New Anti-Gun Study
An example of how bad studies keep getting published.
There is no end to bad studies masquerading as research about why a prohibition scheme is allegedly necessary for firearms. Most of these papers are attempts to justify the author’s pre-existing conclusions.
Video highlights of some of the popular narratives:
Here’s a more recent example.
Firearm Laws and Pediatric Mortality in the US is a recent study that typifies poor conclusions in academia, masquerading as research and being published to appease a popular narrative. Here’s a link to the study in question: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2834530
Let’s break this down.
FLPM misrepresents certain states like New Hampshire by stating children deaths with firearms have gone up by 125 percent since they started collecting, which is true but it’s still lower per capita than California by a considerable amount: 0.9 per 100,000 versus 3.3. While an increase in deaths with firearms is concerning in New Hampshire and it’s great that California’s is going down, it’s still way below California’s per capita.
This 125 percent increase will increase the number of people they can say have died in the weak gun law states, but it’s a misrepresentation because the total number is small: Saying gun deaths for kids increased 125% sounds more impressive than presenting the actual increase from 0.4 to 0.9. Everyone touting how gun deaths “doubled” fails to mention how the increase is still a very small number. This percentage skews the data because a tiny increase from already-low totals allows an absurd percentage increase. It’s a prime example detailed by Darrell Huff in his book How to Lie with Statistics. New Hampshire is a safer state due to still having a lower rate per capita compared to California, however, the study’s authors disregard this.
Not every state the study considered restrictive went down. For example, Illinois went up a considerable amount, but they didn’t mention that in the conclusion.
Flaws and Red Flags
They include suicides in the numbers, which is why it’s “gun deaths” and not “gun homicides.” This is a common flaw in every study with an anti-gun bias.
Many anti-gun studies citing “children” will include adults up to 21 years of age; the most prominent current study claiming guns are the leading cause of death of children includes adults up to age 19. FLPM tracks people aged 0-17, so at least they’re all legally minors here.
However, FLPM lumps toddlers together with inner city teenagers involved with organized crime, street gangs, and having prior arrests as being in the same demographic: They’re all “children” in this study.
The study states gun deaths are more common where there are more guns. Countries with fewer cars have fewer automobile-related fatalities, and homes without swimming pools have fewer drownings, but nobody is politicizing car or swimming pool ownership.
The authors did not provide the data used to arrive at their conclusions.
Access to the tool isn't the issue; it's the motivation to commit violence that needs to be treated. Take out suicides and gang violence, and the numbers will be vastly different.
From the abstract:
These results demonstrate that permissive firearm laws contributed to thousands of excess firearm deaths among children living in states with permissive policies; future work should focus on determining which types of laws conferred the most harm and which offered the most protection.
This is passing off an obvious statement: you literally can't have deaths involving a firearm if there aren't guns around, as if it were equivalent to saying the mere existence of firearms spontaneously generates the overall homicide/death rate in this cohort.
Also, this statement:
In the most permissive states, the largest increase occurred in the non-Hispanic Black pediatric population
This study is stating that when you have more “most permissive” gun rights, Black kids kill themselves and each other more. Intentionally or not, the authors are implying that this demographic is incapable of acting responsibly without strict government restrictions on what they can legally own.
This study is not usable as evidence to support any policy aimed at reducing deaths.
If you want actual, good research into what gun control laws can help reduce deaths, the RAND meta study is far better. Unsurprisingly, RAND found access to arbitrary levels of technology such as self-loading fireams or magazines over a certain capacity does nothing to change the overall homicide rate, however, focusing on specific, high risk groups such as people with suicidal ideation and domestic abusers with specific, limited legislation - along with actually enforcing existing laws - can reduce overall deaths.
Most gun control studies are absolute nonsense, typically having significant procedural flaws, but get published due to appeasing a popular narrative. A RAND Corporation analysis discarded almost every study they reviewed: out of the more than 27,000 studies considered, just over 100 of them didn’t contain significant methodological flaws. Unsurprisingly, the very few studies that were reasonably good arrived at very modest conclusions that did not support any form of firearm prohibition.
Useful gun control data is extremely hard to track, hard to study, and very hard to make conclusions about, which is why most data that is published about it is a joke.