Long time readers will know I have special contempt for junk science.
Maybe even hatred. I've written many pieces on it (quite possibly
the first). Consider that background when I say my favorite story in the last month is about junk science.
A quiet little story that got very little coverage broke on Reason.com on March 31. It was about just how junky the science of gun control is. The title was, "Do Studies Show Gun Control Works? No." The subtitle is an even better gotcha: "Out of 27,900 research publications on gun laws, only 123 tested their effects rigorously."
Only 123 out of 27,900 - 0.4% - applied proper statistical testing of their results? Yup. Only it's not even really that good.
First, let me grab their quote describing the study.
There has been a massive research effort going back decades to determine whether gun control measures work. A 2020 analysis by the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, parsed the results of 27,900 research publications on the effectiveness of gun control laws. From this vast body of work, the RAND authors found only 123 studies, or 0.4 percent, that tested the effects rigorously. Some of the other 27,777 studies may have been useful for non-empirical discussions, but many others were deeply flawed.
and then the conclusion about those 123 studies.
We took a look at the significance of the 123 rigorous empirical studies and what they actually say about the efficacy of gun control laws.
The answer: nothing. The 123 studies that met RAND's criteria may have been the best of the 27,900 that were analyzed, but they still had serious statistical defects, such as a lack of controls, too many parameters or hypotheses for the data, undisclosed data, erroneous data, misspecified models, and other problems.
And these glaring methodological flaws are not specific to gun control research; they are typical of how the academic publishing industry responds to demands from political partisans for scientific evidence that does not exist.
Let me rephrase that a bit: out of 27,900 studies on gun control, not one study conclusively showed that gun control laws change anything for the better. Oh, and by the way, the same is likely to be true for studies on climate change, dietary recommendations, Covid, or anything else with a pronounced political component.
It's a worthwhile read, especially as the drumbeat of more gun control gets louder and
louder. Over and over, you'll hear the same arguments about how much the studies prove, when the deep and long review of their studies show none of them prove anything. Plus, it includes a pretty good 16 minute video if you look at the Reason article and say TL:DR.
This is my shocked face . . .
ReplyDeleteI didn't know studies were needed. The disasters where they hate guns looks to be enough.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTL;DW:
ReplyDelete"IN SUMMARY
We compared the effect of strict gun laws in NYFC, Chicongo, Lost Angeles, San Franshitco, and the District of Criminals to the effect of lax to no gun laws in Little Rock, Dallas, Phoenix, Raleigh, and Boise.
After careful analysis of all parameters, long and diligent study to correct for all variables, and hours of crunching numbers on a supercomputer, we came to one inescapable conclusion:
America needs to shoot Sarah Brady and her ilk in the face."
Science in this Year of Our Lord 2022 must now be partitioned into actual science, which is conducted according to scientific method and with all the data and methodology generally available for perusal, and political science, which is actually propaganda dressed up in lab coats and buttressed with lots of pictures of expensive equipment and glassware.
ReplyDeleteBut if we just pass more laws perhaps the criminals will find one that they will obey.
ReplyDeleteThe only study one hsa to do is to look at England's failed anti-gun world. Acid attacks, knife attacks, blunt instruments, rocks, beatings, and bombings all are at a record highs since firearms are banned there.
Evil people will do evil things no matter what laws are passed.
Actually, gun control relatively effective at its intended purpose which is centralizing political power. It's counterproductive at reducing crime and violence but that was never really the intent, only the cover story.
ReplyDeleteCommunists never base their decisions on science. And if they do, its communist scientists running and reporting the research. They have one goal and one mission. To subjugate the population. And to do that they must disarm us first. I suspect most US gun owners would give up their guns if faced with Felony charges, property confiscation, and siezure of bank accounts should such actions be taken by a communist regime in a disarmament program. But there will be more than enough that will choose resistance over submission. These are sometimes referred to as the 3%.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately they've figured out that they don't need to confiscate all of the guns. Restrict the manufacture of ammo and the guns are useless. Obama attempted this by regulating the transportation of gun cotton (for highway safety reasons). Luckily the push back was strong enough (combined with the incredible safety record of gun cotton transportation) that the national socialists backed down.
Delete