NRA-ILA: Contrived Data at Odds with Lived Reality

Social science research is not as clear-cut as the hard sciences; research findings require interpretation and explanation. The findings have to be plausible. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -( Social science research is not as clear-cut as the hard sciences; research findings require interpretation and explanation. The findings have to be plausible. When the explanations are not grounded and experienced reality conflicts with the findings, the validity of the research should be questioned.

Case in point: the latest research from Florida State University. Doctor Emma Fridel claims to have found that increasing “permissive” concealed carry laws increases firearms-related homicides by 10.8% and that every increase in the state-level gun ownership rate increases mass shootings by 52.5%.

That extraordinarily high increase really underscores the rarity of the events being studied, which necessitated the construction of a new database to coincide with the author’s broad definition of a mass shooting.

Fridel defined a mass shooting as “the intentional killing of four or more persons (excluding the offender and unborn children) with a firearm within a 24-hour period.” This would include incidents within the common understanding of mass shooting, but also incidents deliberately excluded by other researchers – incidents that pertain to other crimes (like a home invasion or a drug deal) as well as incidents of domestic violence. The net is cast wide to capture enough cases for statistical analysis because, as Fridel acknowledges, mass public shootings are too rare to study.

According to Fridel, gun ownership rate was the only significant predictor of mass shootings in her model. Doctor Fridel’s study period runs from 1991 through 2016 and she claims 592 mass shootings across that 26-year period nationwide. Mother Jones, for comparison, has 69 incidents with at least four fatalities over that same time period in its database. The definition matters.

Fridel offers the impulsivity of gun owners as an explanation for mass shootings in one paragraph. In the very next paragraph, she notes that public mass shooters extensively plan their attacks and so concealed carry permit laws don’t offer a deterrent effect. Impulsive or meticulous, or both, apparently. Any examination of the deterrent effect of concealed carry laws on mass shootings would have to take into consideration the location of the shooting, which this analysis does not. Fridel repeatedly references her previous work that found two-thirds of mass murders occur in private residences but refuses to differentiate between familial violence and public attacks in this analysis. Doing so might produce findings that allow grounded, real-world explanations.

Fridel’s other long-shot explanations seek to coddle criminals. Fridel seems to believe that the sacrifice of your Constitutional rights -and acceptance of victimization – is acceptable if it makes criminals feel safer or makes crime easier. If the law-abiding had no firearms, there would be no firearms for criminals (including mass shooters) to steal and criminals wouldn’t be so worried about their own safety.

Another attempted explanation is that permissive concealed carry permit laws strain police resources. Fridel did not control for law enforcement capabilities in her model but throws it against the wall to see if it sticks as an explanation for her findings.

Fridel’s finding on the association between Right to Carry laws and firearms-related homicides ignores the reality that crime has fallen across the country since the mid-1990s as more states enacted Right to Carry laws. Her claims of declining gun ownership rates over the same time period are tenuous – and based respondents’ willingness to disclose potentially sensitive personal information in a telephone survey.

The author emphasizes this point: “The public health implications are clear: permissive concealed carry legislation is a significant contributor to the gun violence epidemic in the United States.

Of course, Doctor Fridel’s explanations make no sense. In the real world, there is evidence of concealed carry permit holders stopping mass shootings, like this Tulsa incident. Jack Wilson and Stephen Willeford both stopped mass shootings in Texas. Those are just some examples. Of course, many of these incidents would not meet even Fridel’s broad definition of mass shooting because – fortunately – there were good guys with guns on site and willing to act.

Fridel writes that her paper’s most important finding is that “policymakers likely need to enact distinct prevention initiatives in order to address different types of gun violence.” Fridel, other researchers, and lawmakers would do well to focus on policy interventions that target bad guys instead of law-abiding gun owners.

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:

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Green Mtn. Boy

Unfortunately Negotiating Rights Away can’t see the complicity of themselves the infringements they have aided the civilian disarmament propagandist’s in since 1934. History 1791: The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified. The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” After That 1871: The National Rifle Association was formed by Union Army veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate. After that, they start going the other way. In 1939, but Karl T. Frederick, the president… Read more »


I finally joined the NRA two years ago because I was aware of the democrats ambition of confiscating our guns and completely eliminating our God given right to keep and bear arms. Since that time I have probably received at least 3 letters every month begging for money. I sure wish I had joined SAF, GOA, NSSF, or another organization.


I never joined as I was warned when a young lad about what they are really up to.

You can tell them to shove it and join others, its not too late….


Considering that the NRA is the ONLY group with over 5 million members (shows you that American gun owners will NOT lift a finger to help themselves as that should be 50 million) and is the only organization that politicians fear, you were informed wrong…..figures.


A wise man once told me “The American people will not lift a finger to fight illegal laws as long as they have T.V.,Beer, BBQ, Comfortable shoes and a warm plase to shit” Over the years I have found this to be true. I am very thankful that our founding Fathers were not the sheep we now have.
I pray there is enough Sheep Dogs to save our country.


Yes, JOIN SAF, GOA and CCRKBA, the clowns that ask for money as much if not more than the NRA. Also, those three petitioned the U.S. Government for a “Redress of Grievance”. They pandered for cash incessantly. When they delivered the paper to the government, the GW Bush turds said “Sure, you can petition for Redress of Grievance, but we don’t have to accept your petition”. Since then, those three have centered on attacking the NRA. I am a NRA Life Member, I get a money request about every other month. At election time, they do ramp up. I have… Read more »


You are lying. That Frederick comment is out of context and was printed in Time magazine. Hardly a bastion of conservatism.

The NRA does not negotiate Rights away. But, you believe the lies of SAF, GOA, CCRKBA and a liberal rag.

uncle dudley

I wonder did she bother to look at whether the so-called mass shootings were done in Gun Free Zones or were the guns used legally bought or stolen in the shootings?
You can get the results anyway you want them to look, just like political polling.


Would like to see her same standards held against car thief and fatalities

Don’t own a car so car thieves would not have cars to deal and car accidents would not happen in get a-ways.


“Figures don’t lie…but, liars figure”.
By selectively using numbers in unique areas and at specific times, you can ‘prove’ a marshmallow is a deadly weapon.


Just another Anti-Gun liberal using and abusing science to try and justify Their BS agenda.


@jfrich – As a former scientist I resent your comment. What Fidel does is not science. In age old choice between “dazzle them with brilliance” and “baffle them with bullshit”, she’s 100% on the second.
What she does is known as pseudoscience, deeply offensive to anyone who strives in pursuit of knowledge.


Well since I wasn’t Criticizing Science or All Scientists How can You Possibly be Offended or Resent My Comment?


@jfrich – Not you. Her claim of science…

Sorry for how I put it and any for casting aspersions your way.


Sorry I misinterpreted You…No Worries.