'Nuff said. No credibility from them on this topic. In other news, Exxon-Mobil released a "study" disproving man made climate change. LOL

Just sayin'...

Not, mind you, that the source of a claim can't legitimately set off warning bells. Particularly in contentious matters, there's a lot of cherry-picking in popular articles like this one (as opposed to peer-reviewed research published in recognized journals). That is to say, this is a fact sheet published by an agenda-based group, and should thus be checked against available validated data if one intends to cite it as evidence supporting a position. That's what I'd do with any such article, regardless of which side of the debate it issued from.

The red flag for me here is the lack of a citation for the source of the data. The standard source for this kind of data would be the DoJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics, and if I decide I'm interested enough, it would be a simple matter to cross reference between that source and the data tables presented in the study.

I almost certainly am interested enough (when time permits...I'm busy and kinda screwing off even by taking the time to post this!), as I've been a supporter of universal background checks for a long time and I'd like some evidence to see if they're proving useful. Establishing a correlation (or lack thereof) between UBCs and a reduction in these shootings would be a great step. It wouldn't be a demonstration of cause-and-effect, of course, as that would require reduction of confounding factors, etc., but even a simple correlation is quite useful: it prevents ruling out a causal connection.

Whenever I review “studies” touted by groups like Brady, Everytown/MDA, CSGV, and VPC I cringe at the level of statistical manipulation and dishonesty presented as scholarly fact. As the old saying goes, special interest groups use statistics in the same way that a drunk uses lamp-posts—for support rather than illumination.

A few months ago Daniel Webster published a “study” attempting to demonstrate that Connecticut’s FOID program had the effect of lowering the suicide rate over a specific time period. I spent a few hours looking over the raw data and double-checking his math with Excel. I discovered that his study results completely fell apart if you adjusted the time period under observation. He studied 1995-2013, and excluded 2014 data. Why did he exclude 2014? I don’t know as the data was available well before he published. But I do know that if you included 2014 as the end point, the population adjusted suicide rate in Connecticut actually increased on average .53% per year or if using a geometric mean by .23% per year. That’s just over the life of the FOID program. If you go back even further, you realize that the biggest drops in Connecticut’s suicide rate came a few years before the FOID program was implemented and the biggest increase in the suicide rate came after the implementation of FOID. Now, I wouldn’t claim that the FOID program had the effect of increasing the overall suicide rate. Correlation does not imply causation.

I think if someone called out Daniel Webster on his “study”, he would probably argue that his calculation was only based on the firearm rate of suicide, and the overall rate of suicide should be ignored. Why? Does that make any sense unless your sole purpose is to vilify guns and gun ownership?

The raw data from Everytown’s study is unavailable. The best we have to work with is their tally sheet, which is useless on its own. http://everytownresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/MassShootingsBackgroundChecks-Appendix-1.pdf

What does this data set tell us about UBCs and the population adjusted murder rate?
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#nat1970

facts are only what you make them and I likes me some blood......



and, yes of course,

Does the NICS b.g. check apply to all states?

Last edited Thu Nov 12, 2015, 09:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Its hard to give much credence to an article that starts with dishonesty before it really gets going.

Federal law mandates a background check at retail, for EVERY firearms transaction, so while Alaska itself 'does not require' the federal government does.

Everytown and LCPGV are deliberately misleading people, and they know they're doing it.



There is no ban on research. More dishonesty from everytown.

I'm shocked.

I am sure they will come back with some kind of explanation

beevul: Its hard to give much credence to an article that starts with dishonesty before it really gets going.

everytown for gun safety: Alaska has the highest rate of gun violence in the US, for instance, and does not require background checks for handguns, but more than 80% of incidents are suicides, according to the CDC.

beevul: Federal law mandates a background check at retail, for EVERY firearms transaction, so while Alaska itself 'does not require' the federal government does.
Everytown and LCPGV are deliberately misleading people, and they know they're doing it.

Here's what LCPGV says about it, a catch22:

Federal law requires federally licensed firearms dealers (but not private sellers) to initiate a background check on the purchaser prior to sale of a firearm. Federal law provides states with the option of serving as a state “point of contact” and conducting their own background checks using state, as well as federal, records and databases, or having the checks performed by the FBI using only the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) database.
Alaska is not a point of contact state for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Alaska has no law requiring firearms dealers to initiate background checks prior to transferring a firearm. As a result, in Alaska, firearms dealers must initiate the background check required by federal law by contacting the FBI directly.
Federal law does not require dealers to conduct a background check if a firearm purchaser presents a state permit to purchase or possess firearms that meets certain conditions.
As a result, holders of concealed weapons permits marked NICS-Exempt in Alaska are exempt from the federal background check requirement. (Note, however, that people who have become prohibited from possessing firearms may continue to hold state permits to purchase or permit firearms if the state fails to remove these permits in a timely fashion.)
Alaska does not require private sellers (sellers who are not licensed dealers) to initiate a background check when transferring a firearm. See our Private Sales policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue. http://smartgunlaws.org/background-checks-in-alaska/

Discuss.

Neither does New York. Federal law applies, as in Alaska.


Right. Just as in New York and 30 other states.


Right again. New York's CCW used to provide exemption from NICS. That privilege was yanked when the Feds decided that New York's record-keeping was too sloppy. Alaska allows concealed carry without a permit, but one can optionally get a permit if one wants to be exempt from NICS. The Feds still recognize Alaska's permit as a valid NICS exemption, which would suggest that Alaska's procedures are aboveboard.


Right once more. The permit holder has been sufficiently background checked to satisfy the Feds, and is therefore able to benefit from the NICS exemption.

To summarize, Alaskans can carry concealed without a permit, but must undergo a Federal NICS check in order to purchase a firearm. If they wish to be exempt from NICS, they must obtain a permit. Alaskan CCW permit procedures are more stringent than those in New York, as demonstrated by Federal recognition of the former but not the latter.

Where's the Catch-22?

That suicides are the vast majority of gun deaths, but am sad that Everytown still inaccurately lumps those deaths in with "gun violence." Not to belittle suicides, but I don't see many studies equating suicides by hanging with "rope violence" or suicides by OD with "drug violence."

The FBI defined until recently Mass Murder as four or more in one setting (not including the killer). As such, there have been just over two (2)/year, not 133 over 6+ years. Even anti-gun Mother Jones admits to the 2+/year number. Now, the number of deaths have been reduced to three. And there is now some new definition of "mass shooting," but this is Not "at least four (OR three) people are murdered..."

The other problem is with "background checks." EVERY state has a b.g. check through the NICS system. If this Guardian "article" is to have credibility, then it needs to be accurate, OR specify if the "background check" is state-generated or not. As it stands, the is another gross lack of clarity.