Gun Control and Mass Murder

[GE Morton]

You do not know that regulations will not have any appreciable impact.

Yes, I do:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 06da87870f

[Fooloso4]

GE Morton:

Yes, I do:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 06da87870f

I was not able to access it, I’ve reached my limit of free articles. Tell me what it said and how the author knows that some set of as yet unspecified regulations will not have a positive effect. Whatever study you cite there will be others that support the opposite conclusion.

The main point of your argument, however, is that we should not attempt to implement new regulations because that will lead to banning guns. It is the same kind of factless slippery slope argument trotted out whenever someone is opposed to change they do not want.

[GE Morton]

I was not able to access it, I’ve reached my limit of free articles. Tell me what it said and how the author knows that some set of as yet unspecified regulations will not have a positive effect. Whatever study you cite there will be others that support the opposite conclusion.

Here is the entire text. Scatterplot graphic not included:

---------------

Zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws

by Eugene Volokh

October 6, 2015

There’s been much talk recently — including from President Obama — about there being a substantial correlation between state-level gun death rates and state gun laws. Now correlation obviously doesn’t equal causation; there may be lots of other factors that are the true causes of both of the things that are being measured. But if we do look for now at correlation, it seems to me that the key question should focus on state total homicide rates, or perhaps (for reasons I describe below) total intentional homicide plus accidental gun death rates. And it turns out that there is essentially zero correlation between these numbers and state gun laws.

To begin with, here’s why I focus on total homicide, rather than gun homicide or all gun deaths. First, few people care much about whether they are stabbed to death or shot to death. And even if gun restrictions do decrease gun homicides, that effect may well be offset (or more than offset) by an increase in other homicides:

Some killers would kill with knives or other weapons instead of guns.

To the extent that today some attempted killings are stopped by defenders who have guns, those attempts might succeed if the guns become harder enough for defenders to get.

To the extent that today some potential killings (or attempted robberies, rapes, or burglaries that lead to killings) are deterred by attackers’ fear of running into a gun, it might be that fewer will be deterred if guns become harder enough for defenders to get.

If — put together — these effects mean that tighter gun laws will mean 100 fewer gun homicides in a state but 100 more homicides with knives or other weapons, the net result would hardly be a gun law success.

Now of course you might think this won’t happen, and the 100 fewer gun homicides will be only slightly offset by, say, 20 extra knife homicides. But to determine whether that’s true (to the extent that correlations can determine such things), you’d want to see how gun laws are correlated with total homicides, not with gun homicides. If you’re right that the stronger gun laws will yield this net 80-homicide decline, that should show up in stronger gun laws being correlated with total homicide rates.

Second, suicides are quite different from homicides. Morally speaking, restraining people’s liberty, and in particular their ability to defend themselves, to prevent murder of unwilling victims deaths is quite different from restraining that liberty to prevent others from willingly killing themselves. It is no accident, I think, that the calls for gun restriction are usually specifically tied to murders — whether mass killings or the aggregate of individual killings — and not to suicides.

Suicide is also likely to be driven by many factors related to culture and the person’s living situation, factors very different from those involved in homicide. The age-adjusted suicide rate among blacks in the U.S., for instance, is less than 40% of the suicide rate among whites, while the homicide rate is much higher for blacks than for whites — and that’s just one of many examples.

Beyond that, if you really want to commit suicide (and there’s good reason to think that people who use a gun to try to commit suicide — as opposed to, say, pills — really do want to commit suicide) but can’t get a gun, it’s not hard to find alternate reliable means of killing yourself. (On the latter point, see the National Academies’ Firearms and Violence report, which concludes, as of 2004, that “Some gun control policies may reduce the number of gun suicides, but they have not yet been shown to reduce the overall risk of suicide in any population.”) And, finally, even if some gun laws could decrease suicide, those would often be very different gun laws than those intended to decrease homicides. For instance, even total handgun bans or sharp restrictions on handgun purchases, which have been urged as means of reducing homicides, would be highly unlikely to affect suicides, which could just as well be committed with shotguns (a la Kurt Cobain or Ernest Hemingway). Same for bans on so-called “assault weapons,” bans on large capacity magazines, restrictions on carrying guns in public, and more.

The careful reader might be asking, “What about accidents?” The substitution effects I describe above (e.g., reduction in gun homicides might be offset by increase in knife homicides) are indeed highly unlikely for accidents, so it makes sense to look at total intentional homicides plus fatal gun accidents. Indeed, that’s what my counts of “homicides” below will refer to below. But if you want to exclude fatal gun accidents, and focus only on intentional homicides, the results are virtually identical, since fatal gun accidents are so much rarer than homicides — for instance, in 2012, there were 548 fatal gun accidents but 16,688 homicides, according to CDC’s WISQARS database. (Note that I used an average of three years’ worth of accident data, 2011 to 2013, because there are very few gun accidents in any given year in most states.)

So, given this, let’s look at how jurisdiction-level homicide rates (i.e., homicides per 100,000 people) correlate with jurisdiction-level gun laws, counting the 50 states and D.C. (I use 2012 Justice Department homicide data, from the Proquest Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2015. I use the 2013 gun law scores and grades from the Brady Campaign, with low scores meaning a low level of gun restrictions and high scores being a high level. And I use an estimate of my own for D.C. based on the Brady Campaign’s criteria, since the Brady list didn’t include D.C.; I think my estimate is if anything an underestimate of D.C.’s tight gun laws, at least as of 2012-13.) I have also run the analysis using the data from the National Journal article that has recently been in the news, and the result is virtually identical.


First, the ten lowest-homicide jurisdictions, again including both intentional homicide and accidental gun deaths:

Jurisdiction Homicide rate Brady score Brady grade
New Hampshire 1.1 5.5 D‐
Vermont 1.3 -4.0 F
Iowa 1.6 14.0 C‐
Massachusetts 1.8 60.5 B+
Utah 1.8 -2.0 F
Minnesota 1.9 19.5 C
Maine 1.9 3.0 F
Hawaii 2.1 58.5 B+
Idaho 2.2 0.0 F
Wyoming 2.4 -5.0 F
Now the ten highest-homicide ones:

Jurisdiction Homicide rate Brady score Brady grade
Arkansas 6.3 1.0 F
Maryland 6.4 66.5 A‐
Tennessee 6.4 2.0 F
Missouri 6.8 -0.5 F
Michigan 7.1 15.0 C
South Carolina 7.3 1.0 F
Alabama 7.5 3.5 D‐
Mississippi 8.1 -4.0 F
Louisiana 11.6 -2.0 F
D.C. 13.9 50.0 B

And a scatter-plot: [not copied]

The correlation between the homicide rate and Brady score in all 51 jurisdictions is +.032 (on a scale of -1 to +1), which means that states with more gun restrictions on average have very slightly higher homicide rates, though the tendency is so small as to be essentially zero. (If you omit the fatal gun accident rates, then the correlation would be +.065, which would make the more gun-restricting states look slightly worse; but again, the correlation would be small enough to be essentially zero, given all the other possible sources of variation.) If we use the National Journal data (adding the columns for each state, counting 1 for each dark blue, which refers to broad restrictions, 0.5 for each light blue, which refers to medium restrictions, and 0 for each grey, which refers to no or light restrictions), the results are similar: +0.017 or +0.051 if one omits the fatal gun accident rates. You can also run the correlation yourself on my Excel spreadsheet.

Now of course this doesn’t prove that gun laws have no effect on total homicide rates. Correlation, especially between just two variables, doesn’t show causation.

Perhaps there are other confounding factors (such as demographics, economics, and so on). Perhaps even controlling for those factors, there will be other missing factors that are hard to control for — for instance, maybe as the crime rate increases, calls for gun controls increase, so high crime causes more gun restrictions, or maybe calls for more freedom to defend oneself increase, so high crime causes fewer gun restrictions (e.g., liberalized concealed-carry licensing rules). And of course when small changes in the model yield substantial changes in results (e.g., if you calculate the state gun scores differently, the results will likely be different), you know how little you should credit the output. Figuring out the actual effect of government actions, whether gun laws, changed policing rules, drug laws, or anything else, is devilishly difficult.

But since people have been talking about simple two-variable correlations between gun laws and crime, I thought it would be helpful to note this correlation — or, rather, absence of correlation.
------------

[GE Morton]

The main point of your argument, however, is that we should not attempt to implement new regulations because that will lead to banning guns. It is the same kind of factless slippery slope argument trotted out whenever someone is opposed to change they do not want.

Slippery slope arguments are not always factless (though some certainly are). They reflect the tendency of people to keep trying to solve a problem until they succeed, which often amounts to "getting a bigger hammer."

As for new regulations, there are none that I can think of which haven't already been tried, in one state or city or another, or at least none likely to survive 2nd Amendment scrutiny. But if you have one in mind please outline it.

[Fooloso4]

GE,

This is an argument not conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of nation wide gun regulations. As he says:

Now of course this doesn’t prove that gun laws have no effect on total homicide rates. Correlation, especially between just two variables, doesn’t show causation.

The article is not about reductions in gun deaths but reductions in homicide rates.

In addition, it focuses on state rather than federal regulations:

… it seems to me that the key question should focus on state total homicide rates …

There is a well known problem with this. There are no impediments to bringing guns across state lines.

Another problem is that it does not address the problem of mass shootings. The majority of people killed by mass shootings would not have died if the assailant had a knife.

Slippery slope arguments are not always factless (though some certainly are). They reflect the tendency of people to keep trying to solve a problem until they succeed, which often amounts to "getting a bigger hammer."

A general “tendency” does not stand as a fact showing that any regulation of guns will lead to a ban on guns. It may be that some gun advocates fear this possibility and want to instill this fear in others, but this fear does not establish a causal relationship. It is nothing more than fear mongering that attempts to preclude any measure to regulate guns.

[GE Morton]

GE,

This is an argument not conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of nation wide gun regulations. As he says:

Now of course this doesn’t prove that gun laws have no effect on total homicide rates. Correlation, especially between just two variables, doesn’t show causation.

Of course. But the correlation is the best evidence we have for the effectiveness of those laws.

The article is not about reductions in gun deaths but reductions in homicide rates.

Yes, for the excellent reason he gives.

In addition, it focuses on state rather than federal regulations:



There is a well known problem with this. There are no impediments to bringing guns across state lines.

That's true. Nationally, about 30% of guns used in crimes are bought out-of-state. But "Research has shown that the overwhelming majority of guns used in crime were initially purchased lawfully. But through loss, theft and other channels, those guns make their way into the hands of people who use them for illegal purposes."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... fbe3ef1959

It is the "other channels" that is the main problem. As long as most people are legally allowed to buy guns, and as long as there are others who are not, there will be a black market among the latter and it will be served by the former.

Another problem is that it does not address the problem of mass shootings. The majority of people killed by mass shootings would not have died if the assailant had a knife.

That is true too. But "A vast majority of guns used in 19 recent mass shootings were bought legally and with a federal background check."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... -guns.html

So what federal regulation would you suggest that would make any visible dent in this problem --- other than banning firearms?

[Fooloso4]

GE:

Of course. But the correlation is the best evidence we have for the effectiveness of those laws.

The best evidence of the effectiveness of gun regulations would be to implement them and analyse the actual empirical results.

The article is not about reductions in gun deaths but reductions in homicide rates.

Yes, for the excellent reason he gives.

You used the article to show that you know that regulations will not have any appreciable impact on gun deaths. You do not and the article does not support your claim.

So what federal regulation would you suggest that would make any visible dent in this problem --- other than banning firearms?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ublic.html
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/category ... -gun-laws/
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/ ... l-evidence
https://www.bna.com/effective-gun-regul ... 982090539/

The last article sums up it up:

A two-pronged solution would (1) prohibit potentially dangerous individuals (members of identified groups) from purchasing or possessing firearms, and enact red flag laws, and (2) enforce this ban with universal background checks (that is, requiring everyone seeking to purchase a firearm to undergo a rigorous background check).

[GE Morton]

GE:

Of course. But the correlation is the best evidence we have for the effectiveness of those laws.

The best evidence of the effectiveness of gun regulations would be to implement them and analyse the actual empirical results.

Yikes. I hope you wouldn't advocate building bridges or marketing pharmaceuticals on that basis. "Let's build it and see if it falls down." "Let's market it and see if it does any good."

You used the article to show that you know that regulations will not have any appreciable impact on gun deaths. You do not and the article does not support your claim.

No; on gun homicides. And I know the regs tried so far have not reduced them in the jurisdictions where they've been enacted.

A two-pronged solution would (1) prohibit potentially dangerous individuals (members of identified groups) from purchasing or possessing firearms, and enact red flag laws, and (2) enforce this ban with universal background checks (that is, requiring everyone seeking to purchase a firearm to undergo a rigorous background check).

I fully agree with (2). But as I said earlier, where a demand exists a black market will always develop to fill it.

(1) is a problem, however. Such a law would be unconstitutional, infringing not only the 2nd Amendment but the 1st (freedom of speech and assembly) and the 5th (due process). The government may not deny someone exercise of a constitutional right based on their political views, their associations, or upon what some bureaucrat thinks they might do.

I asked for a regulation that would make a dent in the mass-shootings problem, short of banning guns. Given that nearly all of those weapons passed background checks and none of those shooters were members of any shady groups, you can expect the impact of the regulation you cite to be negligible.

[Fooloso4]

GE:

I hope you wouldn't advocate building bridges or marketing pharmaceuticals on that basis.

Both building bridges and the marketing (as well as the development) of pharmaceuticals are based on empirical evidence and testing not on arguments of whether or not they are effective. We would have neither bridges nor pharmaceuticals without trial and error.

No; on gun homicides.

The article is not about gun homicides but total homicides:

To begin with, here’s why I focus on total homicide, rather than gun homicide or all gun deaths.

GE:

And I know the regs tried so far have not reduced them in the jurisdictions where they've been enacted.

That is not conclusive evidence that regulations do not work. At best it shows that regulations that have been enacted so far have not worked. One reason that might not have worked is that they are not wide enough or thorough enough.

I fully agree with (2). But as I said earlier, where a demand exists a black market will always develop to fill it.

This is not conclusive evidence that better regulations will reduce gun deaths. If you agree with #2, universal background checks of all gun sales, then you contradict your own claim that regulation will not have an appreciable impart.

(1) is a problem, however. Such a law would be unconstitutional, infringing not only the 2nd Amendment but the 1st (freedom of speech and assembly) and the 5th (due process). The government may not deny someone exercise of a constitutional right based on their political views, their associations, or upon what some bureaucrat thinks they might do.

We have been through this before. The Scalia court’s interpretation of the Constitution is questionable. It may be that cases that will come before the Court with its current members will favor your interpretation, but if the makeup of the court was different the decision might be different. The court was split 5-4 in Heller. Trump might get yet another appointment.

I asked for a regulation that would make a dent in the mass-shootings problem, short of banning guns. Given that nearly all of those weapons passed background checks and none of those shooters were members of any shady groups, you can expect the impact of the regulation you cite to be negligible.

That is your opinion, one not shared by the experts consulted in the articles cited.

Of course, one of the regulations they favor is restrictions based on persons who are deemed to be dangerous. You have made clear in the past your opposition to this, but your opposition does not show that such measures would not be effective. How the court might decide is something that remains to be seen.

[Belindi]

GEMorton wrote:

Slippery slope arguments are not always factless (though some certainly are). They reflect the tendency of people to keep trying to solve a problem until they succeed, which often amounts to "getting a bigger hammer."

Slippery slope arguments rather reflect inability to understand ratcheting up through a slope of decision making.

[Sy Borg]

GEMorton wrote:

Slippery slope arguments are not always factless (though some certainly are). They reflect the tendency of people to keep trying to solve a problem until they succeed, which often amounts to "getting a bigger hammer."

Slippery slope arguments rather reflect inability to understand ratcheting up through a slope of decision making.

True, a slippery slope argument is a false prophesy. His arguments here not only assume a false determinism, but they also assume that prevailing general social and economic conditions won't significantly change, but the latter is almost certain in these volatile times.

However, I think the US's problem is that there's simply too many guns in the community. This stymies the capacity to regulate or to enforce regulations. For instance, a 1990s Australian style buyback, which was hugely successful on all levels, would not be possible in the US due to both numbers and political climate. Certainly as distrust grows in the US, ever more people will be seeking to obtain firearms, fearing the worst.

The US has about 40% of the world's guns but has about 4.3% of the world's people, about ten times more than any other nation on Earth. Their firearm death rate is, coincidentally, about ten times more than that of Germany, Australia, Italy and NZ. It is about three times more than the next highest rate, Finland, another nation with an unusually high firearm ownership rate.

Yet it appears that gun ownership can reach a critical threshold where it can no longer be effectively regulated. The US thus serves as a vital warning, a guinea pig, for the rest of the developed world as to the consequences of complacency in firearm regulations and the dangers that gun lobbies funded by the arms industry pose to civil order and safety.

[GE Morton]

Both building bridges and the marketing (as well as the development) of pharmaceuticals are based on empirical evidence and testing not on arguments of whether or not they are effective. We would have neither bridges nor pharmaceuticals without trial and error.

Absolutely right. We have tested numerous gun regulations, in the "50 laboratories of democracy." And the results suggest they have not been effective.

No; on gun homicides.

The article is not about gun homicides but total homicides:

To begin with, here’s why I focus on total homicide, rather than gun homicide or all gun deaths.

The article is (for the good reasons Volokh gives), but my comment ("No; on gun homicides"), wasn't. It was a response to this comment of yours: "You used the article to show that you know that regulations will not have any appreciable impact on gun deaths." I made no claim about gun deaths. That includes suicides, which is a separate issue (and, in my view, not subject to public policy).

That is not conclusive evidence that regulations do not work. At best it shows that regulations that have been enacted so far have not worked. One reason that might not have worked is that they are not wide enough or thorough enough.

Well, that's why I asked for a suggested regulation that might work. The one you offered has two parts, one of which has been tried, and is current law, and the other is facially unconstitutional.

If you agree with #2, universal background checks of all gun sales, then you contradict your own claim that regulation will not have an appreciable impart.

(I assume you meant "impact"). But no, I did not claim that. I support universal background checks, but have never claimed they would have any significant impact (due to the black market problem). Their impact will be slight, as the evidence to date clearly shows.

(1) is a problem, however. Such a law would be unconstitutional, infringing not only the 2nd Amendment but the 1st (freedom of speech and assembly) and the 5th (due process). The government may not deny someone exercise of a constitutional right based on their political views, their associations, or upon what some bureaucrat thinks they might do.

The Scalia court’s interpretation of the Constitution is questionable. It may be that cases that will come before the Court with its current members will favor your interpretation, but if the makeup of the court was different the decision might be different. The court was split 5-4 in Heller. Trump might get yet another appointment.

I'd be surprised if even the "liberal" justices would support a law imposing penalties based solely on someone's beliefs or associations, but who has neither committed nor threatened any crime. Numerous cases, mostly concerning religious beliefs, but also political beliefs, support that view. In Brandenburg c. Ohio the Court ruled that even prohibitions on speech advocating violence were violations of the First Amendment.

Nor would the ACLU likely support your law. Their position re: gun regulation states: "When analyzing gun control measures from a civil liberties perspective, we place them into one of three categories . . . Third are measures that restrict categories of purchasers — such as immigrants or people with mental disabilities — from owning or buying a gun. These sorts of provisions too often are not evidence-based, reinforce negative stereotypes, and raise significant equal protection, due process, and privacy issues."

https://www.aclu.org/blog/mobilization/ ... un-control

I asked for a regulation that would make a dent in the mass-shootings problem, short of banning guns. Given that nearly all of those weapons passed background checks and none of those shooters were members of any shady groups, you can expect the impact of the regulation you cite to be negligible.

That is your opinion, one not shared by the experts consulted in the articles cited.

The evidence there speaks for itself.

[GE Morton]

GEMorton wrote:

Slippery slope arguments are not always factless (though some certainly are). They reflect the tendency of people to keep trying to solve a problem until they succeed, which often amounts to "getting a bigger hammer."

Slippery slope arguments rather reflect inability to understand ratcheting up through a slope of decision making.

Egads. What does that mean?

[GE Morton]

For instance, a 1990s Australian style buyback, which was hugely successful on all levels, would not be possible in the US due to both numbers and political climate.

If mandatory, as in Oz, it would not be possible due to the 2nd Amendment. Voluntary buybacks have been tried in several cities, with no significant impact.

[Fooloso4]

GE:

We have tested numerous gun regulations, in the "50 laboratories of democracy." And the results suggest they have not been effective.

We have not tested the regulations that do not exist. You are like the guy who stood there before the first successful bridge was built long ago saying don’t try to build a bridge it’s been tried and has failed.

I made no claim about gun deaths.

Anyone who is interested can retrace the argument.

The one you offered has two parts, one of which has been tried ...

The current system has problems and loopholes.

Federally licensed firearms dealers are required by federal law to conduct background checks on prospective buyers, but private (unlicensed) sellers are not. Some states require background checks for private sales, usually through a licensed intermediary, but others have few to no regulations on private gun sales.
https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-t ... state.html

… the other is facially unconstitutional.

Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act contains restrictions on who can buy a gun. Those who opposed it claimed it was unconstitutional, but it is the law and has not been successfully challenged. Those restrictions can, and likely will, be extended to others who can be shown to pose a danger.

But no, I did not claim that.

You said:

Yes, they do. Because banning guns is the only regulation that will have any appreciable impact on the problem, and where that approach must eventually lead.

You have made your position clear. I do not agree. What more is there to be said?