Brady Center's pseudoscientific justification for the assault weapons ban

[slackmaster]

Accusing someone of using pseudoscience will seem to some a harsh accusation, putting the accusee in the same camp as Biblical creationists, astrologers, and followers of the late L. Ron Hubbard. So I'll start with a presumption of innocence, that the paper recently published by the Brady Center is what it appears to be at first glance: A scientifically sound analysis of real data regarding use of "assault weapons" in crime.

The new article, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Act - gets the following introduction on http://www.bradycampaign.org

"As the Senate prepares to vote on an amendment that would renew the Federal Assault Weapons Act for another ten years, a new study shows a substantial drop in the use of high-firepower assault weapons like UZIs and AK-47s in crime, despite industry efforts to evade the statute."

That sets the stage. Please take a look:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/200403/on_target.pdf

Forst off, who is Gun Crime Solutions LLC? There is no Web site, and the work is credited to one person, Mr. Gerald A. Nunziato, who in the past served as "Special Agent in Charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm’s National Tracing Center". OK, we can assume Mr. Nunziato is a top expert in tracing guns but does he have the academic qualifications to do a statistical analysis on use of weapons in crime?

Mr. Nunziato is a retired ATF agent who now makes a living doing paid appearances on TV and radio shows about gun control, and also gets paid as an expert witness. He works for a company called the Law Bulletin Publishing Company. See http://www.juryverdicts.com/experts/nu1.html , look for his name near the top, and follow the links.

Mr. Nunziato is a criminologist, not a statistician. There is no evidence presented that he is qualified to do the analysis in the Brady Campaign's report.

To be taken seriously by scientists, a scientific paper has to be published in a recognized journal. Before publication any paper is subjected to deep scrutiny by the journal's editors and to a rigorous process of peer review by a committee of qualified individuals, people who are knowledgable in the disciplines from which the article derives.

The Brady Center's article is published by the Brady Center. That would be seen as a conflict of interest in the academic world. No peer review was done. That doesn't mean it isn't science, but it does mean it cannot be assumed to be good science.

Moving on to the article itself,

To evaluate the questions below, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence asked
Crime Gun Solutions LLC to review and analyze national crime gun trace data
maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). This
data represents guns nationwide that have been illegally possessed, used in a crime, or
suspected of being used in a crime, thereafter recovered by law enforcement, and then
traced to learn about the sales history of the gun.

The analysis was done not on actual crime data but on gun trace data, which includes guns known to have been used in crimes but also guns only suspected of being used in crimes. We aren't given any information about the breakdown of real crime data vs. assumed crimes. In science writing this is called a "proxy measure". In honest work, proxy measures are used only when direct measures are unavailable. In less than honest work a proxy measure may be substituted for real data that does not support some conclusion (foregone) that the author wishes to present.

Whenever a proxy measure is used in science writing, the authors are expected to disclose that the measure is a proxy, explain why the proxy was used, and provide some evidence that the proxy has some connection to the missing direct measures. Mr. Nunziato didn't do any of those, in fact the word "proxy" doesn't appear anywhere in the article. If I was a member of a peer-review committee for a respectable journal I'd stop right here and not waste any more time on this article. It does not meet academic standards for publication.

At this juncture I can say the article no longer qualifies as good science. It may be bad science, or it may be something less than science, but if you care about real knowledge it's probably not worth reading. Why did Mr. Nunziato not use actual crime data? Why did he choose this particular proxy? What real data was available? We don't know, and we as readers may form different and contraductory assumptions about the use and validity of this proxy measure. If I saw this in a scientific journal I'd fire off a scathing letter to the editor.

For brevity I'll restrict the rest of this post to pointing out a couple of glaring logical fallacies that will provide a chuckle but no enlightenment. We already know that this piece was written by a paid hack and has not been subjected to any kind of academic scrutiny. It may be a "report" but it is not a "study" in the generally accepted meaning of that word.

Here is the first of Mr. Nunziato's two core findings:

In the five year period (1990-1994) before enactment of the Federal Assault
Weapons Act, assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun
traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law’s enactment, however, these assault
weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime – a drop of
66% from the pre-ban rate. Moreover, ATF trace data shows a steady year-by-year
decline in the percentage of assault weapons traced, suggesting that the longer the
statute has been in effect, the less available these guns have become for criminal
misuse. Indeed, the absolute number of assault weapons traced has also declined.

Indeed, indeed! Here he's talking about "assault weapons" in an absolute sense here - Weapons defined under the 1994 federal AWB as such and grandfathered. In other words, what the gun community refers to as "pre-ban" weapons like the original Colt AR-15 and not post-bans like the Colt Sporter, Olympic Arms PCR, Bushmaster XM-15, etc.

What has happened to those genuine, pre-ban "assault weapons" in the last 10 years? Not a whole lot, except:

- Their value on the secondary market has double or tripled. Compare the price of a pre-ban Colt AR-15 in as-new condition to a brand-new functionally identical just-as-good Bushmaster. Real "assault weapons" are collector's items now because their number cannot be increased under the present ban. Real "assault weapons" are either squirrelled away in peoples' closets or have been sold for profit to affluent individuals. Either way they're unlikely to be used in crimes BECAUSE OF THEIR MONETARY VALUE.

- People who owned them in 1994 are now 10 years older and therefore statistically less likely to be involved in crime.

- A few have been lost by attrition - Burned up in fires, run over, lost in the woods, fallen out of canoes, seized by law enforcement, etc. But most of them are probably still out there.

These three factors would seem to all suggest less likelihood of a pre-ban "AW" being used in crime. But remember, the Brady Center report concerns gun trace requests, not crimes. Mr. Nunziato makes no effort to control for these factors. It would appear that crime may be more a function of people than of weapons.

How many Duesenberg automobiles have been involved in car crashes recently? I haven't heard of a single incident in my lifetime. None have been manufactured since the 1930s, and the ones that exist today are in the hands of wealthy collectors. The situation is quite analogous to that for pre-ban "assault weapons". But there are plenty of post-Duesenberg automobiles available today. They along with Cords and Auburns were the Infinitis and Lexuses of their day, the "luxury/performance" cars. Today's fancy cars do get involved in crashes, but like the post-ban "assault weapons" they tend to be owned by people who don't get into much trouble.

And here is Mr. Nunziato's second major howler, er, finding:

After the Assault Weapons Act was passed, gun manufacturers sought to evade
the ban by producing weapons with minor changes or new model names. The Act was
designed to prevent this occurrence by defining assault weapons to include “copies or
duplicates” of the firearms listed in the ban in any caliber, though this provision has
never been enforced. Yet, even if copycats of the federally banned guns are
considered, there has still been a 45% decline between the pre-ban period (1990-1994)
and the post-ban period (1995 and after) in the percentage of ATF crime gun traces
involving assault weapons and copycat models.

What's this?

Mr. Nunziato is no longer talking about "assault weapons" in the legally proper sense. He's talking about a mix of pre-ban and post-ban weapons not covered by the assault weapons ban and claiming that even if you decide to consider them to be "AWs" the ban reduced THEIR use in crime as well.

Now we have entered the realm of pseudoscience, mixing apples and oranges and claiming to have created something new. Any resulting numbers are too fuzzy to have any discernable, verifiable meaning. There's no attempt to explain why the existence of functionally identical post-bans in numbers far higher than pre-bans has not completely negated the effects of the AWB.

Mr. Nunziato has not considered the obvious question of HOW MANY post-bans have been manufactured since 1994. Some data about the numbers of firearms made by manufacturers exist, but you have to look around for it. I find it interesting that our friends at the Violence Policy Center stopped collecting statistics after 1995. See http://www.vpc.org/resource/index.htm - It seems that if they really wanted to collect numbers to support gun control they would have kept up this effort. I wonder why they dropped it.

Mr. Nunziato has also not considered the effects of changes in overall crime rates and shifts in crime patterns in his (let's remember this one more time) gun TRACE REQUEST figures.

In short, this piece is pseudoscientific propaganda written by a hired gun who lacks academic qualifications to write a real research paper. If I had turned this in as a term paper for an experimental design and analysis course as an undergraduate it would have gotten a D at best.

[villager]

1. you're right, assault weapons are clearly necessary...

...for the populace at large. Let's make them available to everyone!

[slackmaster]

2. Straw Man

I've made no comment about what may or may not be necessary for the population at large. My post is a critique of a Brady Center publication.

Please try again. Or maybe you could apply for a job writing propaganda for the Bradys.

[villager]

10. a wee bit touchy, eh?

Your argument was disingenuous. If you are against the ban because you like guns, just come out and say so.

[slackmaster]

12. No, just hyper-rational

What "argument" of mine are you saying is disingenuous and why do you think so?

If you are against the ban because you like guns, just come out and say so.

I am against the ban because it's an irrational, unjustified restriction on the choices available to people who want to own guns. But that is a different subject. This thread is about the Brady Center's deceptive publication.

[CO Liberal]

14. In Other Words....

...a publication you agree with is factual. One that you disagree with is deceptive, right????

[slackmaster]

15. I thought you knew me better than that

I pointed out some holes in the reasoning used in the Brady Center paper. As is the case with all publications from pressure groups, one should always be wary for deceptive intent.

I think it's pretty clear the Brady Center piece is using Gee Whiz statistics as a substitute for real data. They know it, too. That's deception IMO.

CO, if you can defend the Brady Center paper on the issues I've attacked please do so. I won't abide any further discussion of peoples' misbegotten assumptions about what I think of the political issues.

[CO Liberal]

23. Are You Willing...

...to apply the same degree of analysis to any of John Lott's scribblings, or do you simply accept them at face value because you agree with them?

[slackmaster]

32. We already know John Lott's work is full of holes

I have never cited Lott to support anything I've posted here or anywhere else.

And you have created a false dilemma - That I either must criticize Lott explicitly here on this forum because I know his work is questionable or that I "simply accept them at face value". Neither are true.

I leave it to those biased in favor of gun control to criticize Lott.

[CO Liberal]

33. But Have You Publically Criticized Lott? NO!!!

All I'm saying is that you should apply the same techniques to both, and see which is the more factual. Going by Lott's previous track record, I think I know the outcome already.

[slackmaster]

34. I haven't publicly criticized Britney Spears either

And I can't stand her. So what?

:shrug:

If I tried to publicly criticize everyone with whom I disagree or everyone I don't like there wouldn't be time for anythying else. Lott is a non-issue for me. I think I can present (and have presented) plenty of justification for a pro-choice position on guns without using data from such a questionable source.

BTW - Big public confession here:

I've never read More Guns - Less Crime - Have you?

[CO Liberal]

36. No, I Haven't

Even after a few pro-gunners who are now tombstoned offerred to lend me their copies. I've got better things to do than waste my time reading Lott's drek and drivel - I've hears him enough on Faux News to know he's full of shit.

[slackmaster]

38. My assessment is very close to yours

I've heard enough to believe it's probably not worth my time to read.

However, given that I haven't read it (or any of his other works except short articles) I do not feel qualified to criticize his methodology or results.

[CO Liberal]

40. I've Read Enough From Others...

...to know that John Lott/Mary Rosh is a worthless quack.

[DavidMS]

48. There is a little more to what they don't say.

Because both the Brady Bunch and Mary Rosh used "Sound Science" they also suggested that any statistical impact of firearms ownership on murder rates is probably lost in the statistical noise.

Both of these parties are torturing data the way a publicly traded company tortures its quarterly earnings report.

My Grandfather said, "When the facts are on your side, argue the facts, when the law is on your side, argue the law, when neither is on your side, scream."

[villager]

16. hiding behind false objectivity....

Are you a gun owner who wants to keep his guns? Doesn't like the fact he can't by an assault rifle of his own? Just cop to it... You weren't "neutral," you had/have an agenda... just own it...

[FeebMaster]

17. What do you mean?

"Doesn't like the fact he can't by an assault rifle of his own?"

[villager]

25. that was a typo...

...as I think you know.

[FeebMaster]

29. I'm not asking about a typo.

At least I don't think I am. I assumed you meant:

"Doesn't like the fact he can't buy an assault rifle of his own?"

And I was wondering what you meant by it since there's no law at the federal level preventing anyone from buying a pre-ban assault weapon. The cost is higher than the post-ban rifles since the supply of pre-ban assault weapons is fixed. Post-ban assault weapons are still available new, of course, without bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and collapsible stocks.

[slackmaster]

31. No, you made a false assumption or three

That I either own and wish to keep, or want and cannot buy, a particular kind of weapon.

[slackmaster]

18. So far lunabush is the only person to critique my original post

And I accept his criticism of my criticism as valid.

All you are doing, villager, is wallowing in your assumptions about why I posted it. Have you actually looked at the Brady Center paper? Do you have ANYTHING to say in defense of the Brady Center or against my critique other than a vague, unsupported statement that I have indulged in "false objectivity" or that I just like guns? I've never claimed to be neutral, and you have created another Straw Man by suggesting that I have.

An "I like guns, how about you?" or "What kind of guns do you own?" thread would seem monumentally boring. That's Lounge material. This is Justice/Public Safety. My personal opinion on guns and the contents of my gun locker aren't the issue in this thread. If you want to start one on that subject please do so.

Do you have anything intelligent to say at all on this subject?

[villager]

27. here's "what I mean:"

You are not neutral.

You are either:

a)against the assault rifle ban, because you believe in gun ownership

b)or critical of the study because you support a stronger rationale for such a ban

I doubt you are "neutral," because of the effort you are putting into this.

So cop to your stance. That's all.

[slackmaster]

30. Thank you for answering my question

You submitted this for consideration...

You are either:

a)against the assault rifle ban, because you believe in gun ownership

b)or critical of the study because you support a stronger rationale for such a ban

That is a false dichotomy, but in the interest of fairness and mutual understanding I'll "cop" to my stance:

Choice c) I oppose the assault weapons (Note: not "rifles" - Do you know the difference?) ban. I think it's bad law because it restricts peoples' choices without an offsetting benefit in public safety.

[villager]

35. that's actually choice "A"

...but at least we're getting somewhere. I'm guessing you're against the perceived "restricting of choice" (though I like the choice of living in a country where assault weapons are hard to get!), and actually wouldn't support such a ban even if the evidence was -- to your way of thinking -- irrefutable

[slackmaster]

39. No, choice A carries implications that I don't like

Choice A ("believing" in gun ownership) for many people carries negative stigmata about the roots of one's beliefs.

I believe in freedom of choice in possessions, speech, and behavior wherever it can be preserved reasonably without negative impact on society. I do so from the perspective of a staunch civil libertarian (lower case 'l', never a member of the Libertarian Party).

If you want me to commit to something more complex than "I favor the ban" or "I oppose the ban" I insist on writing my own explanation rather than accepting yours.

I'm guessing you... ...actually wouldn't support such a ban even if the evidence was -- to your way of thinking -- irrefutable

You've guessed badly.

I oppose the ban because I do not see evidence of increased safety in exchange for the loss of liberty. If you can show me verifiable evidence that it saves lives or cuts crime then I would be open to supporting it.

BTW - Feel free to comment on the Brady Center paper or my critique of it.

[villager]

41. No, there are other thoughtful critiques in this thread...

...dealing with the methodology side.

Assault weapons strike me as an intuitively obvious thing for an organized culture to do. That's my opinion, stance, etc., not really suject to change ("hmm... okay, let's just make it easier to get 'em!")

But I'm glad you're open to considering other types of evidence!

[FeebMaster]

42. That's funny.

I think an organized culture shouldn't regulate weapons at all.

[villager]

43. actually, *that* is funny...

...in a grotesque sort of way...

[FeebMaster]

44. How so? (nt)

...

[Columbia]

45. I agree

In a disorganized culture of lawlessness and anarchy, one needs the proper tools necessary to sustain life and liberty.

In an organized culture of peace and prosperity, there would be no need or reason to regulate these same tools because there is no fear of them being used improperly.

[slackmaster]

46. I don't trust your intuition

I prefer concrete evidence.

[jimsteuben]

47. Villager, it's not choice A

And I can prove this point, just hear me out.

Suppose we were discussing abortion instead of guns. Let's say that the Pro-Life Action League released a report which purports to rely on scientific analysis to show why their public policy stance (anti-abortion) would make more sense than a pro-choice stance.

Everyone has an opinion about the abortion issue. Fine, no problem there. Opinions are like....

Nonetheless, if Pro-Life Action League makes factually inaccurate statements or relies on invalid methodology in order to reach their conclusions, then they should be taken to task. Criticism of Pro-Life's study cannot be answered by someone who merely claims that Pro-Life's critics are biased "because they just the freedom to have abortions for themselves."

To dismiss criticism of Pro-Life's study in such a manner is erecting a strawman. Many anti-choice people engage in this form of debate by referring to pro-choice people as "pro-abortion," and the intellectual dishonesty is readily apparent.

Another example. I think that at the very least, medical patients in consultation with their doctors should have the freedom to use medicinal hemp when indicated without having to fear John Ashcroft's storm troopers. I myself am not interested in smoking hemp. Discussing medical hemp by attacking me as a druggie or wannabe druggie would be engaging in ad hominem.

You cannot dismiss Slackmaster's argument by pointing at the guns that you think he owns or wants.

[villager]

49. sorry, it's all smoke and mirrors--

--taking on the methodology of one report. As a citizen, I'm glad those guns are made harder to get. Period.

[FeebMaster]

50. I hate to break it to you,

but the AWB hasn't made it harder to get guns.

[villager]

51. then *that* would be a good reason...

...to repair the loopholes in it. If indeed, one can prove that in all instances the guns have been just as easy to get as they were before (note: I never claimed the law made it impossible to get them -- just somewhat more difficult. At least.)

[FeebMaster]

52. What loopholes?

The entire ban is based around essentially minor features that are easily removed without affecting the functioning of the weapon.

The AWB didn't make it somewhat more difficult to get these weapons because the law isn't about weapons. If anything, the AWB has helped to sell more of them.

[villager]

59. your statistics that AWB helped sell "more of them?"

and as for the loophole -- you named it. But again, you need to cop too: Do you own guns? What kind?

[FeebMaster]

60. I don't have statistics.

I do recall something about some group and giving Clinton a gun dealer of the year award. It was probably a joke and I can't seem to find a link. In any case, people don't like being told they can't have things.

What loophole did I name? You brought up loopholes.

No, I'm not a gun owner. I don't see what difference that makes either way though.

[villager]

61. then, "on what factual information is your opinion based?"

n/t

[FeebMaster]

62. Which opinion? (nt)

[slackmaster]

64. Big problem in this discussion - NOBODY has statistics

Every year the BATFE produces a document called Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Export Report, but it is not published. You have to file a FOIA request and wait and wait and wait to get a copy.

The firearms manufacturers don't publish their production statistics in a consistent, easily interpreted manner either.

Bottom line:

- Nobody knows how many pre-ban genuine "assault weapons" exist,

- Nobody knows how many post-ban "copycat baby-killing firearms of mass destruction without evil cosmetic features" exist.

Even the state of California, which has a stricter definition of assault weapon (kind of similar to that in HR 2038 BTW) and REGISTRATION of "AWs" has no idea how many "AWs" are in civilian hands here. Not a clue.

[slackmaster]

56. On what factual information is your opinion based?

What do you think are the loopholes in the AWB and why are they a problem?

[slackmaster]

66. I'll take this non-answer as an admission

That villager's opinion is based on someone else's rhetoric and not a real understanding of what the AWB covers and does not cover.

[slackmaster]

55. You still have conspicuously avoided making any germain comments

Regarding the methodology of the Brady Center's document or my critique of it.

Do you have an opinion you'd like to share with us?

[slackmaster]

65. Cue sound of crickets chirping

And villager has yet to make a single comment relevant to the core of this discussion thread.

I wonder if villager even understands what is and is not an "assault weapon".

How about it villager? Are you up to the "I-suspect-you-don't-know-what-you're-talking-about" challenge?

[FeebMaster]

3. They are available to everyone.

Depending on state law and eligibility to own guns.

[idadem]

68. Ban ALL semi-autos...

...so that they will never again appear in the daily 'Guns In The News' post.

[jhfenton]

4. Well written dissection of a biased report

I took a look at the report as well when I heard references to it on Monday. I noted the same three major problems you described. A real study would focus on crime rates and control for multiple variables. The problem for the Brady bunch is that a real study can show no effect on crime from the ban on scary-looking semi-automatic rifles.

Perhaps the Brady bunch should look at the number of bayonettings. Perhaps they can document a drop in drive-by bayonettings.

[rock]

5. Penetrating analysis

I enjoyed it greatly, thanks.

[Wickerman]

6. As a statistician I would like to address your first issue

I prepare reports for department heads daily. In the 14 years I have done this kind of work the only time my name ever appeared on any report was one submitted for publication in a journal. This is not that type of study.

Nunziato is an expert in gun tracing. He is the figure head of a company. He undoubtedly has a variety of analysts working for him and his name is assigned a project lead.

The crime gun tracing analysis in this study was done by Gerald A. Nunziato of Crime Gun Solutions LLC (CGS). For eight years, Mr. Nunziato was the Special Agent in Charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm’s National Tracing Center, during which he dramatically improved and expanded firearms tracing as a law enforcement tool.

The rest? I didn't read it to see if it is qualified as research - without knowing all pools of data I couldn't suppose to know if it is good science or not. It should be noted that this report is intended for public consumption - hence the cover graphics - NOT as a scientific paper one would hope to publish. That does not immediately discount the contents within as psuedo-science.

[slackmaster]

7. My point is it's intended to APPEAR to be a scientific article

IMO to deceive the lay public.

He undoubtedly has a variety of analysts working for him and his name is assigned a project lead.

I've got to disagree with you here. He could be a one-person operation for all we know. If there's more to his operation I don't understand why the Brady Center would have passed up an opportunity to give their paper more credibility. But they've done some pretty stupid things in the past.

Any hack with a Web browser could easily have gathered all of the data used to do the analysis and write the article. It's pseudoscience IMO because the cart is put before the horse - The Brady Center had a conclusion to support so they sought out someone who they thought could synthesize a convincing scientific-LOOKING justification.

I'm not convinced at all.

[Wickerman]

11. And again, I have to disagree

I think its more of a legisaltive report. It resembles no scientific report I have ever seen and my work has crossed numerous disciplines. A scientific report is NOT what would come to mind had I stumbled on this report on my own.

The press release for the report mentions the AnalystS at what's his name at what's his center's name.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=546

[slackmaster]

13. Most people have no clue what a scientific report looks like

It's deceptive propaganda packaged to fool the general public into thinking there is a measurable effect on crime.

[Wickerman]

19. too bad Brady and the NRA

can't work together to co-fund an independent study to find out, once and for all, what works and what doesn't. This "blame it all on the gun folk" or the "deny anything at all is happening" doesn't help the 10k per annum that are shot and killed each year. I'd like to see both sides work to scientifically determine the roots of gun violence and work to eradicate them.

Bwwaaahaahaa - like that is ever going to happen.

[slackmaster]

20. I believe it should be the government's job

To track and evaluate the effectiveness of its laws.

[Wickerman]

21. I concur

but I know both organizations like to put out their own research, so it seemed by extension, that the two could fund the effort.

Now, the only problem with the govt doing it is that when one branch, the CDC has attempted to do so, it has been cited as biased.

So, I guess we are back to square one.

[slackmaster]

22. FBI's Uniform Crime Reports would seem a logical place to start

The problem is they have never distinguished crimes committed with "assault weapons" (federal definition or whatever) from those committed with other handguns, shotguns, or rifles.

If I had the 1994 AWB to do over I would have required that the FBI track stats for "AW"s.

The problem with CDC is that its standard function is to study public health issues. Either criminal misuse of firearms is crime or it's a public health problem. Calling it a public health problem raises some peoples' hackles, as you pointed out. I think people have more faith in the FBI to make a proper distinction between criminals and everyone else.

[Wickerman]

26. I can see that

It would be nice for the FBI to track such data - I'll be holding my breath to ever see that happen, I'm afraid.

I don't really understand the issue with the CDC studies. All I have seen reference ICD-9 codes and I have a tremendous amount of faith in those as they are derived assessment from the ME and the presiding MD.

[jimsteuben]

54. CDC: No proof that gun control works

No Proof Gun Laws Reduce Violence
3 October 2003

A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun control laws — including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons —found no proof such measures reduce firearm violence.

The review was conducted by a task force of scientists appointed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/03/national/main576422.shtml

[jhfenton]

24. roots of gun violence

I think the roots of "gun violence" -- I would just call it violence -- are obvious. You just need to look at where the violence is coming from. A huge portion -- setting aside suicides, probably the vast majority -- of the violence is drug and gang-related. I don't think that's really in dispute.

The problem is agreeing to a solution. Many national Dems want to ban guns, to wage a "War on Guns." Many national Reps want to continue waging the counter-productive "War on Drugs." Some in both parties favor both.

Unfortunately, both the War on Drugs and a War on Guns are counterproductive, and, tragically, neither major party seems ready to address the War on Drugs. The Reps may be a touch more enthusiastic in waging the War on Drugs, but the Dems are hardly leading the opposition.

[Wickerman]

28. I'm not talking about obvious

I'm talking about wanting to take a scientific look at the spike in gun violence and making a sincere effort, agenda less, to discover the problem.

Perhaps someone more versed in gun talk (than me) can tell me when the epidemic of gun violence started in this country. Does it coincide with the advent of the phony war on drugs? Does it coincide with the proliferation of weapons to the market as experienced in the 60's?

See, one side would like to blame the drug war. One side is content to blame the manufacturers. If we could have an HONEST look at the problem, without our preconceived biases, then maybe we could get down to solving the real problems AND keep guns in the hands of people that use them responsibly.

[DoNotRefill]

37. I'm pretty sure....

it started with prohibition.

Of course, it's a cyclic thing. Certain trends in criminality, coupled with an increase in profitability of crime, cause gun violence to go up. when each new form of crime first starts, there's a darwinian process at work. Drugs are just as rampant and available today as they were at the height of the crack boom in the 1980's, but there's now comparatively less violence now due to distribution concerns becoming firmly entrenched. While there was once widespread bloodshed between large groups competing for market share, the violence today has tapered off to keeping new organizations from sprouting, a much simpler (and less violent) prospect.

One thing to note: Accidental deaths and injuries involving firearms are at an all-time low. Also, the vast majority of people who die in the US by gunshot wound are not crime victims or accident victims, but deliberate, premeditated suicides.

[MrSandman]

53. This site has the most about trends I have found...

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm

On edit: I think it appears independent of volume of guns. I am not sure about the date war was declared on drugs. It looks like the toung adukthood of late baby booomers and early post baby boomers. No analysis to back it up. Idle speculation.

[slackmaster]

57. Here's my idle speculation

I notice two apparent peaks that seem to have significance for me personally, one about 1980-82 and another about 1991-92.

Those were both difficult times for me personally because the economy sucked out loud and I had a very hard time getting meaningful work.

I got a good job in 1983 that lasted until 1990, and was employed cotinuously from March 1992 until February 6, 1994.

Based on my completely unscientific analysis it appears the homicide victimization rate may be proportional to the unemployment rate. Maybe some people turn to crime when they don't have good jobs. I'll be really bold here and say it looks like any effect from the federal assault weapons ban on overall homicide is lost in a much larger sea of more important forces. That makes it a really lame issue for any politician to be pushing one way or another.



(Source: http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2003/el2003-05.html)

I say leave well enough alone and let the ban die on schedule.

[Columbia]

58. Homicide vs Unemployment

Homicide rate per 100,000


Unemployment rate by percent

__________________________________________________________________

It seems like the trend generally holds true.

Three main homicide spikes: 1970-1976, 1978-1984, 1987-1995

Three main unemployment spikes: 1974-1979, 1981-1985, 1990-1995

They don't correspond exactly, but they are all fairly close. Homicide seems to spike at the beginning of the unemployment rise.

What is really interesting is that the unemployment during the 1950's-1960's is about the same as the early 1990's, but the homicide rate does not correspond. So perhaps there is another factor that began to more closely tie unemployment to homicide beginning in the 1970's or so to today.
_________________________________________________________________

A couple more charts:

Homicide rate 1900-2000

__________________________________________________________________

18th Amendment to the Constitution - Ratified 1919

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited...

21st Amendment to the Constitution - Ratified 1933

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed...
__________________________________________________________________

Genealogy of the Drug Enforcement Administration

[MrSandman]

63. It recently started up at the same time as...

the formation of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.
Coincidence?

[Columbia]

67. Unemployment rate

Looks like the BLS only keeps the graphic temporarily. Go here under unemployment rate to calculate the statistics yourself:

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls

[GOPFighter]

8. Just curious....

Why would you expect higher standards from the Brady Center than we get from the gun-rights organizations? I've followed this issue closely for 30 years and have found that both sides routinely distort the truth. There's probably no other issue where the facts get so badly mangled and the real truth is so hard to discern.

That being said, you must understand that the Brady Center is a special interest group trying to raise money and rally their supporters, just like the NRA. They are not a think tank.

Sadly, most pressure groups engage in distorting the truth and massaging statistics to support their cause, and raise money. The gun rights people do it, and do it well. That's why they are such a formidable foe. I can only hope you are as disdainful of their tactics as you are of the Brady Center's.

[slackmaster]

9. I've never expected higher standards from the Bradys or anyone

And I do indeed disdain use of similar tactics by pro-RKBA organizations. That's why I very rarely quote pressure groups on either side. I prefer to work with raw numbers, technical issues with which I have some expertise, my own anecdotes, etc.

I find this piece from the Bradys particularly egregious because the reasoning is so obviously bass-ackwards. It will fool a lot of naive people into believing the AWB has had a measurable positive impact on crime, yet there is no real evidence presented to support that conclusion.