Comprehensive background checks and prohibitions based on violent misdemeanors had no effect

[hso]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1047279718306161

The latest study published by the highly-credentialed researchers in these well-funded programs, “California's comprehensive background check and misdemeanor violence prohibition policies and firearm mortality,” was designed to evaluate the effect of California’s 1991 comprehensive background check and prohibiting those convicted of violent misdemeanors policies on firearm homicide and suicide. The study period was 1981-2000, with secondary analysis up to 2005.

Using a synthetic control methodology, the researchers found that the comprehensive background check and violent misdemeanor prohibitions were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide.

In conversational language, the two policies had no effect.

This is a great bit of information for our side to use when someone advocates UBCs.

 

[JONWILL]

You mean crimials will get guns anyway. I never would have believed that.

 

[dh1633pm]

Its nice to see something that we all pretty much knew already. What you know doesn't help in court. Thanks for sharing the info and link.

 

[doubleh]

This study will do absolutely nothing to change the policies of the anti- gunners. Most don't actually care about deaths from guns, it's about control of the masses.

 

[CoalTrain49]

CA has about the same homicide rate as AZ. That's from FBI data.

The two states both have a common border with Mexico and each other.

Where people fail in this gun control argument is they never look at overall homicide rates. They insist on only looking at firearm homicides. Gun control does nothing to change the overall homicide rate. CA and AZ is proof.

A homicide is a homicide. Are the penalties different for someone convicted of 1st degree murder if they used a machete?

But the people in CA are happy with their gun control so I say let them enjoy all of it they can stand.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

The "true believer" gun control fanatic will just point to the study and say "See,that wasn't enough, we need more laws.".

 

[George P]

Those policies DID have some effect; they resulted in more folks being employed by the government to provide those services......

 

[Pudge]

And in ten or so years, we will have the data that Washington's new legislation and the Bump Fire Stock ban had equally significant social impacts...

But who cares about restricting our civil rights when elections can turn on the headlines the legislation create.

 

[GBExpat]

Where people fail in this gun control argument is they never look at overall homicide rates.

Why bother with real, accurate numbers when you can make up some that better suit your needs?

 

[JohnKSa]

Using a synthetic control methodology, the researchers found that the comprehensive background check and violent misdemeanor prohibitions were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide.

In conversational language, the two policies had no effect.

This is the absolute BEAUTY of gun control as a strategy to eliminate firearms ownership.

It has very little to no effect until the prohibitions become so onerous as to virtually eliminate all firearms ownership.

So you can keep tacking on more restrictions with the full knowledge that there will be more incidents and more crime and you'll have another and another and another chance to keep adding more restrictions. And you can keep using the same old rationale all the way along the path even though none of the previous restrictions have achieved any of their publicly stated goals.

 

[gbran]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1047279718306161

The latest study published by the highly-credentialed researchers in these well-funded programs, “California's comprehensive background check and misdemeanor violence prohibition policies and firearm mortality,” was designed to evaluate the effect of California’s 1991 comprehensive background check and prohibiting those convicted of violent misdemeanors policies on firearm homicide and suicide. The study period was 1981-2000, with secondary analysis up to 2005.

Using a synthetic control methodology, the researchers found that the comprehensive background check and violent misdemeanor prohibitions were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide.

In conversational language, the two policies had no effect.

This is a great bit of information for our side to use when someone advocates UBCs.

Leave prohibitions to violent or serious felons. I'm really not worried Martha Stewart is gonna come gunning for me.

 

[paulsj]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1047279718306161

The latest study published by the highly-credentialed researchers in these well-funded programs, “California's comprehensive background check and misdemeanor violence prohibition policies and firearm mortality,” was designed to evaluate the effect of California’s 1991 comprehensive background check and prohibiting those convicted of violent misdemeanors policies on firearm homicide and suicide. The study period was 1981-2000, with secondary analysis up to 2005.

Using a synthetic control methodology, the researchers found that the comprehensive background check and violent misdemeanor prohibitions were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide.

In conversational language, the two policies had no effect.

This is a great bit of information for our side to use when someone advocates UBCs.

That is expected res

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1047279718306161

The latest study published by the highly-credentialed researchers in these well-funded programs, “California's comprehensive background check and misdemeanor violence prohibition policies and firearm mortality,” was designed to evaluate the effect of California’s 1991 comprehensive background check and prohibiting those convicted of violent misdemeanors policies on firearm homicide and suicide. The study period was 1981-2000, with secondary analysis up to 2005.

Using a synthetic control methodology, the researchers found that the comprehensive background check and violent misdemeanor prohibitions were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide.

In conversational language, the two policies had no effect.

This is a great bit of information for our side to use when someone advocates UBCs.

Making such studies and analysis is waste of time and money. In country with so many guns such gun control attempts will have next to zero effects. Those who want can just bring guns into California from Nevada, New Mexico,....
If one is concerned about individual safety there are just two options to arm everyone or to take all guns away. If one is concerned about maintaing status quo and group safety the guns need to be taken away. By status quo I mean those with power and control will remain so.
Simple example if I was a billionaire oligoarch controlling political system through support for both parties would I want poor people to be armed? NO.
I am lucky in less than 10 years I will be moving back to the "Old Country" leaving this mess behind. Thank You God.

 

[rust collector]

Thanks for the credible information we can cite in our discussion of gun laws. I'm always a bit cautious when I read something like "recent studies show" because we have come to realize that results can be purchased if the researchers lack scruples and peer review. This study seems solid. We won't hear much of it in the media, however.

 

[GEM]

CBC and MVP policies were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide. Incomplete and missing records for background checks, incomplete compliance and enforcement, and narrowly constructed prohibitions may be among the reasons for these null findings.

Some of you are making a common mistake when evaluating a null finding. If you read the abstract, you find that it states the reason for the null finding might be bad data and not severe enough rules for implementation. Without reading the original which is behind a pay wall, it probably states that the program would have worked, if it were stricter. The authors are not gun friendly. However, I would have to see the entire article, just my guess.

The same thing happened when a scholarly article revealed that the original AWB had no effect on crime indices. The gun world said - Oh, goody. Let's not have ban. The authors and the gun control world concluded the AWB wasn't strict enough and tougher ones were needed.

This sort of research can be a double edged sword.

Here's the paradigm - you have a disease, you try a new drug, it doesn't work - so let's not try more measures against the disease. Doesn't make sense from that point of view. Thus be cautious about thinking you've won a battle with this study.

 

[GEM]

You know some of you aren't discussing the OP and just babbling about off topic comments on states, etc.

Want to cut that out? Deleting a wave, so if your post is gone, you known why.

 

[Pat Riot]

Having lived in California most of my adult life I wouldn’t doubt these numbers and this information. If the background checks were solely about keeping guns from the criminals then one wouldn’t have to go through a UBC every time one bought any kind of firearm, including rifles and shotguns. Once you bought one or two guns the DOJ could pretty much know you were a law abiding citizen and the UBC with a 10 day wait wouldn’t really matter.

Years ago some political hacks claimed that the UBC process had reduced “drive-by” gang related shootings, but the fact of the matter is the MS-13 gang worked to get gangs to stop doing it so they would look good to law enforcement. They also wanted to squash Drive-Bys because it’s hard to make a profit off dead gangsta’s.

The whole California system is convoluted and confusing by design. The funny thing is the harder they make it the more guns get sold because people, in general, do not like being told what to do and what they can and cannot have.

 

[boom boom]

Some of you are making a common mistake when evaluating a null finding. If you read the abstract, you find that it states the reason for the null finding might be bad data and not severe enough rules for implementation. Without reading the original which is behind a pay wall, it probably states that the program would have worked, if it were stricter. The authors are not gun friendly. However, I would have to see the entire article, just my guess.

The same thing happened when a scholarly article revealed that the original AWB had no effect on crime indices. The gun world said - Oh, goody. Let's not have ban. The authors and the gun control world concluded the AWB wasn't strict enough and tougher ones were needed.

This sort of research can be a double edged sword.

Here's the paradigm - you have a disease, you try a new drug, it doesn't work - so let's not try more measures against the disease. Doesn't make sense from that point of view. Thus be cautious about thinking you've won a battle with this study.

I'll check with my buddies in research land to see if I can get a copy of the full study. I promise to critique it fairly just as if I was acting as a peer reviewer for a journal if I do in a future post. I'm also curious if they have their raw data under embargo or not.

In general, one of the classic problems in research is that you have aggregate level data and are trying to determine how much it affects individual actions. Aggregate level data is pretty noisy when trying to determine how it may affect a smaller number of actors such as criminals. Furthermore, like Bastiat in his famous broken windows example, the loss is direct at the shopkeeper but essentially what would the shopkeeper do with the money spent on the window if the window was not broken. The crimes and suicides happened but trying to use aggregate data to indicate whether a specific policy would or would not have affected--let say a suicide would also have to account for the substitution effect--e.g. instead of firearms--they use pills, or whether the overall economic climate, the legalization of medicinal marijuana, etc. caused an increase in the rate.

It is difficult enough to determine first order effects, but 2nd, 3rd, etc. get to be a nightmare.