they determine what was an “excess?”

The UC Davis researchers used historical background check data to predict sales in an unprecedented time. Their historical data also does not include Joe Biden, who has promised to give Beto O’Rourke the authority he craves to take your guns. Their historical data cannot account for the money anti-gun activists will spend to saturate the airwaves and try to buy their candidates’ way into office this fall. Oh, and it also does not include a pandemic.

Because this year is unprecedented.

So, no; there has been no “excess.” There can be no “excess” of Americans lawfully exercising their Constitutional rights.

In reality, the number of firearms sold has generally increased every year, firearms are durable goods that last for years, and yet crime has generally decreased over the same time period. That reality has long been a thorn in the side of anti-gunners. The millions of new gun owners present a new obstacle to anti-gun elitists, and so they produced this desperate attempt to smear law-abiding Americans.

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

About NRA-ILA:

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

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
1 year ago

“Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder”…
Please explain to me what is To Much Liberty…

1 year ago

leftists regularly change the meanings of words to suit their agenda, like large capacity magazines, which are really standard capacity magazines that are sold with each firearm. assault weapon which is a semi-automatic firearm. they also do not use real data and statistics, unless it has been adjusted. they also have a hard time dealing with reality.

1 year ago

Researchers at UC Davis allege in a new paper that “excess” firearm purchases over the last few months may have led a significant increase in “gun violence.” I love it. Once again the demoncrapic, I’m more educated than you, has made a analysis and drawn a conclusion that I could make with a high school education or something that they lack called common sense. Excess firearm purchases {MAY} have led. Gee, the word may has such a strong implication of a positive and has complete resolve with no room for deviance and is absolute. Absolutely bullshit. They need to go back to finding… Read more »

MICHAEL J(@retaile23)
1 year ago

Significant increase in gun violence? You mean potential ex-victims are now shooting back? UC Davis like all liberal leftists run schools is a cesspool of unless studies that have no merit. And of course taxpayer funded.

1 year ago

You had to see this coming, but as noted in the article, it’s doubtful that the felons were standing in line at the local gun shop. Nice try at spin guys. Go back to teaching your classes.

1 year ago

Sounds like they used Professor Lanford’s style of data manipulation.

1 year ago

100% of the rise in violence has happened in democrat jurisdictions. Perhaps they should outlaw democrat jurisdictions.

1 year ago

That will never work. Too simple……..

1 year ago

These pieces of shit need to realize that people who go through the process required by law to purchase a firearm will not use it for unlawful purposes. Many of these spoiled brats probably still live in their parents’ basements.

1 year ago

Folks, read the history of the Progressive Movement and you will understand where this prohibitionist thinking originates. The left in America thinks we all have far too much liberty in all forms. It is they, the people we have been waiting for, who hold all of the answers and should be the Vanguard of the Proletariat who will manage every aspect of our useless lives via complex Five Year Plans. Yes, these very same people who never made class and were late with their “c” grade papers. Yes, tehy are the ones we have been waiting for to run our… Read more »

1 year ago
Reply to  nrringlee

Perhaps someone should remind them of a certain definitio:

FASCISM: Government control of privte means of production.

When government controls the disposition and distribution of items, that is controlling private means of production. These UC Davis brats are promoting fascism. They might not see that, but they are. UC have been a festering cesspit of socialism and fascism since I was at UC back fifty years ago. Anyone else remember People’s Park in good ol’ Berserkeley? Or the commie Anglea Davis at Santa Cruz?

AZ Lefty
AZ Lefty(@azlefty)
1 year ago

Remember this is a paper that according to this fund raising plea ”
The paper has not been peer-reviewed or published in a journal”
AKA some student turned in a paper and the Welfare Queens of the NRA see it as a way to get donations!

Also where is the University of David that is in the headline?

1 year ago
Reply to  AZ Lefty
1 year ago
Reply to  AZ Lefty

I believe that was a typographical error! Should read UC Davis. Dimwit!