Does Pew report suggest gun violence is down? Sort of...

Last Tuesday, Dana Loesch, political pundit and radio and television host, tweeted that gun homicides are down by 30%, citing a Pew report as evidence:

Her followers on twitter were excited to have actual statistical support to bolster their position against gun control, noting that liberal proponents of gun control don't do so well with data and statistics:

The problem is that the Pew report doesn't quite say this. Indeed, one might simply compare Loesch's statement with the title of the Pew report presented at the bottom of her own tweet: "Gun homicides steady after decline in '90s". It is true that the header above the graph specifically says: "Gun violence has declined since the '90s". However, even a brief glance at the actual numbers indicates the myopic lens through which Loesch read the report.

Notice, gun violence is not down merely 'since the '90s', the decline took place primarily in the '90s, and gun violence has largely stagnated since then. In itself, the decline is a good thing, to be sure. But, a curious reader of the report might wonder: 'What was so special about the '90s that led to this decline?" Politifact.org offers a few interesting possibilities. 

First, Bill Clinton was in office during the '90s, and signed two significant pieces of gun legislation, the Brady Bill and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

Second, the decline followed "the end of the crack epidemic", and, in this sense, this graph does not represent a decline at all, but a return to normal numbers (so to speak) after a sharp increase.

Regardless of the cause (and I am neither interested in taking a stance, nor properly qualified), using the report as evidence that there is no need to even discuss gun control measures is a fundamental misreading of the report altogether.

Never Miss a Good Conversation.

David Frum has been Tweeting ideas in rapid succession this morning regarding solutions to gun-death problems in the States.

Indeed, this series (the list above is partial) represents ideas from his CNN column, found here.  Some of his ideas are interesting, several are new to me, others seem like they'd not work or would be impracticable.  Nevertheless, his Tweets should have started an interesting conversation.  Instead, they've started this:

Score for the day: F@cking cat memes:1 Reason: 0.

One swallow does not a Summer make.

Clichés of this sort stick around for a reason--usually because they are based on a fundamental truth.  In the conversation about gun-control there are many fundamental, logical truths that are side-stepped (so to speak) by the participants.  I'd just like to point out a few from today.

 

The first fallacy is the simplest, and it is the one to which the title of this post refers.  It is absolutely impossible to solve the issue of gun control (whether for more regulation, as intended by the first tweet, or against, as intended by the second) by referring to one case or a small sampling of cases.  The argument over gun control must be concerned first (though not solely) with statistics and studies.  If you're not slinging numbers, take your sloppy shit elsewhere because you are just muddying the waters.  In case you are interested, this is an instance of Hasty Generalization.

 

Next up is a classic Red Herring.  Notice that no rational participant in the conversation is suggesting that new regulations can eliminate or stop gun violence altogether.  The tweep above is absolutely correct, it would be delusional to think this possible--that's why we don't think that.  Perhaps I smell a bit of Straw Man here as well?

If we remove some of these simple errors in thinking from the conversation, perhaps we'll make some progress.

Obama’s 23 Planned Executive Actions On Guns

After VPOTUS reported to POTUS on suggested gun solutions, the White House issued a list of 23 executive actions POTUS plans to pursue in the immediate future.  None of these 23 items lists guns which are to be banned, nor are high capacity magazines mentioned (though both are certain to be addressed in any future attempts at federal legislation).  Indeed, most of the items have to do with information sharing and background checks.  However, there are two extremely interesting items on the list that are worth knowing about.  No. 11 is "Nominate an ATF director."  You might ask, "What the hell?  Why haven't you nominated a director already?"  In case you've not been watching the news about nominations for Secretaries of Defense, Treasury and State, this process has become a tug-of-war.  The same has been true of the ATF.  However, it seems that the Republicans are not alone in their dogmatic opposition to any Obama choice for ATF--the gun lobby has been pushing them on this issue for some time.  The gun lobby is likewise behind item no. 14. "Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."  The CDC is very well placed and very well funded to conduct such invaluable research.  Nevertheless, the CDC's budget for such research was taken away some time ago after much pressure from the NRA lobbyists.

Saying something aloud doesn't make it true.

I keep seeing these same tropes in the gun-control debate, repeated as if they are true and relevant.  Todd Starnes repeats all three in rapid succession in his article entitled "Freedom, Tyranny and Granny's .38".  As the title suggests, Starnes believes that the only thing that stands between freedom and goverment tyranny is a gun.  I find this to be a sad commentary on what Starnes thinks of modern democracy--there are several institutions in place which are intended precisely to stand between freedom and tyranny: the voting booth, the Constitution, the system of checks and balances.  I don't feel the need to take guns of this list, but I find it strange that it would be not the first item on Starnes' list but the only item. 

As far as the first claim above--it is true that new gun legislation which criminalizes possession of an 'assault weapon' (however that is ultimately defined) or a large capacity magazine is not legislation that is specifically aimed at criminals, but neither is it specifically aimed at law-abiding gun owners.  Indeed, whether it is a good law or a bad one, it is aimed at all owners of such criminalized objects.  And as it turns out, most of the guns used in mass shooting in the last 30 years were obtained legally.

With regard to 'dismantling' the Constitution, the suggestion seems to be that any change to the Constitution equals 'dismantling'.  Nobody is suggesting that the 2nd Amendment be removed altogether.  Rather, gun-control advocates are seeking to limit the rights afforded by the amendment.  If you object to any change to the Constitution, you might want to look up the word amendment.  Incidentally (and as I've repeated several times), many of your constitutional rights are limited, even that most fundamental right: speech.

The solution to this problem won't be easy, but it will be easier without all this static noise competing for our serious attention.

The nomenclature of guns.

There have been a number of articles recently regarding the terminology we use to designate certain categories of weapons: what is an assault rifle/weapon? what is the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon?  I've addressed some of this myself in previous posts (I am not an expert, but I've been doing a modicum of homework on the subject).  Many have pointed out that 'assault rifle' is an extremely vague term--and it is.  Of course, there is only one conclusion to be drawn from this fact, viz., 'assault rifle' is an extremely vague term.  Without introducing further premises you cannot draw the conclusion that assault weapons should not be banned (this may be the case, but simply pointing out the vagaries of the nomenclature won't get you there).  However, I came across an even more interesting term this morning in an article on The Blaze: civilian rifle.  Without any context, I assumed this referred to hunting rifles.  Such rifles can be semi-automatic or entirely manual (they are generally not fully automatic).  However, the article, by Liz Klimas, suggests that the AR15 (the AR stands for Armalite, not Assault Rifle, according to Klimas) is a civilian rifle, a sort of cousin of the M16, the former designed for civilian use (whatever that may be) and the latter for military use.  Klimas is suggesting that there is a hard distinction between the AR15 and the M16, presumably with the intention of defending the former for civilian possession and use.  There are a number of problems here.  The first is historical: the AR15 was not designed by Armalite for civilian use but for military use in the early '50s--indeed, the AR15 seems to have been developed in response to the Operations Research Office, established by the Army in '48, looking for a better ground weapon.  The design was later sold to Colt and Colt marketed it as a civilian rifle.  The second problem has to do with functionality: the AR15 is not really functionally different from the M16--indeed, the M16 is simply the military name for an AR15 that has been slightly modified to be fully automatic.  The fact that the AR15 can be modified in many different ways is precisely what makes the gun so popular. So, sorting out the nomenclature is interesting, and helpful, but does not (on its own) lead to any relevant conclusions).

Here is a video of an AR15 modified to be fully automatic (this process, as far as I can tell, is entirely legal).

Three kinds of gun owner.

This is not a scientific distinction, merely a personal observation made by following the news regarding current efforts to introduce new gun restrictions by both congress and POTUS.  Nevertheless, the division seems fairly accurate if not comprehensive.  People own guns for one or more (they are not mutually exclusive) of three reasons.  The first is recreational: this includes both hunting and target shooting.  The second is for personal safety (and by personal I include protection of the family/household).  By protection, I have in mind here protection against home invaders of whatever sort.  This distinction is important because the last reason is for protection, but of a different sort.  The third reason has to do with protection of personal liberty against tyranny.  There is an entire group that is afraid (rightly or wrongly) that giving up guns (or at least certain kinds) will leave them vulnerable to the whims of a dictator.  All three reasons can be supported by reference to the 2nd Amendment, but the third is the most historically linked to this amendment.  That is, the 2nd Amendment is a reflection of concerns following the Revolutionary War (though not only).  Some of the rhetoric (I hesitate to refer to arguments here) has sparked a very specific question in my mind.

 

I understand and support the right to defend yourself and your rights (though I tend to think your vote will be more powerful than your gun).  But this sort of presentation leads me to ask, "who is holding the gun here?"  When you express your fear that 'they' may come for your guns, do you mean POTUS himself?  Do you mean the members of congress?  If that is the case, I think we could handle that force handily without guns.  However, if you mean the police, the Army, the Navy, Seal Team 6, then you've got some explaining to do.  What you are suggesting here, is that the Army (together with its commanders) is so docile that it would agree to invade its own country, repress its own citizens if so instructed by the government.  I would not rule this out on a priori grounds; but I do find this prospect preposterous at this time.  In order to advance this conversation, I think it important for those who support the 2nd Amendment for the third reason to identify the potential enemy as they see it.  For, if it turns out there isn't one, problem solved.

Gun-control continued.

There are a number of arguments which continue to appear in interviews and internet memes that seem, prima facie, relevant and conclusive, but that are easily seen to be void when one looks behind the curtain.  (N.B.: Once again, I am not arguing here in favor of gun-control, nor against gun-control--I am in favor of a reasonable conversation.)  The first comes from Ted Cruz, newly elected senator from Texas.  Cruz appeared on Fox News Sunday to declare that gun-control is unconstitutional.

To be fair, I have not been able to watch the entire interview, so I cannot say whether or not Cruz explained his meaning in more depth.  Nevertheless, Cruz's position cannot be supported either on philosophic grounds nor on historical grounds.  First, while the constitution guarantees certain rights, those rights belong to individuals, whose interest are sometimes in conflict.  Thus, freedom of speech is limited--the age-old example is that you cannot scream fire in a crowded movie theater knowing there is no fire.  Certain kinds of speech are restricted, indeed, to protect people from the abuse of the freedom of speech itself.  Further, the supreme court (whose job it is to interpret the constitution) have decided several cases which allow for the regulation and restriction of gun possession.

The second argument which is floating around on Facebook is a thoughtless meme:

This meme suggests that new gun regulations will not deter criminals from possessing and using guns.  The reason it seems convincing is because it is true--laws don't prevent crime.  Indeed, the simplest way to prevent crime (from this perspective) is to annul all laws (if nothing is deemed criminal, there are no crimes to be committed, no criminals to send to jail).  The meme, unfortunately, fails to recognize the distinction between legislation and enforcement.  It may prove to be impossible to enforce new gun-control legislation, but then that is the argument that should be made here (though it would not look as funny on an e-card). 

How An Analogy Works.

Much of the gun-control debate in recent weeks has not really been a debate at all.  Each side is speaking past the other, neither taking the time to understand the other.  Part of the problem is failure to understand certain features of logic, especially the analogy.  Analogies are not metaphors or similes, and they have rules that make them work (or not if they are not followed).  Here is a good example of failure to understand how an analogy works:

Mr. Howe's original analogy may be expressed this way: banning assault weapons is to mass gun violence as banning wrapping paper is to paper cuts.  His implication is, of course, that banning assault weapons is "legislative idiocy" (which it may very well be).  Nevertheless, and this is the important part, an analogy (in this case, a four term analogy--A:B::C:D) suggests that the first and third terms are similar, and the second and fourth are similar.  Take the mathematical analogy, 1:2::4:8.  The analogy establishes that the relationship expressed in the first analog (1:2) and that expressed in the second (4:8) are the same, viz. half.  But notice that you can examine the terms individually as well: 1 and 4 are similar in that they are half of 2 and 8 respectively.  Thus, in Mr. Howe's analogy, despite his objections to the contrary, the Newtown shooting is compared to a paper cut.  This comparison is precisely where Mr. Howe's analogy breaks down (as all analogies do at some point).  However, this is just one example of the faulty use of analogy in this debate.  One Twitter user compared banning guns to prevent gun-violence to banning utensils to prevent obesity.

And on Sean Hannity's show on Fox, Ann Coulter asked:

The simple answer is that in certain areas gun permits are a matter of public record (which is how The Journal News got their information), while medical records are not.  Coulter makes the point that such permits should not be public, and perhaps they shouldn't; but the analogy is not only useless to making the point, it's actually backwards.  I suggest we stop using analogies altogether in this debate.  They are unnecessary given the amount of information we have on gun violence in the US and elsewhere.

Perhaps the longest sustained non sequitur ever.

There are many sides to the gun-control debate that is raging right now, and I don't mean that there are sides that are for greater regulation and sides against (thought that is also true).  What I mean is that some are arguing for banning this sort of weapon but not that; others are arguing that high-capacity magazines should be regulated rather than the guns themselves; others are interested in discussing background checks rather than criminalizing possession.  One of the more interesting--and more subtle--parts of the debate has to do with the term 'assault weapon'.  The term is hazy, and often mistaken for a synonym of 'automatic'.  In fact, the current legal definition (at least in practice) includes semi-automatic weapons.  This, however, may lead one to think that an assault weapons ban would include all semi-automatic weapons.  However, many (most?) handguns are also semi-automatic (which simply means that the gun automatically loads a new cartridge after firing).  It seems clear that part of the gun-control debate will have to include a clearer categorization of gun-types (this would be a good idea even if no new legislation follows).  Maureen Martin posted an article at the Daily Caller last week explaining intelligently the problem with the current legal nomenclature regarding guns.  You would think the natural conclusion of such an article would be that we need to sort out the classification of gun-types before we discuss regulation.  Instead, what follows does not follow at all (hence, the non sequitur in the title of this post).

Martin may be correct, but usually what is contained must be mentioned in the premises--otherwise your conclusion is entirely irrelevant.  Nevertheless, her article contains no statistics concerning gun restrictions and violence, gun restrictions and mass murder, gun restrictions and gun murder rates.  She finishes my asking us to "carefully consider overly simplistic cures."  I think I'll take her advice and carefully and with consideration ignore her article.

Gun debate begins with reason.

The week and  half since the shooting in Newtown has been a hazy fog of half baked arguments regarding gun control and prevention.  The conversation (if you can call it that) has been cacophonous, with every side of the debate speaking to his or her own concerns without addressing the concerns of the other participants.  Some are afraid that their guns will be taken away--as if there is a real risk that the Second Amendment will be repealed (and as if anyone is actually calling for such a repeal).  Others are suggesting that teachers be armed.  The NRA is calling for armed guards in our schools, claiming that new gun regulations won't make any difference--after all, there are so many other weapons Lanza could have used to commit his crime (maybe a crossbow?).  Still others are pointing out that there were armed guards at Columbine, and that that did not prevent the Colorado massacre.  Finally, Lindsey Graham doesn't think there is anything he or his fellow lawmakers can do to prevent a massacre.

The problem is that no one has set out the ground rules of the debate.  That is to say, when one claims that gun-control won't work, they are obliged to first indicate what working means.  To argue that it won't have prevented Newtown is nonsense since Newtown has already occurred.  To argue that armed guards didn't prevent Columbine is likewise facile to the point of being meaningless--Columbine did occur.  The question must be set out clearly, and it must be agreed to, before a fruitful conversation can take place--and that question can only be: will new gun-control laws reduce the number of these sorts of shootings (an perhaps reduce gun-violence altogether)*.  Anyone who argues that gun-control laws would not have prevented Newtown is being disingenuous and should be dismissed outright.

*To be sure, the question has address, eventually, whether or not such restrictions violate the Second Amendment.

Look who's talking!

"How can you tell me smoking is bad for me when you smoke two packs a day?"  "Simple, because it's true."  Hypocrisy is a moral failing, not a logical one.  This is the example I use to explain one of the lowest sorts of logical fallacy (though it has a fancy Latin name): tu quoque.  John Nolte uses precisely this fallacy to introduce his discussion of the role the media plays in motivating shooters such as Adam Lanza.

Though this be one of the lowest forms of fallacy (in my opinion, to be sure), it is not the only fallacy committed by Nolte in this same post.  If you don't believe Nolte's claim that the promise of media fame contributes to the actions of a Lanza, you "simply [don't] want to believe it."  Nolte makes no argument here, he simply attacks the motivation of a hypothetical detractor--a type of ad hominem fallacy, though I cannot decide if it is a sort of poisoning the well or circumstantial (I'm open to suggestions).  In addition, Nolte bifurcates on the question of media coverage, suggesting that the media should ignore such news events altogether.  He could have made a very reasonable case for a policy that would call for news outlets to not show the face or mug shots of alleged shooters (incidentally, his article begins with a huge head shot of Lanza).  Instead, he calls for a media blackout.  Indeed, his comparison between the role of guns and the role of the media fails to distinguish between final cause or motive and instrumental cause.  Without such a distinction, the comparison is meaningless.

In the wake of tragedy...

...and after the grief, we begin to diagnose.  Was the killer insane?  Did he have a motive?  Was he bullied?  What role did his family life play?  What role did gun laws in his region play?  Some of these will be answered in time.  Others will remain unclear.  What is clear is that there can be no effective treatment/prevention without a proper diagnosis.  Certain commentators will present extremely ill-considered preventative measures in part because they haven't the patience for diagnostics; to wit, Newsweek's Megan McArdle suggests we teach children that is it best to rush the gunman in these and similar situations.  This will reduce the number of casualties.

Others will turn to god for answers.  Certainly this is a less ill-advised reaction.  Nevertheless, god can be used to make rash (to say the least) diagnoses.  After Westboro Baptist threatened to picket Sandy Brook Elementary, claiming, as they always do, that the massacre was the direct result of homosexuality, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson has followed suit.