Do We Need More Research On Gun Violence?

October 16, 2024

mikethegunguy Blogs, Crime, Guns , , , , , , , 5 Comments

 

 

coverFollowing Sandy Hook, the Obama Administration took upon itself to organize discussions that ultimately led to the publication of a new gun research agenda. Basically this report could be summed up as ‘new wine in old bottles,’ because it called for studies of the same issues that had been on the CDC agenda before gun research was closed down. I have analyzed this report in my own book and it’s been subject to the usual negative commentary by the minions of the NRA. And since no funding for any of the suggested research areas has been voted through the Congress, the report remains exactly that: another dead report.

 

But the inactivity of the CDC in this area doesn’t mean that gun violence research isn’t going on. To the contrary, it continues to be conducted by a number of different organizations and individual researchers, to the point that there’s very little about the issue of gun violence that isn’t understood. Most of the research has come out of the major advocacy organizations like the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign. Mike Bloomberg has endowed a research program at Johns Hopkins that publishes significant work, as does David Hemenway’s Injury Control Research Center at Harvard’s School of Public Health.

 

This is hardly a comprehensive list of organizations or individuals who are conducting meaningful gun violence research. And I apologize to the many serious researchers for whom space limitations don’t allow me cite their works. But I did want to spend a few sentences on a particularly significant research effort being carried out for the past two decades by an emergency room physician in California, Garen Wintemute, because here we have a remarkable example of theory linked to practice by someone who deals with the net results of gun violence every day that he shows up at work.

 

Wintemute’s Violence Prevention Research Program, housed at UC/Davis, has conducted research on a wide variety of issues related to gun violence, but what makes his work so compelling is that it combines extensive analysis of data with hands-on contacts between himself and the subjects of his research: gun owners, gun-show exhibitors, gun dealers, gun manufacturers. He is the only medical or public health specialist I know who has actually verified his data by visiting gun shops, walking through and observing gun shows, walking onto gun factory floors and, it should be added, he’s been a gun owner himself.

 

Recently Wintemute and several colleagues published an article calling for physicians to become more visible advocates in the gun violence debate. I reviewed this article in a post that I published on September 26. At that time I was impressed by the fact that an article calling for physicians to get more involved in gun issues was published at all. But what really stands out is the fact that physicians, despite what the NRA says, can and should play a role in decisions about guns because doctors are experts in dealing with fears about disease and death, and many people decide to own a gun because they have fears about crime.

 

This is the kind of original thinking that comes from analysis that is grounded both in data and real life. And physicians should realize that no amount of research will convince the NRA or its supporters that medical professionals should and must play an important role in defining America’s relationship to guns. When the trigger of a gun is pulled and someone’s in the way, it’s physicians like Garen Wintemute who have to deal with the results. That’s enough of a reason to listen to what he has to say.

 

 

 

Related articles

 

  • NRA Tried To Stifle Study Showing Gun Retailers Support Background Checks (thinkprogress.org)

 

What Do We Know About Mass Shootings?

October 15, 2024

mikethegunguy Crime, Guns , , , , , , , 1 Comment

mass shootings I have spent enough time and words discussing the shortcomings of Mike Bloomberg’s approach to gun violence but now it’s time to give him a pat on the back. I’m referring to the report that his group published last month that gave a very detailed of mass shootings since 2009; mass shootings being defined by the FBI as an incident in which one individual shoots kills four or more people within a brief period of time. The report is based on data from the FBI’s supplement to the UCR, along with media and law enforcement descriptions of each event.

The report’s publication elicited the usual response: the NRA and its minions like John Lott derided or simply lied about it, the gun control crowd yawned, mentioned the report in this blog and that blog, and then went back to thinking about whatever they have been thinking about since Toomey-Manchin bit the dust. But the report really does deserve scrutiny because it not only contains some very significant information about multiple shootings, but also forces us to think about the most effective strategies for dealing with gun violence, if in fact we want to think about the issue at all.

The most important piece of evidence from the report is the correlation between multiple shootings and domestic, holiday environments. Want to see a gun-fight other than on television? Invite the whole family over for a party and then let an ex-spouse into the home. This was the single, most common environment in which multiple killings occurred, and in many cases the grand finale then involved the shooter turning the gun on himself.

More than half the 93 mass killings that took place between January 27, 2025 and the Navy Yard massacre on occurred this year on September 16, involved not just people who knew each other, but people who were related by marriage, blood or both. All of these killings took place in or adjacent to a family residence, as did many of the other mass murders which didn’t involve domestic relationships. NRA blather to the contrary, only 15% of all these killings took place in “gun-free” zones like schools, government buildings, etc. The idea that such environments create a greater opportunity for gun violence is not supported by the data collected by the FBI. I mean, who are you going to trust when it comes to information about crime - the NRA or the FBI?

Finally, the report also notes that 10% of the shooters had exhibited behavior which at some time or another resulted in some degree of contact with the mental health system. But it is not clear whether any of these individuals were ever treated for mental illness, nor were they prohibited from owning firearms due to their mental state. Slightly less than half of the perpetrators appeared to have previous criminal histories or other reasons that would have prohibited them from possessing guns.

Which brings us to the nub of the issue: Is the evidence contained in this report align itself with the strategies for controlling gun violence being advocated by Mike Bloomberg and his friends? Maybe yes and maybe no. Obviously the “prohibited” persons who committed roughly 40% of these mass killings would have had more difficulty acquiring a gun if private sales required a background check. Score one for universal background checks. On the other hand, of the 93 people who have committed mass murders over the past 4 and 3/4 years, only one had spent enough time in a mental health facility to forfeit his right to purchase or own a gun. Score zero for gathering mental health records.

Those of us who want to do something about gun violence face two daunting tasks: one is to figure out how to mobilize grass-roots support on a continuous and effective basis; the second is to figure out what to do. You’ll see some more posts on both issues shortly.

Related articles
  • Mike Weisser: If Gun Violence Is a Health Epidemic, Can We Quarantine It Like a Virus? (huffingtonpost.com)
  • Gun violence needs to be treated as a public-health issue > Readers may be tired of seeing us opine on gun violence. We understand. We get tired of writing about it. (newsreview.com)

Understanding Crime: A Tale Of Two Cities - Chapter 1

October 10, 2024

mikethegunguy Blogs, Crime , , , , , , , Leave a comment

springfield

Springfield

After I published my last blog I received an email from Susan W: “So why does Chicago have such a high murder rate?” She’s not the only one asking that question. Problem is that the answer isn’t a single answer because there’s no type of behavior that can be explained by one, single factor. In the preface to its report, the FBI lists thirteen factors that need to be taken into account, including economic conditions, culture, marital situations, crime reporting practices of the citizenry, population density, age cohorts, etc., etc., etc. And the report states that these are “some” of the factors that might influence crime levels.

Over the next couple of weeks I’m going to take the FBI at its word and use those factors plus others to try and construct a profile for two cities that have very different crime patterns even though they are extremely similar in many of the social, economic, cultural, demographic and law enforcement categories listed by the FBI. And just as important as the statistical data is the fact that I happen to live midway between these two cities, I travel through them all the time, and I know their histories and even some of their current residents very well.

I’m talking about two cities in Massachusetts: Springfield and Worcester. Let’s look at some quick numbers. Population: Worcester is 183,247; Springfield is 154,518. Per-capita income: Worcester is $24,544; Springfield is $18,483. Percentage of workforce in administrative or sales: Exactly the same (15% and 10%.) Unemployment: Worcester is 7.7%, Springfield is 8.4% Public school reading proficiency: Same for both - 69%. Data is all from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, whose websites are shut down at the moment.

One last demographic comparison which is usually relevant to discussions about crime. While the per-capita income is substantially higher for Worcester versus Springfield, population density which is considered a major factor in crime rates (more urban = more crime) is almost exactly the same: 4,845 for Worcester, 4803 for Springfield. When we turn to crime data, however, all similarities disappear. Let’s look at homicide first.

worcester

Worcester

 

In 2012, Springfield’s (per 100,000) homicide rate was 7.14, in Worcester it was 4.3. Rape was 25 to 18, robbery was 351 to 228, overall violent crime rates were 1,042 to 960, the parity due to a higher rate of assault in Worcester than Springfield. On the property crime side, there was no parity at all. Springfield’s rate for burglary, larceny and auto theft was 4,561, Worcester registered 3,514.

Let’s put these numbers into the national context. Worcester’s murder rate was slightly below the national rate; Springfield’s rate was nearly twice as high. Worcester’s property crime rate was 18.6% higher than the national number, Springfield’s was 37.3% higher. So if you live in Worcester, your body is a little safer than anywhere else in America but your property is somewhat more at risk. If you live in Springfield, I suggest you stay inside at all times, double-lock your doors and get rid of your car.

Back to the beginning. Susan W asked for reasons why there are so ,many murders in Chicago. We don’t know yet but if we analyze enough data, the answer may ultimately speak for itself. Stay tuned.

Related articles
  • 77th most dangerous city is Springfield (wwlp.com)
  • “Top 100 most dangerous cities in U.S.” (wwlp.com)

It’s Official! When It Comes To Murders, The Second City Is Now The First City

October 9, 2024

mikethegunguy Blogs , , , , , , , 2 Comments

fbi

 

 

Chicago has always been known as the ‘Second City’ because it can’t seem to compete with New York. But that’s changed. The latest report on American crime released annually by the FBI, shows that when it comes to murder, Chicago now leads the list.

Since my diaries on crime seem to generate lots of bickering over the data, I want to make one thing very clear: the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports are estimates because: 1) they are based on partial data; 2) they assume that every reporting department collects and analyzes its crime data in the same way. Nevertheless, the gap between murders in Chicago and everywhere else are so great that we can say with some degree of certainty that the Windy City has really stepped it up in 2012.

According to the FBI, Chicago had 500 murders in 2012, while New York dropped to a paltry 419. Note, incidentally, that New York’s population is three times higher than Chicago’s (8.7 million to 2.7 million, respectively) which makes Chicago’s murder rate (per 100,000) about four times higher than New York’s rate, 18 to 4.8.

Think Chicago’s an unsafe city? Think again. The 2012 murder rate in Flint, MI was 63! Down the road a bit in Detroit the rate was only 55. Philadelphia’s a veritable garden of tranquility with a homicide rate just slightly over 21.

Altogether there were 15 cities that counted at least 100 murders in 2012: The Big 4 above, plus Los Angeles (299), Baltimore (219), Houston (217), New Orleans (193), Dallas (154), Memphis (133), Oakland (126), Phoenix (124), St. Louis (113), Kansas City (105) and Indianapolis (101).

The total population for these cities is somewhere between 25 and 30 million. Their police departments reported 3,420 homicides in 2012, out of a national reported total of 14,827. Which means that cities that held less than 10% of the US population accounted for almost one-quarter of all murders. Way to go you big cities!

What I find most significant about the FBI data on the geography of homicide is not the cities that made the murder list, but the cities that didn’t. Jacksonville, for example, didn’t make the list. Think there’s no inner-city neighborhoods in Jacksonville? Next time you drive down I-95 on your way to Daytona or Palm Beach, get off at Lem Turner Road and cruise around.

There are lots of cities like Jacksonville filled with crummy neighborhoods whose existence we lament but really don’t do anything to help things change. And many of these cities don’t have double-digit murder rates and yet we don’t know why. Twenty years ago, for example, New York City initiated a community-based policing system that was credited with steep declines in crime. It was copied by virtually every other metropolitan police department and in some places it worked and in others made no difference at all.

One last point about the 2012 FBI Report: It shows that the average value of the property that was reported stolen in larceny and burglary increased from $1,721 in 2011 to $1,726 in 2012. Maybe the economy is finally recovering.

Related articles
  • Chicago is the Murder Capital of the United States 2013 According to FBI (americanlivewire.com)
  • FBI declares Chicago new murder capital of the U.S. as NYC falls to second (guns.com)

Wilderness Versus Progress: Is There Really A Conflict?

October 7, 2024

mikethegunguy Blogs , , , , , , , Leave a comment

U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt (left) and n...

U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt (left) and nature preservationist John Muir, founder of the , on Glacier Point in Yosemite National Park. In the background: Upper and lower Yosemite Falls. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The first argument about preserving versus developing wilderness was the fight over the Hetchy-Hetchy Reservoir in California’s Yosemite Park which erupted in 1908. Opposition to the development of a new water system for San Francisco was led by the Sierra Club, which had been founded by John Muir in 1892.

Muir was originally an easterner who was closely associated with Roosevelt and other early conservationists, but he was not a hunter and his motivation to preserve natural spaces did not grow out of a desire to conserve animal habitat so much as to preserve wilderness areas. But as the country continued to grow and the space between the Missouri River and the West Coast was filled in, the issue of wilderness versus development could not remain a back-room debate for the simple reason that there was too much at stake. Once railroad lines stretched not only from coast to coast but throughout the interior itself, the resources of the frontier zones – crops, animals, timber – were simply too abundant and could be moved to market too cheaply to resist exploitation by commercial interests on both coasts.

The early conservationists, including Roosevelt, acknowledged the inherent conflict between maintaining natural space on the one hand and retarding economic growth on the other. But as the conservation movement morphed into environmentalism, a wedge was driven between the two movements that claimed management responsibility for as-yet undeveloped space, a wedge based on one question: what should be the role of government in managing the natural patrimony?

For hunters/conservationists, government’s role was to be limited to enforcing rules that regulated the relationship of hunters to wild game: giving hunters access to hunting areas, restricting the hunt to periods that would allow the natural migration and reproduction of species. Environmentalists, on the other hand, wanted government regulation to cover the entire natural patrimony; not to control the behavior of hunters who otherwise might threaten wildlife, but to control the behavior of developers who otherwise might threaten the entire environment.

What we have ended up with is the notion that wilderness preservation versus economic development are inextricably opposed; that you either wind up with one or the other. Every development initiative is a threat to nature, every preservation plan is an effort to derail economic development. The fight over the Keystone pipeline is the argument in its current form.

The origins of the fight go back to 1890 when the Census declared the wilderness to be closed. But the United States was the only country in the entire world that industrialized and closed its frontier at the same time. In Europe, the wilderness disappeared a thousand years before the Industrial Revolution began. In America we were laying railroad track and slaughtering buffalo at the same time.

The truth is that our extraordinary economic development took place not as a conflict with nature, but because we were able to tap the abundant resources of nature for the first time. Urban centers that appeared in Europe during the 19th century competed for building materials that had to be expensively extracted and shipped from distances far and wide; Chicago was built from wood that floated down from Wisconsin.

Ten years after we closed our frontier the output of our national economy surpassed the combined production of all the other industrialized economies combined. The resources that fueled American economic development were so cheap that re-investment and further growth could occur at three or four times the rate experienced in other industrializing zones. The greatest irony is that the self-same conservationists, like Roosevelt and Grinnell, who mourned the disappearance of wilderness came from the elite class whose economic fortunes derived from the resources extracted from the wilderness itself.

This is the 3rd and final summary of our fourthcoming book on hunting and conservation to be published by the end of the year.

American conservationist John Muir (1838-1914)

American conservationist John Muir (1838-1914) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

  • NeverEnding Stories: Commerce Versus Conservation (wnyc.org)
  • WILD10 Indigenous and Community Land and Seas Forum Schedule (firstpeoples.org)

What Do We Do About Gun Violence?

October 6, 2024

mikethegunguy Blogs , , , , , , , 6 Comments

At least two-thirds of the perpetrators who commit gun homicides are males under the age of 30. What else do these shooters have in common? They live in neighborhoods with overall high crime rates and low family income, they had previous contact with their victim, all facts that are well known. But there’s another commonality these shooters share which, as far as I can tell, isn’t mentioned in the discussions about gun violence and crime.

The commonality has to do with certain neurological and developmental factors shared by males under the age of 30. It turns out that the part of the brain that controls processing of information about impulse, desire, goals, self-interest, rules and risk develops latest and probably isn’t fully formed until the mid-20’s or later. And while adolescents and young adults both perceive and balance ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ as well as older adults, they tend to let peer pressures rather than expected outcomes guide their behavior when they have to choose between risks and rewards.

Now take this neurological-behavioral profile of males between ages 15 to 30 and stick a gun in their hands. The brain research clearly demonstrates that kids and young adults walking around with guns understand the risks involved. Whether it’s the NSSF’s new Project ChildSafe, the NRA’s Eddie Eagle or the community-specific gun safety programs that have expanded since Sandy Hook, nobody’s telling the kids something they don’t already know.

So what can we do to mitigate what President Obama calls this ‘epidemic’ of gun violence when the population most at risk consciously chooses to ignore the risk? I think the simplest answer would be to look at what communities have done to protect themselves from other kinds of epidemics that threatened public health in the past. And the most effective method has been to quarantine, or isolate the area or population where the threat is most extreme. It worked in 14th-century Italy, according to Boccaccio in The Decameron. Why wouldn’t it work now?

Last month the city of Springfield, Mass., recorded its 12th gun homicide. If the killing rate continues, the city might hit 15 shooting fatalities this year, a number it actually surpassed in 2010. This gives the city a homicide rate of 10.2 per 100,000 residents, nearly three times the national rate. But the city’s overall rate hides the fact that virtually all the violence takes place in two specific neighborhoods bounded on the north by Interstate 291 and on the south by State Route 83. There two neighborhoods contain less than 40,000 residents which means that the homicide rates here are 40 per 100,000, more than 10 times the national rate. This isn’t an epidemic?

2010 springfield homicide

2013 springfield homicides

Springfield Homicides 2010 Springfield Homicides 2013

In 2010, not a single victim was older than 35 and 5 were not yet 20, the average age of all victims was 22. This year there have been three older victims (+35 y/o) but otherwise the 2010 average age remains about the same in 2013. If I had room to show the data for 2011 and 2012, the map would be the same. Why can’t this area be designated a quarantine zone? Following the designation, the police would behave like public health workers and conduct a residence-by-residence contact with everyone in the quarantine zone. Ask every resident if they have seen any guns, ask permission to conduct a premise search, create a “watch list” of persons or residences that appear to be particularly high risk. There’s no Constitutional issues here, you’re not kicking down any doors. But you are telling people that there is one thing that must be done to curb the epidemic: the epidemic known as violence is carried by a virus known as guns and they must be eliminated in order to reduce the risk.

Related articles
  • How Do We Reduce Gun Violence? (dish.andrewsullivan.com)
  • Obama: ‘Epidemic of gun violence’ tearing US apart (itv.com)

Emily Got Her Gun And Lost Her Mind

October 2, 2024

mikethegunguy Blogs , , , , , , , 1 Comment

Emily Miller

Emily Miller

So now I’ve had a chance to read Emily Gets Her Gun. It’s actually based on columns that Emily Miller has written over the last several years for the Washington Star. The book deals with three separate themes:

 

1. The usual collection of NRA-based bromides on Obama’s not-so-secret plan to disarm America with an assist from Mike Bloomberg and other anti-gun enemies and/or liberals (which is the same thing.) I’ve shot enough slings and arrows at the NRA that I don’t need to do it here.

 

2. Interviews with various personalities who have lit up the gun world over the last few years, including politicians, persons wrongly accused of firearm violations, gun shop owners, etc.

 

3. Miller’s personal odyssey through the bureaucracy that now exists for the purpose of buying and owning a gun in Washington, DC. It’s the last theme that I want to talk about in this blog, because on the one hand it’s pretty well written, on the other, it really exemplifies what’s both wrong and dangerous about the NRA approach to guns.

 

Miller claims that she decided to own a handgun because she was the “victim” of a “home invasion.” That’s not true. In fact, she admits that she was outside the house, returning from walking a dog to find a young man “coming from the house.” A ‘home invasion’ is an event in which someone is within their residence when another person enters the home without permission with the intention of committing a crime. Emily’s case was a simple B&E (breaking and entering) except there wasn’t even a break-in because Emily left the door unlocked when she took the dog out for a walk.

 

Following this untoward and admittedly scary event, Emily decided to exercise her 2nd Amendment right to purchase and own a gun. Except she wanted to do more than that because she also wanted to exercise her “Constitutional” right to carry the gun outside her home. I gave up counting the number of times that Miller categorically states that the Constitution gives her the “right” to carry a concealed weapon outside her home, but she is so adamant about the existence of this “right” that it must be true.

 

But it’s not true. And why do I have audacity, the temerity to challenge a noted legal scholar like Emily Miller on this fundamental point of constitutional law? Because there’s a real constitutional scholar out there named Antonin Scalia who also says it’s not true. And where does he say it’s not true? In the same District of Columbia vs. Heller decision that gave Emily her right to buy and own a gun in the first place: “Nothing [quoting the decision] in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places.” In the same section, Scalia states that the 2nd Amendment does not confer unlimited rights, including the right of concealed carry.

 

So for the moment, like it or not, poor Emily is stuck with only being able to protect herself with her gun if an invasion of her home actually takes place. She better hope that DC doesn’t pass a law prohibiting her from keeping a guard dog in her residence because she’ll be a lot safer with the dog around than with her new gun. Because what’s missing from her book, given how much it’s being promoted by the NRA, is any indication that she’s planning to engage in any self-defense training at all. She took a course in gun safety in order to qualify to own a gun, but the truth is that had the course not been required by the DC Police, she wouldn’t have bothered at all.

Less than a quarter of the 50 states require safety courses prior to the first purchase of a gun. Not a single of the 50 states that now grant concealed-carry privileges requires self-defense firearm training. Does Emily Miller really believe that with one trip to a shooting range in which she fired 50 rounds that she is ready to confront a home invader or a criminal out in the street with her gun? If she is, then she’s gotten her gun but he’s lost her mind.

 

 

Related articles
  • Emily Miller steers CNN gun control panel with facts (bizpacreview.com)
  • MILLER: Bloomberg loses stop and frisk, and NRA gets blamed (washingtontimes.com)

Older Entries Newer Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 198 other followers

Build a website with WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: