AJPM - Not enough evidence to say gun laws reduce violence

[Township75]

Despite a proliferation of gun registration requirements, bans on specific firearms and “zero tolerance” policies for guns in schools over the past three decades, the jury is still out on whether these laws help prevent gun violence, according to a new review of studies in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
The review by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services concluded that there was “insufficient evidence” to determine whether any of the federal, state and local gun laws reviewed had an effect on gun-related deaths, violent crimes, suicides and other outcomes.

The report’s lead author, Dr. Robert Hahn of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says “it is critical to note” that the review does not mean that gun laws are ineffective.

“We mean simply that we do not yet know what effects, if any, the laws have” on gun-related violence, Hahn says, and that the Task Force does not recommend that current laws be changed in any way “until effectiveness can be demonstrated one way or the other.”

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=7716

This must be some NRA publication or something, because just last week (or pretty much every day) The Brady Campaign is telling us how these tough gun laws make the difference in reducing gun violence and protecting our children and helping Dems lose elections.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine = NRA (end sarcasm)

[Igel]

1. Compare agendas.

I'm automatically suspicious whenever anybody advocating for something declares their way has turned water into wine and lead into gold. It doesn't matter if it's a country saying how innocent they are in the face of some accusation or a scientist making a claim that once and for all shows him/her right, but can't be reproduced. Brady had a life-altering event, and an agenda.

If you look at gun control laws, you find that they tend to reduce some reported crimes. But there's great difficulty in controlling for the crime the guns prevented: they don't get reported. It doesn't help that it's nearly impossible to find two areas differing only in gun control laws at any given time, and that crime rates are in constant flux, often for reasons we can't even guess at. And it's difficult to nail the number of guns actually on the street.

The debate's gone on for a while. Make one set of assumptions, gun control works. Make a different set, and it's a wash. Make a third set, gun control's bad.

[iverglas]

2. slow news days

December 31:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=96850

December 18:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=96247

December 16:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=96095

And now February 11.

And so little news to start with:

... the review does not mean that gun laws are ineffective. “We mean simply that we do not yet know what effects, if any, the laws have” on gun-related violence, ...

Wow. Stop the presses. Again.


Did anybody want to actually quote anything the Violence Policy Centre or anyone else said that is directly contradicted by this report, btw?

Nah. Why do that when ya can just demonize ...

[iverglas]

3. oh, and btw

Some more from the article cited:

Studies on the effectiveness of gun laws are plagued by poor or missing data, confusion over which laws affect which jurisdictions and underreporting of violent gun-related crimes, the task force researchers say.

... Hahn says future gun law studies would benefit from better records of gun-related violence and accessibility to gun ownership and sales records. Although some information on gun sales is available, it is “limited to protect the privacy of firearm owners,” Hahn says.

So ... in the interests of actually having enough data so that reasonable conclusions can be drawn from it ... may I now assume that all the firearms owners will be clamouring for laws requiring licensing of owners and registration of their firearms?

Of course I can! Because no one would think of trumpeting the lack of evidence of something out of one side of their mouth, while refusing to allow such evidence to be collected out of the other side of their mouth.

Heavens to Betsy. That would be unconscionable, no?

[Wickerman]

4. Locking

been reported on editoriolized on (coreectly and incorrectly) numerous times. Find one of the old the threads and beat that horse for awhile - careful - it's been dead quite awhile.