Do Studies Show Gun Control Works? Answer…No! ~ VIDEO

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- The video is a little over 16 minutes long. It features Aaron Brown answering questions and pontificating on the failings of the vast majority of “studies” aimed at various “gun control” policies. Brown is a well-credentialed expert on statistics.

Early on, an important point is made about gun control policies. They have tremendous associated costs. Those costs are almost never considered in policy debates. This is a failing of Progressive philosophy and government policy in general. While benefits are stressed, costs are ignored or glossed over.

Brown focuses heavily on a Rand meta-study updated in 2020. The Rand study evaluated 27,900 studies related to gun control. Of those, only 123 met the Rand criteria for rigorous methodology and data. The Rand study, in 412 pages of text, graphics, and tables, shows, at best, limited evidence in a few rigorous studies.  Brown shows the number of significant results falls inside the number of results expected by chance.

Brown concludes that uncertainty in the data makes meaningful results impossible to obtain. Brown’s expertise shows well here. As Brown says:

“These studies are doomed from the start.”

Brown demonstrates that of the 722 hypotheses tested, the random chance should have found 36 positive significant effects and 36 negative significant effects. Only 18 positive effects were found. Only 1 negative significant effect was found.

The number of significant effects is well within the number expected by random effects in the data.

Brown concludes the disparity in positive and negative results shows researchers are discarding or hiding results that show negative consequences for gun control policies.

I was surprised there was only one positive significant result shown.  I knew of two well-done studies that had found significant negative results for gun control policies. When I checked the sources, the reason became clear. The policies looked at in the studies I remembered were not considered in the Rand meta-study.

They were regulated by gun shows and gun “buybacks”.  Both negative significant effects were downplayed by the researchers.

If researchers were unbiased, chance results would be the same for positive and negative results.  The number of statistically significant results is in the range of expected noise.

There are too many confounding variables, too much noise in the data, with definitions that are too vague and constantly changing.

For example, studies that attempt to limit gun sales in some way only affect a tiny number of individuals, as gun sales, even in boom years, are at most a few percent of total gun numbers in existence, while the variation in homicide is, on average, about six percent per year. From Brown:

Anyone basing a gun control position on scientific evidence is building on sand.

The vast majority of studies are flawed because of cherry-picking data in time and space. Brown demonstrates how this is done.

The video shows numerous quotes from politicians promoting various gun control policies, and claiming they have absolute scientific evidence to back up their policies.

Brown explains the worst, most abusive studies, are those which reach the most absurd conclusions based on cherry-picked data in space and time. Those are the ones touted by the Media and used by politicians.

This correspondent was curious if any of the studies done by John Lott and associates made the cut into the 123 studies deemed by Rand to be rigorous. John Lott’s name was on 10 of them.

Most policies in law are not backed up by scientific studies. They are based on moral judgments, political philosophy, and countless legal experiments tried and failed over thousands of years.

Claiming to base gun laws on “science” is an attempt by advocates to “argue by authority” without real proof. They are using the word “science” to browbeat the opposition.

I highly recommend the video. If you are involved in the movement to restore the Second Amendment, or, if you simply want to understand the debate on the issues,  it is well worth 16 minutes of your time.

Do Studies Show Gun Control Works? No. by , released March 31, 2022


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Dean Weingarten

5 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
StLPro2A

John Lott recently published the low……extremely low…..percentage of DGU studies that can make the muster of statistically credible research.

StLPro2A

“….gun control doesn’t work….” BS!!! Gun control is very effective as endorsed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Chavez, Castro, Pol Pot, et el……and, now, OBlunder, Pigloosi, Slummer, Xiden, our friendly, noble Alphabet Boys Clubs, et el
You are merely expecting the wrong results.
Silly Boys and Girls, politicians with laws never control the bad guys with guns.
But, they are very effective at controlling the good guys, which is their true agenda.
There, fixed it for you. You’re welcome.
Gun control stops crime and reality…….never the twain shall meet.

Terry

Here’s some “common-sense gun control”.
NO GUN CONTROL!

Raconteur

David Hemenway, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, is (in)famous for his “studies” showing that Defensive Gun Use (DGU) in America is a rare occurrence. His favorite studies are 128 that use this definition of DGU: an attacker is either killed or wounded. The sources: mostly newspapers, and other media. If the attacker wasn’t killed or wounded? Nope. Didn’t count. If it wasn’t published or covered in the MSM? Nope. Didn’t count.

This is what passes for accurate and definitive research by the gun control
intelligentsia. Harvard is a joke.

musicman44mag

You know, it is really mind boggling to me how the people have been duped into believing everything requires a study to be figured out. Some things only require common sense. Now that a study has been concluded and it found that gun control does not work, how long will the study take to figure out that we need to bring back the wild west which we never should have given up on in the first place. There are more criminals in our society than ever before and the obiden administration is inviting them in by the thousands each day… Read more »

OlTrailDog

Gun Control = Firearm ownership to control politicians, e.g. Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, squinty eyed Brandon Biden, Trudeau, Morrison, Ardern, and etc., from usurping total authoritarian control over their citizenry. Secondarily, to control lawless individuals who would do personal harm to you, your family, or your property, aka self defense.

Perhaps firearm ownership doesn’t pass robust statistical analysis, but ask anyone whose firearm ownership has prevented lawlessness from killing, maiming, or stealing their or their love one’s life, limb, or property. I think I will err on the side of caution.

Michael Ware

Thank you, Dean. And thanks to Aaron and the folks who put the video together. Context should always be sought.