Data lacking on gun-control laws

[Columbia]

Data lacking on gun-control laws
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6724144

WASHINGTON - An analysis of efforts to control violence by restricting guns released Thursday concludes there is not enough evidence to reach valid conclusions about their effectiveness...

Thirty-four states have “right to carry” laws that allow certain adults to carry concealed weapons. However, the report found no credible evidence that such laws either decrease or increase violent crime...

Many studies linking guns to suicide and criminal violence produce conflicting conclusions, have statistical flaws and often do not show whether gun ownership results in certain outcomes, the report said...

The report noted that many schools have programs intended to prevent gun violence. However, it added, some studies suggest that children’s curiosity and teenagers’ attraction to risk make them resistant to the programs or that the projects actually increase the appeal of guns...

<more>

[Wickerman]

1. the projects actually increase the appeal of guns...

Sounds as well thought out as DARE. :eyes:

[EDT]

2. Both sides play games with statistics

Like any hot button topic in politics, it's hard to find an unbiased source for data. Just like accountants can make large company numbers turn out any number of ways, activists filter and comb till they see something they like. It can be very frustrating.

[lenidog]

3. Very true

I believe I heard somewhere that when Handgun Inc tallys children related death by firearms they include everyone up to the age of 21. Which if true would seriously skew the results.

[enigami]

4. yes it's true

[slackmaster]

6. Let me give you another AMEN on that one, EDT!

:toast:

When I read this piece in my daily fishwrap I was gratified to see experts saying the same things I've been saying for years.

[iverglas]

8. oh good

When I read this piece in my daily fishwrap I was gratified to see experts saying the same things I've been saying for years.

Now would you tell us what that is?

[slackmaster]

10. Liberalized concealed carry laws...

...and gun bans, and gun registration, and gun owner licensing, have not been shown to have an effect on violent crime rates.

[iverglas]

11. uh huh

And gosh, if we didn't collect any data about traffic fatalities, then you could say:

Speed limits have not been shown to have any effect on traffic fatality rates.

And be mighty proud of yourself to boot, I guess.

Goodness gracious. Imagine being happy that it has been made impossible to collect the data that are needed in order to test the effectiveness of legislation.

Call me Canadian (just a diehard fan of bean-counting when it comes to knowing whether what my governments are doing comprises value for money), but I'd find that sad.

[slackmaster]

12. One small problem

And gosh, if we didn't collect any data about traffic fatalities, then you could say:

Speed limits have not been shown to have any effect on traffic fatality rates.

I have done no such thing.

Imagine being happy that it has been made impossible to collect the data that are needed in order to test the effectiveness of legislation.

Imagine being able to read another person's mind over the Internet. :eyes:

Call me Canadian (just a diehard fan of bean-counting when it comes to knowing whether what my governments are doing comprises value for money), but I'd find that sad.

Gee iverglas, I believe governments should be held accountable for their actions and inactions too. I've said so many, many times on these forums.

[iverglas]

14. then I just scratch my head

I believe governments should be held accountable for their actions and inactions too. I've said so many, many times on these forums.

So why, exactly, would you rejoice that government agencies are barred from collecting the data that are needed for that purpose? --

Liberalized concealed carry laws...
...and gun bans, and gun registration, and gun owner licensing, have not been shown to have an effect on violent crime rates.

We KNOW that the it is impossible to "show" these things, EVEN IF THEY EXIST, if no one has the INFORMATION needed to "show" them.

We do NOT know that these things have and effect, or do not have an effect, on violent crime rates or anything else.

What we know is that we do not know, and that we cannot know if we do not have the information that is needed if we are to find out. Full stop.

The analogy to speed limits is flawless.

If no data is collected about motor vehicle use and motor vehicle fatalities, you would be able to say:

Liberalized concealed carry laws
Raising speed limits back to previous levels ...
...and gun bans mandatory seat belts, and gun registration vehicle registration, and gun owner licenzing driver licensing, have not been shown to have an effect on violent crime rates traffic fatalities or anything else.

And you would look just like the person sitting in the windowless room saying "it has not been shown to be raining (or not raining)". As you already do, of course.

[slackmaster]

18. Not sure what you're referring to

So why, exactly, would you rejoice that government agencies are barred from collecting the data that are needed for that purpose? --

I don't recall ever doing so.

Got a link?

[iverglas]

21. in the CONTEXT of this thread

you gave a great big AMEN to:

Both sides play games with statistics and the lament that an unbiased source statistics was hard to come by.

The entire point of the article cited in the opening post was NOT that anyone had been playing any games with statistics, it was that statistics (actually "data") are not available.

Your post, and the one it was echoing, would have been very relevant if anybody had been playing, or talking about somebody playing, game with statistics. No one was.

Dragging "playing with statistics" into a discussion that opened with a lament for the ABSENCE OF DATA looks to me like a diversionary tactic designed to imply that the people whose analysis was in question -- the US's National Research Council -- had been saying something about someone's use of statistics.

The author of the opening post chose to quote this:

However, the report found no credible evidence that such laws either decrease or increase violent crime...

entirely out of its context, with the effect being, in my humble suggestion, to misrepresent the purpose and content of the report in question -- which was, as the news report said, that "there is not enough evidence to reach valid conclusions about <the> effectiveness <of efforts to control violence by restricting guns>".

The inadequacy of data does not mean that the data that exists is inadequate for ALL analyses, or that ALL analyses of what data there is do not produce valid conclusions.

Just to opine a little further on my suspicion of diversionary intentions on someone's part, let's consider what the news report said here:

A serious limit in such analyses is the lack of good data on who owns firearms and on individual encounters with violence, according to the study.

Research scientists need appropriate access to federal and state data on gun use, manufacturing and sales, the study urged.

If someone seriously WANTED such analyses to be possible, in order to actually attempt to determine what effect permissive or restrictive firearms legislation might have, would s/he not be calling for the licensing of firearms owners and the registration of firearms possessed and transferred?

Or, at the very least, for what the authors themselves called for? --

The National Research Council said that a major research program on firearms is needed.

The report calls for the development of a National Violent Death Reporting System and a National Incident-Based Reporting System to begin collecting data.

Columbia didn't bother to enlighten us on his reasons for posting this article, and for selecting the passages he selected -- which blatantly omitted the point that the researchers were making.

Perhaps no one responding bothered to read the actual article. But there was nothing in that article to support the allegation that Both sides play games with statistics or to which such an allegation was even relevant.

In post # 8, I asked you what the experts were saying that you agreed with.

And in post #10, you responded by saying that permissive/restrictive firearms laws had not been shown to have an effect on violent crime rates.

And that just is NOT what the report said. It said that there was a lack of DATA that could be used to attempt to determine the effects of such laws. Who in hell could possibly "show" the effect of anything if there are no facts that could be hypothesized to be attributable to it??

The Committee is called the Committee on Improving Research Information and Data on Firearms
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/claj/Data_on_Firearms.html
NOT the Committee on examining the validity of claims about the effectiveness of firearms laws.

I'm unable to find the actual report in question at that site or anywhere else, unfortunately.

I'm afraid that I just interpreted your "gratification" at the experts saying that there was no evidence of the effectiveness of firearms laws (despite the fact that they did not say this -- they said that data that is needed in order to study the effectiveness of firearms is not available; ignorance of evidence, which might exist, is not no evidence) as gratification at the state of affairs that makes the existence of such evidence, or the strength of it, something that we do not know.

[slackmaster]

22. iverglas, if you insist on reading things wrong I can't help you

In the CONTEXT of this thread I was expressing joy that somebody besides myself is saying publicly that whether shall-issue laws, gun bans, etc. actually have any measurable effect on crime rates has not been established.

If you would take a little time and read what I've actually written without putting your own jaundiced spin on everything, you MIGHT see a consistent pattern to my statements:

- People who say that shall-issue laws are known to be harmful to public safety are blowing smoke.

- People who say that criminals will be deterred by the knowledge that more civilians will be carrying concealed weapons are blowing smoke.

- People who say that it's been proven that gun bans are needed for public safety are blowing smoke.

- People who attribute lower gun-related crime rates in states that have stricter gun laws to the effects of those laws are blowing smoke.

I'm getting very tired of trying to respond to your constant twisting of my words and your petty attacks on word usage. If you want to have a discussion about this kind of thing with me, you're going to have to start responding to what I've actually said rather than something else of your own creation.

Good day.

[iverglas]

24. and

- People who say that shall-issue laws are known to be harmful to public safety are blowing smoke.

The report you referred to as saying the same things I've been saying for years said no such thing.

- People who say that criminals will be deterred by the knowledge that more civilians will be carrying concealed weapons are blowing smoke.

The report you referred to as saying the same things I've been saying for years said no such thing.

- People who say that it's been proven that gun bans are needed for public safety are blowing smoke.

The report you referred to as saying the same things I've been saying for years said no such thing.

- People who attribute lower gun-related crime rates in states that have stricter gun laws to the effects of those laws are blowing smoke.

The report you referred to as saying the same things I've been saying for years said no such thing.

(And that's all without even mentioning the straw folk you've set up in a couple of those assertions, about whom both the researchers and I might say what you've said, if asked.)

(I'm basing what I'm saying on reports about the report; what I'm saying is subject to revision once I find a copy of the report itself.)

And yet you cited the experts who wrote it as saying these things. At least that's what I deduce from your reference to things I've been saying for years followed by a list of things that constitute the consistent pattern of things you have said.

I'm getting very tired of trying to respond to your constant twisting of my words and your petty attacks on word usage. If you want to have a discussion about this kind of thing with me, you're going to have to start responding to what I've actually said rather than something else of your own creation.

You might want to start by not misrepresenting facts. Like the facts of what the NRC report in question said.

And gosh, if you want to accuse me of "petty attacks on word usage", you might want to cite an instance.

But hey, allow me to note the interesting use of the expression "blowing smoke", which does indeed make it difficult to demonstrate the accuracy or inaccuracy, veracity or falsity, of your statements.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=blow

blow smoke

1.To speak deceptively.
2.To brag or exaggerate.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=blow

blow smoke : to speak idly, misleadingly, or boastfully

Who knows? Were you accusing the people you evoke of speaking without due consideration, or of speaking with intent to mislead? Who knows? Maybe you were accusing them of inhaling cocaine ...

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=c&p=2

camouflage
1917, from Fr. camoufler, Parisian slang, "to disguise," from It. camuffare "to disguise," probably alt. by Fr. camouflet "puff of smoke," on the notion of "blow smoke in someone's face." The British navy in World War I called it dazzle-painting.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=uk.net.news.config

3. <definition of> uk.net.news.config
To waffle on for hours on end, also to blow smoke out of your own butt for the good of the usenet community (NOT)

I suppose I should anticipate, from that last:

Will try and win a conversation by boring the fuck out of anyone that happens to question ANYTHING.

and pre-empt by saying "so's yer old man".

[NorthernSpy]

25. lucky Mr. Smoke, whoever he is...

blow smoke : to speak idly, misleadingly, or boastfully

Who knows? Were you accusing the people you evoke of speaking without due consideration, or of speaking with intent to mislead? Who knows? Maybe you were accusing them of inhaling cocaine ...

I think you mean snorting blow, not blowing smoke in that particular instance.


Anywaaay, I think I can see the distinction that you are making. But stating that those who claim (x) about the effect of gun control measures on crime rates are "blowing smoke" (Slackmaster) and stating that the evidence for (x) is not available (the news article) still seem to amount to pretty much the same thing...

[iverglas]

27. nuh uh

I think you mean snorting blow, not blowing smoke in that particular instance.

I just posts what I sees.

http://parentingteens.about.com/cs/cocainecrack/l/blsldiccocaine.htm

Blow coke - to inhale cocaine
Blow smoke - to inhale cocaine

An (unu.) usage, perhaps, but ... well, I thought maybe the source (and one of its fellow travellers, http://www.dss.mil/nf/adr/drugs/drugsAD.htm heh heh) was more expert than moi, but maybe not. ;)

"Blowing smoke" in the drug-use context is indeed more commonly said to refer to smoking reefer, I gather. Never said it myself, that I recall, despite quite a number of opportunities, nor heard it said.

Anywaaay, I think I can see the distinction that you are making. But stating that those who claim (x) about the effect of gun control measures on crime rates are "blowing smoke" (Slackmaster) and stating that the evidence for (x) is not available (the news article) still seem to amount to pretty much the same thing...

And I maintain that there is a subtle but real difference. The report apparently states that the data -- which are necessary in order to determine the validity or invalidity of any claim -- are not available.

Asserting that making a particular claim is "blowing smoke" seems to me to go beyond saying that the validity of the claim cannot be determined, to saying that the claim is false.

Would someone who said, in 1812, that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer have been "blowing smoke"? S/he would not have had sufficient reliable data to prove the truth of the claim, but the claim would have been true nonetheless, so *I* would not characterize it as "blowing smoke".

There are not no data to support any of the various claims made, we should note. There are insufficient reliable data.

And, if I may nitpick just a little further, as I seem to have to do in order to clarify what I'm saying, there was something interesting about slackmaster's assertions (I underline to identify it, which I should have done earlier):

- People who say that shall-issue laws are known to be harmful to public safety are blowing smoke.

- People who say that criminals will be deterred by the knowledge that more civilians will be carrying concealed weapons are blowing smoke.

- People who say that it's been proven that gun bans are needed for public safety are blowing smoke.

- People who attribute lower gun-related crime rates in states that have stricter gun laws to the effects of those laws are blowing smoke.

In the first and third instances, it is claims of proof of certain things that he refers to as smoke -- not "people who say that shall-issue laws are harmful ..." and "people who say that gun bans are needed ...", but people who claim that these things are proved or known.

In the second and fourth instances, it is claims of certain things that he refers to as smoke -- people who say that something will happen or has happened.

(edit: This is the difference between someone in 1812 saying "smoking tobacco causes cancer", which was true, whether or not the speaker could prove it, and saying "smoking has been proved to cause cancer", which was false, although smoking could have been proved to cause cancer if the necessary data had been available. It may be that it's been proven that gun bans are needed for public safety is false, but that doesn't mean that gun bans are needed for public safety could not be proved to be true.)

The statements in the first set are carefully enough worded that they could be characterized as true, where "blowing smoke" means "speaking deceptively" (or at least falsely), and as supported by the report in question.

But the statements in the second set are, by that meaning of "blowing smoke", no more demonstrably true than the statements they characterize as false, and are not supported by the report in question.

[slackmaster]

26. Let nobody say I didn't make a serious effort here

:nuke:

[Left in IL]

13. higher speeds to not cause more accidents...

...but they do make crashes more severe, and therefore more fatalities. This was in a report from the National Safery Council.

Data also showed that the faster you went the more likely an accident would be fatal, except there was a decrease from 85 - 95 mph. go figure.

[iverglas]

15. fuckin' duh

"higher speeds to not cause more accidents...
...but they do make crashes more severe, and therefore more fatalities. This was in a report from the National Safery Council."

And how do we suppose that the National Safety Council reached this conclusion?

Hmm. Do we suppose that it reached this conclusion BY EXAMINING THE DATA about motor vehicle crashes that had been collected?????

And then by comparing the data regarding crashes at higher speeds with the data regarding crashes at lower speeds, for instance?

C'mon, put on that thinking cap.

If no agency HAS data about firearms injuries, firearms homicides, firearms suicides, firearms accidental deaths, crimes committed with firearms, etc. etc., why would you expect anyone to propose any conclusions about whether laws relating to firearms have any effect on said injuries, deaths and crimes?????

How could anyone compare the DATA about firearms injuries, deaths and crimes in jurisdictions with permissive laws with the DATA in jurisdictions with restrictive laws IF NOBODY HAS ANY DATA?

And why would anyone think that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness COULD BE interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness?

Not "insufficient evidence OF effectiveness" -- "insufficient evidence TO DETERMINE effectiveness".

Anybody getting it yet?

And if someone believes, for whatever reason, that there IS evidence of ineffectiveness, why would s/he rejoice in a report that the DATA required in order to demonstrate this cannot be collected??

[Left in IL]

16. Data

The City of Chicago keeps more data than most, but I don't recall where it's located, or if it's directly related to this discussion.

[iverglas]

17. that's nice

The City of Chicago keeps more data than most, but I don't recall where it's located, or if it's directly related to this discussion.

And without data to compare that data with ... where are we now?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

23. aw

"Here it comes."

and there it went.

Tsk.

[goju]

5. Imagine that!

You mean, gun laws havent had a demonstrable effect on criminal/violent behavior? But but but, the VPC said...... :eyes:

[iverglas]

9. "You mean, ...

... gun laws havent had a demonstrable effect on criminal/violent behavior?"

May the person who posted the article means that, indeed.

But if you're addressing the people who did the study, can you provide anything to support your apparent conclusion/allegation that they would answer "yes" to your question?

I'm just not seeing it, so I'm hoping you'll help me out.

[iverglas]

7. what is it that we all don't understand about ...

"data lacking"?

Myself, I would have quoted the paragraphs from the article that make the actual point being made by the speakers:

The National Research Council said that a major research program on firearms is needed.

... "These and many related policy questions cannot be answered definitively because of large gaps in the existing science base," he said. "The available data are too weak to support strong conclusions."

... The report does not address gun policy itself, only the quality of available research data on firearm violence, control and prevention efforts.

... A serious limit in such analyses is the lack of good data on who owns firearms and on individual encounters with violence, according to the study.

Not "the quality of any conclusions reached" -- the quality of the data available on which to base ANY conclusions.

Shall we dumb it down a bit?

Let's try to evaluate whether speed limits have an effect on traffic fatalities

- without knowing how many cars are on the roads
- without knowing what speeds people actually drive at
- without knowing how many car crashes there are

Hmm. Think we might have a problem?

Now let's try evaluating whether firearms controls have an effect on, say, firearms fatalities. (We might also consider whether they have an effect on armed robberies, suicides, accidental shootings, emergency room costs ... .)

And let's try doing it

- without knowing how many firearms people own
- without knowing what firearms they own and what they do with them
- without knowing how many people are struck by bullets.

Hmm. Think we might have a problem doing that?


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/injuries.html

Last year <1996>, Congress nearly slashed the budget for the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), which collects and monitors firearm injury data and funds related research as part of its mission. As a result of new funding mandates, CDC this year has been forced to dramatically reduce its firearm-related injury research, and CDC-funded gunshot injury surveillance programs will come to an end in several states.

... Victoria Ozonoff is one of several state gun violence researchers who are losing their CDC funding. As a principal investigator with the Massachusetts' Weapon-Related Injury Surveillance System (WRISS), she helped build one of the nation's first state-wide firearm and weapon injury surveillance programs. With CDC funding, WRISS set up a surveillance program that collects data from hospital emergency rooms, police reports and ballistics records, piecing together the details of shooting deaths and injuries, as well as stabbings. ...

Access to this type of information is crucial for injury prevention programs and Ozonoff says requests for WRISS data come from all sectors of society, from the state attorney general's office worried about cheap handguns used in crimes to educators designing prevention strategies in schools. Even National Rifle Association supporters have used WRISS data to show that knife assaults are more common than gun assaults. WRISS is able to estimate risk levels for residents across the state. "We're using the data to track firearm injuries in a similar way to a range of other health problems, like cancer and food poisoning," Ozonoff says. ...

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,567328,00.html
(as usual, if you want to attack the source, have a picnic; I cite it as the first and easiest source I found for the quoted statement by the CDC, and I emphasize)

An independent nonfederal task force assessed 51 published studies that evaluated the effects of firearms laws on violence. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported the task force's findings in the Oct. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report. Its principal conclusion: "The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)"

Well quelle great big fucking surprise.

If you did not have a window to look out of, how would you have enough evidence to determine whether it was raining?

The CDC is effectively prohibited from collecting and analyzing the data that is needed in order to evaluate the effectiveness of firearms control measures (or permissive firearms measures), and then a task force concludes that there is insufficient data to evaluate that effectiveness.

Getting it, anybody? At all?

DATA LACKING.

NOT "there is no data to support XYZ", but "We do not have access to data to confirm or deny XYZ".

I'll bet that if we all think really hard, and maybe even read and think about what was atually said, we can discern the difference.

[slackmaster]

19. "we all" my ass

Speak for yourself.

[Low Drag]

28. WOW

Gary Kleck, a card carrying liberal would disagree with MSNBC.

He's done extensive research on the topic and has concluded otherwise. He opens up his raw data, methods and calculations to those that would be critical of him. None could refute his finding.

Violent crime went down in Florida in the years after CCW laws were passed while the rest of the nations violent crime rates went up. Florida was one state in the lead for violence in the nation prior to the CCW laws in 1987.

On another note, the UK's violent crime rates are now on par with the US. At least as of 2001, when the latest numbers have been compiled by the UN.