Here we go again: Another hack “scientific” study favoring gun control
“Scientists” once again stupidly conflate “homicide/suicide” with “criminal gun violence”
Here’s a pro-tip for all of you who will be seeing headlines in coming days from “news” articles writing about a recent “scientific” study on gun violence: Any time you see such a study purport to examine “gun violence” but actually examine “homicide” and “suicide,” you can be pretty sure it’s a hack job.
I’ve written on this conflation of “gun violence” with “homicide” and “suicide” before (such as Faux Science: Claim that homicides surged under Florida’s “Stand-Your-Ground” law), but in the past few days another large “gun violence” study that does precisely this has been published–The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide and Suicide Deaths in the USA, 1991–2016: a Panel Study–and we’ll be seeing a lot of “news” stories based on this study in the usual gun control media (but I repeat myself).
The stated objective of this study is: “To examine the relationship between state firearm laws and overall homicide and suicide rates at the state level across all 50 states over a 26-year period.” (I note in passing that the study is behind a paywall and requires $39.95 to access the full text. This cost helps ensure that few private individuals will critically read the actual study, and instead will necessarily rely on the #fakenews anti-Second Amendment propagandized interpretation of the study.)
So, let’s take a look at why it’s scientific malfeasance to conflate “gun violence” with “homicide” and “suicide.”
“Homicide” ≠ “Unlawful gun violence”
Using “homicide” as a synonym for criminal conduct is unforgivably stupid at the best or aggressively malicious at worst, and in either case fatally undermines the credibility of the study’s authors.
Why? Because homicide literally simply means one person killed another, and not all homicides are, in fact, criminal conduct. Some homicides are unlawful killings, such as murder or manslaughter. Other homicides are not only lawful, but arguably a social good—such as a single mother shooting and killing the man attempting to rape and maim her and her child.
Researchers who study “gun violence” by examining “homicides” are conflating criminal predation and lawful self-defense, and essentially arguing that there is no legal or moral distinction between them. I disagree. And so does the law.
If a change in gun laws purportedly results in an increased homicide rate, we have no idea if that change was socially positive or negative unless we know if the homicides were lawful or unlawful.
A state that changed from a costly permitting process for concealed carry to zero-cost permit-less Constitutional Carry might well see an increase in law-abiding (especially poor, law-abiding) people carrying guns for personal protection. The pool of lawful people prepared to defend themselves against deadly force criminal predation has thus expanded. Therefore it should surprise no one if there occurs an increase in lawful defensive uses of guns, and thus an increase in homicides committed in lawful self-defense.
Is that supposed to be a “bad” social outcome, given that the alternative must necessarily be a smaller pool of law-abiding people able to defend themselves against violent criminal predators, and thus a greater number of innocent victims—victims of murder, rape, maiming—than if those law-abiding people had been armed for self-defense? I think not. I think such an increase in “homicides”—lawful killings in necessary self-defense—is a good social outcome.
The mere fact that homicides may have increased isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It may simply mean that more law-abiding people are arming themselves for self-defense and successfully defending themselves against violent criminal predation. Conversely, a drop in homicides would not necessarily be a good thing, if what that really meant was that fewer home-invading rapists were stopped by their victims.
Bottom line: whether homicides are “bad” or “good” is a function of who is doing the dying.
“Suicide” Is a Mental Health, not a “Gun Violence,” Problem
Using “suicide” as a synonym for “gun violence” is even more reprehensible. Suicide is a mental health problem, not a criminal violence problem. This is obvious simply by looking at Japan, where private gun ownership is effectively non-existent and yet the suicide rate is higher than in the United States.
So why do these “scientists” include “suicide” in their “gun violence” studies? In order to inflate their data—the large majority of gun deaths in the United States are, in fact, suicides rather than acts of criminal predation. These “scientists” thus conflate “gun violence” with “suicide” in order to inflate the apparent social importance of their “science” and thus of themselves.
Don’t be fooled by #fakescience, folks.
As always: You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill. Know the law so you’re hard to convict.
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense
P.S. This week Law of Self Defense is launching the 3-DVD & CD release of selected “Law of Self Defense Show” content from the first quarter of 2019. That’s over 6 hours of self-defense law insight and expertise on DVD (or streamed online, your choice) as well as on CD as audio MP3 files you can download to the listening device of your preference. And it’s yours to own for only $14.95–THIS WEEK ONLY! To learn more, point your browser to lawofselfdefense.com/showdvd
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Lately I have been thinking about the liberal irony of the Democrat’s pro-infanticide platform vs depriving one from owning a firearm to end their life. I guess they will just find a back alley to do it otherwise, maybe with a Smollet bow tie 😉
Did Soros fund that too?
Soros Bankrolled Unverified ‘Hate Crime’ Database Used by Major Media Outlets
Nazi Soros sure hates American Freedoms…….
Firms Tied To Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele Were Paid $3.8 Million By Soros-Backed Group
He’s all kinds of bad things, but not a nazi.
(Though he funds organizations that help the Nazis’ “Palestinian” allies advance their goal, which ultimately involves continuing where they left off.)
I understand what you are saying, but he has a few issues and socialism and fascism are among them. I believe his currency trading has morphed into psychotic monofixation. Where once he believed he could control the destiny of nations because he had a success or two in currency manipulation and/or political finance, he now believes he can transform the world.
He was a Nazi collaborator. Yes, he’s that old.
No, he was not. It’s a vile, vicious smear, and those making it are beyond the pale. There are some things you just don’t say unless you know them to be true.
Go watch the 60 Minutes interview with Steve Croft. He’s a NAZI!
I’ve watched it, and he’s not. Shame on you.
By his own words Soros was a Nazi collaborator who helped Nazis confiscate property from Jews. With no regrets.
The line dividing Soros from Nazis is vanishingly small.
No, he was not. Not by his own words or by any evidence. Aaron Bandler is a liar. And so are you.
Sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong as you are here. Try to be an adult about it in both situations. Getting childish to defend Soros from a very legitimate accusation should be beneath you.
The accusation is not legitimate. It is a vicious and vile libel, no matter how much we both disagree with his current politics. The video clip you linked to is dishonestly edited by another vicious liar.
Soros did not collaborate in any way. He was there. He watched people undergoing horrible treatment, conscious that but for the grace of God he could easily have been a victim rather than a spectator. And quite rightly he feels no guilt over that. As he says, it would have happened exactly the same whether he was there to witness it or not. He played no active role so he has nothing to feel guilty for.
But survivor’s guilt is a real thing, and many people in his place suffer from it. It’s an emotional disorder. Those who suffer from it need therapy to get over it, because it is a destructive emotion. If he escaped it, good for him.
I wonder how many criminals donated to have this study made? We all know people carrying firearms are a workplace hazard for criminals. Yes, this includes most politicians.
Once they figure out how to dis-arm criminals we can discus the meaning of “shall not be infringed”.
One of the reasons for the Second Amendment is the preservation of the entitlement of the citizenry to fight back against an oppressive set of rulers, like they had just done to George III of Britain. I still would not support having all guns banned even if we could magically ensure that criminals could not obtain or use guns – unless you are including politicians in the list of ‘criminals’. In addition a gun is a great equaliser against faster and stronger criminals so that small, weak or disabled people can defend themselves.
Me either. People need guns to defend themselves, not only from criminals with guns but also from those without. Guns are an equalizer, empowering the weak against the strong who would otherwise predate on them without fear.
CLOSE to what Thomas Payne said in his articles of SELF DEFENSE
“Guns are an equalizer, empowering the weak against the strong who would otherwise predate on them without fear.”
Ironically, the majority of the fervent supporters of banning guns seem to be among the physically weaker group that would be the preferred prey in a gun free society…
The Second isn’t about guns, it’s about “arms”. That includes guns, of course, but also a whole lot more.
No the problem is caused by the one synapse Demoncrat voters who give violent criminals a slap on the wrist instead of an automatic, no appeal, and an expeditious death penalty.
as usual, cogent and well reasoned content from The Man.
could you be persuaded to share your thoughts on either Duncan and/or Rhode V Bercerra here in #Failifornia? they are, respectively, the 10 round magazine limit and the no internet direct sales ammo ban.
current status for both linked below:
Re: Duncan v. Becerra, I don’t claim any particular Second Amendment expertise, other than what one would expect of a life-long gun owner who also happens to be a lawyer and Constitutionalist, but I did do a kind of “Cliff Notes” review of the decision at my own blog: https://lawofselfdefense.com/duncan-v-becerra-aka-ca-large-capacity-magazine-decision/
i thank you sir, again, for your thoughtful comments.
and i agree: with the 9h Circus, and CJ Roberts, no one knows what is likely to happen next.
G*d Bless Judge Benitez, and may his wisdom prevail.
Why are moonbats so easy to identify? There’s just something about freaks, loons, vegans and similar deviants that compels them to exhort themselves to incurious humans.
Oooh, that’s just nasty!
Five classes of homicide:
(Not a legal definition, natch!)
you misspelled “praiseworthy”… 😉
Since when are enumerated constitutional rights limited because of a “study”? That’s kind of the entire point of their protection.
Since when can each and every state amend our Constitutional rights to its liking?
Why the concern about suicide? In every blue State suicide is now encouraged…except by the best method of all. A gun. Messy for the house keeper at times. Absolutely perfect for the perp.
Suicide should be made illegal!
“There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
(Mark Twain, Benjamin Disraeli)
The article uses false logic to turn dubious statistics into lies.
Association does not imply causation!!
An example is that people who take heart meds are more likely to die of heart attacks. That does not mean that the heart meds cause heart attacks. People with heart problems take heart meds, and they are at higher risk.
An association of guns with crime-ridden areas (like Chicago, where guns are totally banned) doesn’t mean that the availability of guns causes the gang members to become violent. It means that violent gang members get guns illegally any way they have to.
You can pass whatever laws you want, and potential murderers will ignore the laws and get guns anyway. Even the draconian gun laws in France didn’t keep terrorists from getting the guns they used to kill 130 people. Gun laws only affect non-criminals, and often turn good citizens into closet criminals for refusing to allow their property to be confiscated (CA and NJ are examples).
Coincidence does not infer causality. Dissertation advisor’s mantra.
The number one consumer of junk science in the world is the USA Federal government. And by coincidence, the departments that seek to justify the fascist regime they wish to impose, each desirous imposition specific to the micro-agenda of those individual departments, also fund it.
Yes, I saw this. The fact that the notorious David Hemenway is one of the authors told me pretty much all I need to know about this study’s veracity.
The financial hurdle is a good idea. The canonical masterpieces like Dr Kellermann’s junk-science studies are available for free, so all and sundry can see for themselves just how bad they are without having to blow good money on trash. It’s easier to maintain a mysterious allure and glossy authority when nobody’s actually read the damn paper.
I read that without the top 7 counties for gun crime the USA would be comfortably in the EU norms. The gun crime issue is a no-go zone for progs since it means facing up to minority issues and how their policies have created the problem.
A small percentage of a minority population in small areas of the country constitute the bulk of gun crime.
I live on a rural homestead about three miles past the end of the world. Two summers ago my neighbor who lives a mile away shot a black bear trying to enter his kitchen. Last summer I got into an argument with another bear wanting to eat my raspberries and had, as well, to deal with feral hogs, several cottonmouth snakes, and a few coyotes. As a rule I don’t work the homestead without being armed.
Last summer some people stopped as I was working outside and asked for directions. As I was talking to them they noticed I was armed with a pistol on my belt. Being they were from the big city around 100 miles away, they were shocked to see open carry and asked why I did so. I told them I needed to for self protection. They asked “From what?’. I calmly replied “Skeeters”.
A friend was hiking a trail when he met hikers from “Outside”. Their look was “oh my god he is armed”! My friends response was “oh my god they aren’t armed!”
Visiting Hoonah years ago, our driver stopped tourists walking up to see the bears at the dump. He IMPLORED them to get in van….pleaded…and finally they relented. He drove to dump and three large (nice coloration) brownies were there…only the van between us and them. The tourists went pale. Around Hoonah there is one bear per square mile of land…bear attacks in town are not uncommon.
The biggest predator isn’t an animal per se but a thing…bad government. What did a “free state” fear that needed atms? An imperial government….just like ours is becoming. “Government” is the opiate of the Left.
They asked “From what?’. I calmly replied “Skeeters”.
Sounds like you had an opportunity to spread a little education to the unenlightened, but blew it off for a chance to be a smartass. Now they can go back and tell their cloistered buddies that those backwoods hicks are not just hicks, they’re wacky armed hicks.
I have perfectly well-meaning relatives who have said they’re not in favor of “gun control” but “we gotta do something about those assault things.” These are not total idiots—they genuinely don’t know that this is nonsense. I think I was able to address their misconceptions, and have some evidence that I was successful. But I could only do so because being a smartass isn’t one of my hobbies.
It’s worth noting that they found no correlation between the suicide rate and any of the gun laws they looked at.
Exactly as 2nd-Amendment advocates have been saying forever.
Suicide requires impulse to commit. The banners feel that removal of a mode of suicide with high success rate will leave the person with only options that allow intervention. What is never mentioned is that the other options may put other people at risk.
Japan has a “hanging forest”. Robin Williams and that fashion designer with her scarf… on and on. Bans trade one form of personal suicide into a communal form of suicide.
I’ve personally known over a dozen people in my lifetime who have done themselves in.
Only one of them used a gun
Garages top the list of methods
followed by pills and a couple of self-hangings
and when all else fails, they just drive into an on-coming vehicle loaded with kids.
Someone needs to enlighten me about “gun violence” as I apparently fail to have the mental capacity to comprehend an inanimate object being responsible for an action or activity.
IGNORANT sheep! One & all that is, that preach this TRIPE! Please go to the south-side of shitcago and march AT NITE!
The purpose of these “studies” on firearms “violence” serve no scientific purpose at all. They are solely designed to serve a political purpose the restriction of the ownership and possession of firearms. And, it is done solely to protect the power, position and well-being of the elite. The elite [rich and powerful] are able to pay for personal protection or to demand and receive special protection from the state; something that the masses can not do. And every jurisdiction in the Union, even those which ban the ownership and possession of firearms, have laws which allow this practice.
Throughout history we have seen the elite use the power of the state to disarm the masses. It has happened literally everywhere, including the good old USA. Dodge City Kansas had a city ordinance which prohibited the carry of firearms in the entertainment district, by non-residents, which was later expanded to include the entire incorporated area of the town. It has happened in Europe, South America, Africa and Asia. It is a common practice. In was illegal, in Japan first for those not of the Samurai Class to carry swords, then for anyone to carry swords. This was expanded to firearms, as those became available to the masses. The same thing happened in Europe. Most South and Central American nations have long had prohibitions against the possession of military firearms, “military” being defined as any firearm which can chamber a cartridge used by the military of that, or sometimes another, nation.
In the US, those desiring to eliminate the ownership and possession of firearms, by the general public, have to contend with the 2nd Amendment, arguably the most clearly written portion of the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights. And, that Amendment still exists because we, as a culture, still recognize the need for weapons for personal defense. So, they are forced to fabricate “facts” to support their desire to eliminate the private ownership of firearms.
I am apart? Another hooked on phonics graduate, I assume.
The Sparta Report has a good (although a little lengthy) article on the Old West, guns and gun violence.
“I note in passing that the study is behind a paywall and requires $39.95 to access the full text. This cost helps ensure that few private individuals will critically read the actual study, and instead will necessarily rely on the #fakenews anti-Second Amendment propagandized interpretation of the study.”
That’s one way to tell the media is lying. Another way is when they accuse conservatives of making “racist” or “homophobic” remarks. But they never report what the conservative actually said. So my default mode is that it’s just a baseless smear. It’s similar to my default mode when I hear of a “hate crime.” Default mode now is that it’s a hoax.
alaskabob, when I was stationed in Japan it seemed that walking in front of a subway train or jumping from bridges/tall buildings was more popular.
The brain dead witch should just have a turd samich instead,it flows freely out of the house which she is a member of.