There are big headlines today about the benefits of restrictive gun laws. They report on a study that claims to show that more restrictive gun laws means fewer mass shootings. The study claims to compare the number of mass shootings in a state (four or more people shot in one incident) with gun ownership and the restrictive nature of state gun laws in that state. The results supposedly show that more restrictive gun laws mean much lower rates of mass shootings. Actually, this is a rather bogus bit of junk science.
Let's start with some of the problems. States with high levels of mass shootings had on average about 0.1 mass shootings per million people over the last 20 years. For a state like Montana with its one million people, that means it had one mass shooting over the last ten years. Montana had less restrictive gun laws than most states. On the other hand, a state like Delaware with just under a million people and more restrictive gun laws had 0.05 mass shootings over the last 20 years. That means it had one less mass shooting over the last 20 years than Montana. The authors of the study say this is statistically significant. If just one person flipped out in Delaware five years ago and started shooting, the entire difference would have disappeared. The point is that the levels of mass shootings are so low that there's no way to generalize about them.
The second point to keep in mind is that at a national average of something like 0.07 mass shootings per million people, we are talking about an average of 22 mass shootings across the country in an average year. That's 22 too many, but it's hard to tie that number to state gun laws.
The third point is that the authors use the number of guns in a state as part of determining whether or not state law is restrictive. They admit, however, that there are no statistics about how many guns are owned in a state, so the instead use the rate of suicide using guns as a substitute rate. That may only be measuring the level of comfort of the state population with having/owning guns. I was raised in suburban Philadelphia. No one I knew had a gun in their home. It wasn't commonplace. I now live in Connecticut. I don't know anyone with a gun in their home. Again, it is not commonplace. In certain other places gun ownership is much more widespread. I would think that places where gun ownership is more widespread have more suicides by gun. I would also think that places where gun ownership is more widespread would be more resistant to gun control laws. In other words, it may be that more restrictive gun laws do not lower mass shootings, but rather that places with more gun ownership have higher levels of suicides by gun (they're more available) and also less restrictive gun laws.
Finally, it is worth noting that in the media we've been told that there were over 500 mass shootings in 2018. According to the study, it was about 22. If I had to guess which number is correct, I would side with the study, but I don't know. If the media is correct, though, then the study not only has unsupported conclusions but also used improper data.
Let's start with some of the problems. States with high levels of mass shootings had on average about 0.1 mass shootings per million people over the last 20 years. For a state like Montana with its one million people, that means it had one mass shooting over the last ten years. Montana had less restrictive gun laws than most states. On the other hand, a state like Delaware with just under a million people and more restrictive gun laws had 0.05 mass shootings over the last 20 years. That means it had one less mass shooting over the last 20 years than Montana. The authors of the study say this is statistically significant. If just one person flipped out in Delaware five years ago and started shooting, the entire difference would have disappeared. The point is that the levels of mass shootings are so low that there's no way to generalize about them.
The second point to keep in mind is that at a national average of something like 0.07 mass shootings per million people, we are talking about an average of 22 mass shootings across the country in an average year. That's 22 too many, but it's hard to tie that number to state gun laws.
The third point is that the authors use the number of guns in a state as part of determining whether or not state law is restrictive. They admit, however, that there are no statistics about how many guns are owned in a state, so the instead use the rate of suicide using guns as a substitute rate. That may only be measuring the level of comfort of the state population with having/owning guns. I was raised in suburban Philadelphia. No one I knew had a gun in their home. It wasn't commonplace. I now live in Connecticut. I don't know anyone with a gun in their home. Again, it is not commonplace. In certain other places gun ownership is much more widespread. I would think that places where gun ownership is more widespread have more suicides by gun. I would also think that places where gun ownership is more widespread would be more resistant to gun control laws. In other words, it may be that more restrictive gun laws do not lower mass shootings, but rather that places with more gun ownership have higher levels of suicides by gun (they're more available) and also less restrictive gun laws.
Finally, it is worth noting that in the media we've been told that there were over 500 mass shootings in 2018. According to the study, it was about 22. If I had to guess which number is correct, I would side with the study, but I don't know. If the media is correct, though, then the study not only has unsupported conclusions but also used improper data.
No comments:
Post a Comment