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.

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.

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).