Only in the pea sized brains of idiots and tyrants.<\/p>\n
DO AMERICANS HAVE EXCESS FREEDOM?<\/a><\/p>\n Amazingly, a new \u201cstudy\u201d is making headlines, despite the fact that it relies on obviously faulty assumptions, irrational methodology and has not been peer-reviewed.<\/p>\n The authors cite themselves as support for spurious statements like \u201cSurges in firearm purchasing\u2026have been well documented in association with mass shootings and significant political events and are followed by population-level increases in firearm violence.\u201d Crime data for the most recent months isn\u2019t available yet, but we know\u00a0history proves otherwise<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n Sure, Americans tend to buy more of something they think will soon be scarce. Just as there was an increase in toilet paper buying during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, adults are more likely to legally purchase a certain firearm they have been thinking about when there is a political discussion of banning that firearm. Does that mean those purchases are, as the author argues, \u201cexcess\u201d firearms?<\/p>\n Any chef will tell you they require different types of knives for different kitchen tasks. Any hunter will tell you they would not rely on the same firearm for self-defense as they would in the field. All guns are not the same and do not meet the same needs for law-abiding citizens that choose to exercise their Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. The difference is, although there are\u00a0more homicides<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0each year committed with knives than with\u00a0Modern Sporting Rifles<\/a><\/strong>, no one seems to argue seriously against owning any knives or for limiting the number that a home may possess because more than one is excessive.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The authors do make the smallest mention of a key fact in their opening; \u201cThe pandemic has exacerbated factors that contribute to interpersonal violence, including financial stress, tension, trauma, worry, and a sense of hopelessness.\u201d<\/p>\n If data show an increase in violent crimes over the last 3-6 months, it would not be surprising during this unsettling time of national crisis. However, it does not follow that this is due to more Americans deciding to purchase firearms. In fact, more individuals are buying guns precisely because they feel unsafe and are seeking to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property. Many of these recent purchases have been made by\u00a0new gun owners<\/a><\/strong>, begging the question of how the study authors can argue they are \u201cexcess purchases.\u201d<\/p>\n Let\u2019s look at the study\u2019s design. For firearm purchases, the authors use an adjusted number based on the number of checks conducted by the FBI\u2019s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Fine. We\u2019ve been\u00a0doing that<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0for a long time now and know that makes sense. It\u2019s refreshing to see gun control advocates actually acknowledge that every firearm purchase from a federally licensed retailer must go through a\u00a0background check<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n The data source that is more problematic is the use of the Gun Violence Archive\u2019s collection of media reports as a proxy for actual crime data. It should come as no surprise that the news isn\u2019t always accurate. Particularly when reporting local crimes, the media tends to briefly cover a crime that may or may not have occurred, from a limited perspective with little detail and no follow-up. There\u2019s a reason for using\u00a0FBI crime data<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0rather than what a local reporter says in a blog post. When designing a study that purports to argue guns are a problem and too many guns are a bigger problem, it would be great if the authors could at least attempt to use accurate, reliable data sources.<\/p>\n The gymnastics used by the authors to determine what is considered \u201cexcess purchases\u201d could alone take an entire study to critique. But picking apart their process would mean accepting that the premise is sound. Which it simply is not. There is no such thing as \u201cexcess purchases.\u201d There is supply and there is demand. There are legal, heavily regulated sales. There are law-abiding adults possessing and using firearms in compliance with federal, state and local laws. To assert that there have been \u201cexcess purchases\u201d of over 2 million firearms is a thinly veiled, deeply biased assertion that there is something inherently wrong with the legal purchase of a firearm. With this in mind, the model doesn\u2019t matter. This study comes down to a simple equation: garbage in, garbage out. In fact, the authors recognize that there is no evidence to show these legally purchased firearms have been used in any crimes.<\/p>\n Fortunately, the authors do not claim that there is a causal relationship between the increase in purchases and violent crime. At best they argue there is an \u201cassociation.\u201d While they can imply more guns causes more crime, even the authors understand there is no evidence to support that, stating, \u201cWe cannot infer causality from these observational data.\u201d<\/p>\n Why not consider what happened with crime rates after the 2013 \u201csurge\u201d in firearm purchases? Perhaps because\u00a0crime rates declined<\/strong><\/a>? What is different now are the unique factors the authors point out earlier that tend to be associated with increases in violent crime. In other words, it\u2019s not the guns. If we see an increase in crime, it is due the\u00a0socioeconomic factors<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0that have long been correlated with crime spikes, only now magnified by state stay-at-home orders and societal unrest. This is a fact that the authors do note in their limitations section. Describing the fact that their results, \u201ccould indicate reverse causation, i.e. that an increase in violence caused an increase in firearm purchasing\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n Unsurprisingly, despite evidence to the contrary, the authors conclude that this study, \u201clends support to interventions restricting access to firearms.\u201d This is yet another example of a thoroughly biased report aimed only to achieve gun control goals. The report\u2019s predisposition is not surprising. Several of the\u00a0authors<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0have a long track record of publishing agenda-driven \u201cresearch\u201d to advance gun control measures.<\/p>\n The firearm and ammunition industry understands the importance of the Second Amendment, but also the importance of the legal, safe and responsible use and possession of guns. We have proven that with our leadership in getting our\u00a0FixNICS<\/a>\u00ae\u00a0<\/sup><\/strong>program signed into law in Congress and 16 states, increasing the disqualifying background checks from 1.7 million to 5.3 million since 2012, a 241-percent increase. It is the firearm industry that leads with\u00a0Project ChildSafe<\/strong><\/a>\u00ae<\/sup>, passing out over 38 million free gun locks and with manufacturers including a locking device with each new firearm shipped. We\u2019ve led on preventing straw purchases with our\u00a0Don\u2019t Lie for the Other Guy<\/strong><\/a>TM<\/sup>\u00a0campaign done in partnership with ATF.\u00a0 It is the industry that has partnered with ATF in\u00a0Operation Secure Store<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0to reduce the theft of guns from retailers.<\/p>\n And we know that increasing suicide trends is a major issue in the United States today. We are working to reduce these tragedies, which account for about two-thirds of all gun deaths annually, through partnerships with groups like the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the Department of Veterans Affairs. We know the answer isn\u2019t restrictions on the rights of Americans but is in coming up with\u00a0Real Solutions<\/a>\u00ae<\/sup><\/strong>\u00a0for safer communities.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Only in the pea sized brains of idiots and tyrants. DO AMERICANS HAVE EXCESS FREEDOM? By Elizabeth McGuigan Amazingly, a new \u201cstudy\u201d is making headlines, despite the fact that it relies on obviously faulty assumptions, irrational methodology and has not been peer-reviewed. The authors cite themselves as support for spurious statements like \u201cSurges in firearm … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-56826","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-rights","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56826","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=56826"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56826\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":56827,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56826\/revisions\/56827"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=56826"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=56826"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=56826"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Flawed Model<\/h4>\n