Do Studies Show Gun Control Works?

Summary

The video script addresses the complexity and controversy surrounding gun control legislation in the U.S., highlighting the lack of conclusive evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of gun control measures. It critiques the quality of research, the misuse of statistics, and the potential unintended consequences of policy based on flawed data. The script calls for rigorous scientific investigation and caution against hastily enacted laws that may exacerbate existing inequalities and injustices.

Takeaways

• 📉 Gun violence rates in the United States have risen in recent years and remain higher than in some other developed countries.
• 📚 There are hundreds of laws and regulations restricting firearms access in the U.S., yet some advocates argue that a few more simple, common sense laws could significantly reduce gun violence.
• 🔍 The effectiveness of gun control laws is a subject of debate; some studies suggest that nearly all existing studies on the topic are flawed, while others assert that gun safety measures save lives.
• 🚨 Federal gun crime prosecutions have increased by 16 percent, and there is a call for more vigorous enforcement of existing gun laws.
• 📊 Gun control policies based on flawed research can have unintended consequences, such as turning law-abiding citizens into criminals and exacerbating racial and socioeconomic inequities.
• 🧐 A 2020 meta-analysis by the Rand Corporation found that only 0.4% of 27,900 studies on gun control were rigorous enough to provide meaningful results.
• 🚫 Many studies that meet Rand's criteria still have serious defects, making it difficult to prove the effect of specific gun control measures.
• 🔬 The rarity of gun violence makes it challenging for researchers to determine the impact of laws, with many studies suffering from data issues and high variability.
• 🔒 Some proposed laws, such as universal background checks, ammunition checks, and ballistic imprinting, are suggested to significantly reduce firearm mortality if implemented correctly.
• 📉 The correlation between gun laws and violence is often misrepresented in media and political discussions, with sensational claims usually based on weak evidence.
• 🏥 The CDC is treating gun violence as a public health crisis, with Congress approving initial funds for scientific research on the topic.

Q & A

What is the current state of gun violence rates in America compared to the mid-2010s?

Gun violence rates in America have increased in recent years after reaching historic lows in the mid-2010s, and they remain higher than in some other parts of the developed world.

What does the speaker suggest about the effectiveness of existing gun laws?

The speaker suggests that the notion that gun laws don't work is not supported by evidence, and that gun safety measures have been proven to save lives through repeated studies.

What is the issue with the majority of studies on the effect of gun control laws according to the speaker?

The issue is that of the thousands of studies conducted, nearly all are so flawed as to be total nonsense, and only about a hundred good studies are usually ignored or misrepresented by politicians and the media.

What does Statistician Aaron Brown suggest about the causal conclusions of most published journal articles on public policy issues?

Aaron Brown suggests that if you think most published journal articles on public policy issues have clear causal conclusions, such as a specific gun control regulation working or not, you would be mistaken.

What is the significance of the 2020 meta-analysis from the Rand Corporation mentioned in the script?

The 2020 meta-analysis from the Rand Corporation analyzed 27,900 studies on the effectiveness of gun control regulations and concluded that only 0.4%, or 123 studies, were rigorous enough to provide meaningful results.

What is the main argument against the quality of data in gun control research according to Brown?

Brown argues that the quality of data in gun control research is poor, making it nearly impossible for researchers to determine the effect of a law on gun violence, if any.

What are the three laws that the speaker suggests could significantly reduce firearm mortality if implemented?

The three laws suggested are universal background checks, ammunition checks, and identification of firearms through ballistic imprinting.

What is the problem with using synthetic comparisons in gun control research?

The problem with synthetic comparisons is that they may not accurately represent the actual effect of a law, as they can be influenced by external factors and do not account for individual state or regional differences.

What does the speaker claim about the effect of Connecticut's permit requirement for handgun purchases on its gun murder rate?

The speaker claims that the 40% reduction in gun murder rate attributed to Connecticut's permit requirement is flawed because it compared the state to a synthetic construct rather than to itself in prior years or to states without such changes.

What is the speaker's view on the impact of bans on assault weapons and large capacity magazines on mass shootings?

The speaker's view is that the impact of bans on assault weapons and large capacity magazines on mass shootings is inconclusive due to data problems that affect all gun control policy research.

What does the speaker suggest about the role of individual and cultural factors in gun violence?

The speaker suggests that individual and cultural factors play a significant role in gun violence and that these factors are more influential than any regulation, making it difficult to draw broad conclusions about the effectiveness of gun control measures.

What is the implication of the speaker's statement about the current state of scientific research on gun control?

The implication is that current scientific research on gun control is insufficient and potentially misleading, and that it should not be used as the sole basis for policy decisions.

Outlines

00:00

📜 The Challenge of Effective Gun Legislation

This paragraph discusses the complexity and urgency of implementing common sense gun control laws in the United States. It acknowledges the increase in gun violence rates despite existing regulations and argues for additional, simple laws that could significantly impact this issue. The paragraph also refutes the notion that gun laws are ineffective, citing evidence and data that support their life-saving potential. However, it points out the flawed nature of thousands of studies, emphasizing the need for rigorous research to guide policy. Statistician Aaron Brown's expertise is highlighted, noting the difficulty in drawing causal conclusions from most published articles on public policy issues, including gun control. The paragraph underscores the importance of avoiding policies based on flawed research, which can lead to unintended consequences such as criminalizing law-abiding citizens and exacerbating racial and socioeconomic inequities in the justice system.

05:00

🔎 The Limitations of Gun Control Research

The second paragraph delves into the methodological issues and data limitations that plague gun control research. It explains how the rarity of gun violence makes it challenging to statistically measure the impact of gun control laws. The paragraph also criticizes the suppression of research results that do not support the intended narrative of gun control effectiveness. It highlights the importance of three specific laws—universal background checks, ammunition checks, and ballistic imprinting identification—as potentially impactful measures. However, it also points out the media's and politicians' tendency to focus on studies with sensational claims rather than rigorous evidence. The paragraph concludes by emphasizing the need for caution in drawing conclusions from social science research, particularly when it pertains to rare events like gun homicides.

10:00

🏛️ Cultural and Contextual Factors in Gun Control

This paragraph explores the cultural and contextual differences in gun control regulations across various states and their impact on crime rates. It suggests that states with strong gun control laws tend to be wealthier, more liberal, and urban, which may contribute to their lower crime rates independently of the gun laws. The paragraph also discusses the potential unintended consequences of enforcing strict gun laws in areas with different socio-economic conditions. It touches on the debate surrounding assault weapons and large capacity magazine bans, noting the difficulty in drawing conclusions due to varying definitions and data limitations. The paragraph emphasizes that while mass shootings are a concern, they represent a small fraction of gun violence and that the effect of bans on these incidents is inconclusive.

15:01

🚨 The Complexity of Gun Safety and Policymaking

The final paragraph addresses the complexity of gun safety and the challenges of policymaking in this area. It acknowledges the difficulty of providing a definitive answer to whether guns make individuals safer or more at risk, given the significant individual differences that can influence this outcome. The paragraph criticizes the use of sensational studies to inform legislation and calls for a more nuanced understanding of the factors that contribute to gun violence. It also discusses the broader implications of gun control policies, such as the potential for increased black market activity and the proliferation of 'ghost guns.' The paragraph concludes by emphasizing the need for rigorous scientific investigation and a balanced approach to policymaking that considers both the potential benefits and costs of gun control measures.

Keywords

💡Gun Legislation

Gun legislation refers to laws and regulations that govern the sale, possession, and use of firearms. In the video's context, it emphasizes the need for 'common sense' reforms to address gun violence. The script mentions that despite existing laws, there is a call for additional measures that could potentially reduce firearm-related incidents, illustrating the ongoing debate over the effectiveness and necessity of further gun control.

💡Gun Violence

Gun violence is the act of using firearms to inflict physical harm or death. The video discusses the fluctuating rates of gun violence in America, noting an increase in recent years. It serves as the central issue that the script aims to address through policy reforms and highlights the urgency of the situation as a public health crisis.

💡Common Sense Reforms

Common sense reforms are practical and widely accepted changes that are believed to improve a situation without drastic measures. The script uses this term to describe the proposed gun laws that are simple yet could significantly impact gun violence rates. It suggests that these reforms are based on social science research and are advocated as a non-controversial approach to gun control.

💡Firearms Offenses

Firearms offenses refer to crimes involving the illegal use or possession of guns. The video mentions the prosecution of a record number of firearms offenses, indicating efforts to enforce existing gun laws and the complexity of the issue when considering the balance between law enforcement and individual rights.

💡Flawed Research

Flawed research denotes studies that have methodological weaknesses or biases that undermine their conclusions. The script criticizes much of the research on gun control laws, suggesting that many studies are not rigorous enough to provide meaningful results, which complicates the formation of evidence-based policies.

💡Meta-Analysis

A meta-analysis is a statistical technique that combines the results of multiple studies to draw overall conclusions. The video cites a meta-analysis by the Rand Corporation, which evaluated thousands of studies on gun control and found very few that were methodologically sound, underscoring the difficulty in establishing causality in gun policy research.

💡Statistical Significance

Statistical significance is a measure that determines whether an observed effect is likely to be real or due to random chance. The script uses the concept to critique studies that claim significant findings, suggesting that many such results could be coincidental rather than indicative of a true relationship between gun laws and violence reduction.

💡Ghost Guns

Ghost guns are firearms that are assembled from parts and may not have serial numbers, making them untraceable. The video mentions the concern over the proliferation of these weapons, which can be easily assembled by anyone, including potential criminals or terrorists, highlighting the challenges in regulating homemade firearms.

💡Assault Weapons

Assault weapons are a category of firearms that are often subject to legislative debate due to their association with mass shootings. The script discusses the controversy surrounding bans on these weapons and the difficulty in measuring their impact on gun violence, given varying definitions and the rarity of mass shootings in the context of overall gun homicides.

💡Mass Shootings

Mass shootings are incidents in which multiple people are shot, typically in a public place. The video addresses the debate on whether bans on certain types of firearms have reduced the occurrence or severity of mass shootings, noting the challenges in defining such events and the inconclusive evidence regarding policy effectiveness.

💡Public Health Crisis

A public health crisis refers to a situation where a health issue becomes widespread and poses a significant threat to a community or population. The video concludes by framing gun violence as a public health crisis that requires a comprehensive approach and scientific research to inform policy and prevention strategies.

Highlights

The urgency for common sense gun legislation is emphasized, with a call to action against waiting for court decisions before taking steps.

Gun violence rates in America have increased in recent years despite hundreds of existing laws and regulations.

Social science research suggests that a few additional simple laws could significantly impact gun violence rates.

The effectiveness of gun laws is supported by evidence and data, contrary to the notion that gun laws do not work.

Most studies on gun control laws are flawed, with only a small percentage providing meaningful results according to a Rand Corporation meta-analysis.

Federal gun crime prosecutions have increased, but there is a call for more vigorous enforcement of existing gun laws.

Gun control policies based on flawed research can have unintended negative consequences, including mass incarceration and racial inequities.

The rarity of gun violence events makes it difficult for studies to accurately measure the impact of gun control laws.

Statistician Aaron Brown critiques the quality of data in gun control research and the misuse of statistical significance.

The potential suppression of research results that do not support gun control policies is suggested by the lack of negative findings.

Three specific gun control laws—universal background checks, ammunition checks, and ballistic imprinting—are highlighted as potentially impactful.

The media and politicians often focus on studies with sensational claims rather than those with rigorous methodology.

A permit requirement in Connecticut is claimed to have significantly reduced gun murder rates, but the methodology is questioned.

Cultural and social factors, rather than gun laws alone, are suggested as the primary drivers of differences in gun violence rates between states.

Bans on assault weapons and large capacity magazines have inconclusive effects on mass shootings and violent crime.

The debate on whether owning a gun increases or decreases safety is complex and depends on individual circumstances.

The CDC's new approach to treating gun violence as a public health crisis and the allocation of funds for research are noted.

The need for rigorous scientific investigation in gun control policy is emphasized, with a warning against passing laws without sufficient evidence.

Transcripts

Common sense gun legislation,.

Common sense policy about guns.

Common sense gun reforms.

We have to act.

We can't wait to take the firearms

first and then go to court.

I don't need to wait another minute

to take commonsense steps

After reaching historic lows in the

mid 2010s, gun violence rates

in America have gone up in recent

years, and they remain higher than

in some other parts of the developed

world.

There are hundreds of laws and

regulations that restrict Americans

access to firearms.

Yet, according to some advocates,

social science research shows that a

few more simple, common sense laws

could make a significant difference.

The notion that gun laws don't work,

it's not born out by the evidence.

And evidence and data is in.

Gun safety saves lives.

It's not something we assert,

something we can prove over and over

and over again.

It's not even

in dispute.

Of the thousands of studies that

have been done on the effect of gun

control laws, nearly

all are so flawed as to be total

nonsense.

A hundred or so good studies

are usually ignored or

misrepresented by politicians, and

the media

Statistician Aaron Brown has taught

at NYU and the University of

California at San Diego.

He's a columnist for Bloomberg and a

leading expert on risk management.

If you think most published journal

articles on public policy issues

have clear causal conclusions, such

as at a specific gun control

regulation does or does not work,

you would be mistaken.

Federal gun crime prosecutions are

up 16 percent since I took

office, but we must do more,.

And I think there needs to be

vigorous prosecution of gun laws on

the books.

Last year, we prosecuted

a record number of firearms

offenses.

Gun control policies based on flawed

research can have tremendous costs,

may turn otherwise law abiding

citizens into criminals, and

they increase prosecutorial power

and mass incarceration.

They exacerbate the racial and

socioeconomic inequities in the

criminal justice system.

Brown points to a 2020 meta analysis

from the nonpartisan research

organization the Rand Corporation

that analyzed twenty seven thousand

nine hundred studies on the

effectiveness of gun control

regulations.

The authors concluded that point

four percent, or only 123,

were rigorous enough to provide

meaningful results.

And even among those, many didn't

answer the most pressing question

for policymakers whether

gun control laws can reduce

violence.

One hundred twenty three studies

that met the Rand criteria were the

best of the bunch, but they still

had serious defects.

In fact, given the uncertainties in

the data, it's next to impossible

for any study to prove that a

particular gun control measure had

any effect whatsoever.

The only thing we can say

confidently is many of the most

widely trumpeted results are

likely based on random chance alone.

Peer reviewed journals generally

accept a result a statistically

significant if as a one in 20

chance or less of being due to

random chance.

This means that if researchers run

100 studies on the relationship

between two things that obviously

have no connection to each other at

all. Say milk consumption

and car crashes.

By pure chance, they can be expected

to get five statistically

significant results that are

entirely coincidental, such

as that milk drinkers get into more

accidents.

So what was wrong with one hundred

and twenty three studies that met

the approval of the RAND

researchers?

These papers tested 722

separate hypotheses about the impact

of gun control laws at the five

percent level of significance,

even if there were no relationship

between gun laws and violence, much

like the relationship between

drinking milk and getting into car

accidents.

We'd expect about five percent of

those 722 tests,

or 36 results to

show that gun regulations had a

significant impact.

Collectively, these papers found

significant results for only 18

combinations of gun control, measure

and outcome.

Half would we would expect by random

chance if gun control measures had

no effect at all.

But let's assume that these 18

statistically significant results

were not the result of random chance

and do demonstrate a relationship

between gun laws and violence.

Are there any meaningful takeaways?

Brown argues that these findings

actually have very little relevance

for policymakers because of the poor

quality of the data.

Researchers often conceal this by

using the shoddy data to build

conceptual models and then claiming

high confidence in the results of

the models spit out.

In reality, gun violence is rare

enough that it's nearly impossible

for researchers to figure out what

difference a law makes, if any.

For example, one of the significant

results cited by Rand found that

more restrictive child access laws

could stop a total of two kids

across 11 states from

injuring themselves each year with a

gun, either by accident or by

attempting suicide.

These events are simply too rare to

get meaningful statistical

estimates.

There's simply too much variation

from other factors and random noise

to give any precise estimate of this

number.

Brown says similar data issues

plague most social science research

that tries to tease out the effects

of a policy change on rare events

like accidents, suicides or

homicides,

These studies are doomed from the

start. Regulations could take years

to implement and enforce

and will likely affect only a small

fraction of new gun sales.

New gun sales are a small fraction

of all total firearms owned.

Therefore, the most optimistic

projection of first year effect of a

gun control rule would be a small

fraction of one percent of gun

homicides.

But gun homicide rates in states

change by an average of six percent

in years, with no legislative

changes.

Fatal data problems like this

frustrate all gun control research

that attempts to tease out the

effect of marginal policy changes

on suicides, homicides or

anything else.

It frustrates opponents of gun

control who sometimes argue that

guns are more often used for

self-defense than to victimize

others. Anyone basing a gun

control position on scientific

evidence is building on sand.

We have no useful empirical data on

the subject, and we have no body of

work that rises above the level of

expected false positives, either for

or against gun control,

According to Brown. There's another

major takeaway from the RAND

analysis.

The numbers indicate that

researchers are suppressing results

that show gun control policies do

nothing or have the opposite of

their intended effect.

Of the seven hundred and twenty two

hypotheses contained in the 123

studies that met the approval of the

RAND researchers, only one

significant result found that a gun

control measure had made gun

violence worse, even

by random chance.

Those studies should have yielded

about 36 false positive results,

and roughly half of them should have

shown the opposite of what

researchers expected.

So why is it that only one published

finding showed that a gun control

measure didn't work,

Given the vast number of studies

done, the vast number of hypotheses

tested, we would expect more

of these negative results by random

chance alone.

The fact that only one was found

suggests strongly researchers are

suppressing negative results.

The rarity of pro-gun control

results in the near total

absence of anti-gun control results

are strong evidence that we know

nothing about the effect of gun

control regulations.

Three laws are particularly

important. Universal background

checks. Ammunition checks.

Identification of firearms through

ballistic imprinting.

Each of these laws by themselves

could reduce firearm mortality by

about 60 to 80 percent.

If all three were implemented

nationally in the same way as

they're implemented in some states,

we could reduce firearm mortality by

about 90 percent.

Gun control researchers aren't the

only ones guilty of misusing

statistics.

The studies that get the most

attention from reporters and

politicians are the ones that claim

the most shocking and powerful

effects, which, according to Brown,

are usually also based on the

flimsiest evidence.

None of the 123 studies blessed

by Rand got significant media or

legislative attention.

It was the worst studies with the

most outrageous claims from

among the 27,000

that Rand excluded

that made the headlines.

It's common sense you should need a

license to buy and own a firearm.

And states like Connecticut that did that, they saw 40 percent drops in gun violence and 15 percent drops in suicides.

Hundreds of studies have been done

comparing gun homicide rates

before and after states changed

their gun control laws.

One prominent study made the

astounding claim that

a permit requirement for handgun

purchases in Connecticut reduced

their gun murder rate by 40 percent.

It is true that Connecticut's gun

murder rate fell rapidly after that

law was passed in 1995,

but so did gun murder rate

throughout the country in order

to form a conclusion about the

effect of the Connecticut law.

You would want to compare

Connecticut to something as similar

as possible that did not make

the change.

But the authors do not compare

Connecticut to itself in prior

years, nor to all other states.

Their 40 percent claim as the actual

murder rate in Connecticut compared

to something they call a synthetic

Connecticut that they constructed

for the purpose of their study.

The combination of mostly Rhode

Island, but also Maryland,

California, Nevada and New

Hampshire.

The paper claims to show a 40

percent decline in gun murders in

Connecticut as compared to synthetic

Connecticut. But Brown says this

entire effect is due to the fact

that Rhode Island experienced of

about 20 extra murders between 1999

and 2003 and synthetic

Connecticut was more than 72

percent Rhode Island.

Even comparing to synthetic

Connecticut, the decline, the

authors found, didn't last.

Although the law remained on the

books by 2006,

the gun murder rate in Connecticut

had surpassed synthetic Connecticut

and continued to increase to the

point where it was 46 percent

higher.

The authors, despite publishing in

2015, elected

to ignore data from 2006

and afterwards they're making

strong claims based on complex

models and uncertain data.

Were they cherry pick their time,

periods and locations to get their

preferred outcome.

This is unfortunately common in

social science research on gun

control.

We know that states with the most

gun laws tend to have

the fewest gun deaths.

What people in Vermont, and I

suspect New Hampshire understand

is that guns in our part of

the world are very different than

guns in Chicago, Los Angeles,

in New York.

The real story on gun control is

that states with strong gun control

regulations are different from

states with weaker gun control

regulations.

They're richer, more liberal, more

urban, and they have lower murder

and suicide rates.

The effect is almost certainly the

reverse. Places with low crime

rates are more willing to give up

personal guns, and richer people

put more trust in the police to

protect them from crime.

But the cultural differences are

too big, and there's just too much

uncertainty about this to say

anything about what would happen if

we enforce Greenwich Connecticut

laws in Festus, Missouri.

We can ban assault weapons and

high capacity magazines

in this country.

Once again,

I got that done when I was a

senator, and it brought down these

mass killings.

Then there's the question of whether

bans on assault, style weapons and

large capacity magazines, which

are often passed together, have

reduced the frequency or deadliness

of mass shootings.

Researchers define basic terms like

assault weapons and mass shootings

differently.

They limit their data, buy, time,

place or other factors, such

as classifying an event as an act of

terror, and therefore we're not

considering it a mass shooting.

There's no reason someone needs a

weapon, a war with one hundred

rounds, 100 bullets.

These varying definitions make

studies apples to oranges

comparison, and they

invite researchers to cherry pick

finding limited data sets based

on number of casualties, type of

weapons, time period and other

factors to support whatever

conclusions the researcher wants.

The bottom line is the effect of

bans on large capacity magazines

or assault. Weapons on mass

shootings is inconclusive for the

same data problems that affect all

gun control policy research.

But there's a further problem.

Mass shootings are extremely rare

relative to other forms of gun

violence, and most of them don't

involve assault weapons.

Depending on what definitions you

use, mass shootings involving

assault weapons are a small fraction

of one percent of all gun homicides.

But that 10 years we had it done.

The number of mass shootings

actually went down, and since

then the number of

massacres has increased one hundred

eighty three percent.

Mass shootings went up 200

percent in the decade after the

assault weapons ban expired.

For example, the U.S.

federal ban on assault weapons and

large capacity magazines was in

place for 10 years from 1994

to 2004,

before, during and after which many

societal factors cause crime rates

to vary widely, making

it impossible to draw useful

conclusions about the effect of

the ban on anything and

in particular on something as rare

as mass shootings.

This type of mass violence does not

happen in other advanced countries.

States and countries with bans

define assault weapons and other key

elements of laws differently.

So combined with the data problems

inherent in comparing different

populations of people over different

periods of time.

Comparisons between states and

countries are almost meaningless.

Another Rand Corporation meta

analysis updated in 2020

found inconclusive evidence that

these bands have any effect on mass

shootings or violent crime.

But how about the more

straightforward question of whether

owning a gun makes you more or less

safe? One widely influential

study that has constantly resurfaced

in headlines since it was published

in the New England Journal of

Medicine in 1993, concluded

that quote "Rather than confer

protection, guns kept in the home

are associated with an increase in

the risk of homicide by a family

member or intimate acquaintance."

Brown says there are major problems

with this study.

First of all, the researchers

concluded that keeping a gun at home

increases a person's risk of being

killed. But nearly half the murders

they included in their analysis were

not committed with firearm and

among gun owners who were killed

with a gun.

The authors didn't establish whether

the weapon used was the victim's own

gun or if it belonged to another

person.

But Brown says the main reason

research on this topic is

inconclusive is because the answer

almost entirely depends on

individual differences.

They can easily be controlled for in

social science research.

A gun expert with a gun safe and

a high crime neighborhood may well

be safer with the gun, whereas

a careless alcoholic living in a low

crime area who keeps loaded guns

in his kids closet is certainly

going to be less safe.

People want a simple overall answer

to whether guns make you less safe

or more safe in order to

inform legislation, but social

science cannot deliver that.

When the researchers behind the 1993

study tried to control for all the

variation between people to tease

out just the effect of owning a gun.

Their analysis found that other

factors can increase your risk of

being killed even more than having a

firearm at home.

What most pressing politicians,

citing the blockbuster 1993

study leave out is that although it

did find that owning a gun increased

your risk, there were other things

that were much more dangerous,

including living alone or being a

renter.

There were no coherent arguments

as to why we wouldn't do this.

I am open and ready to listen

and discuss all ideas that

will actually work.

Advocates who feel strongly

and are pushing every day

to make the rational changes.

Activists may argue that even if the

evidence isn't solid, any new

restriction on guns is worth trying

in the effort to reduce violence,

since there's also no convincing

evidence that gun control doesn't

work.

After all, most laws don't have firm

scientific underpinnings, and

it's certainly plausible that

general government discouragement of

guns can reduce violence over long

periods of time.

We maybe can't save

everybody, but we could save some.

But these policies also have

significant costs restricting

our freedoms and causing more people

to go to prison disproportionately

from poor and minority communities.

Further legal restrictions also grow

black markets and illegal weapons

and incentivize the use of homemade

ghost guns, which are harder to

trace and regulate.

Want to rein in the proliferation of

so-called ghost guns,

anyone from a criminal

to a terrorist can

buy this kit as little

as 30 minutes put together a

weapon.

And it's not just gun control.

Nearly all similar policy analysis

suffers from the same issue.

Too much complexity for the

available data partisans

yearn for scientific backing for

their views, but scientists cannot

deliver it.

Researchers flocked to the field

because there's money and interest

in results, and they peer review

each other's work without applying

the kind of rigor that would

eliminate nearly all publications

We can and will stop this evil

contagion.

Not just the gun crisis,

but what is actually a public health

crisis.

This is an epidemic for God's sake.

In the 1990s, the NRA

convinced Congress to cut all

of CDCs funding for gun research.

But now, in a stunning turn,

the current director of the CDC

is announcing a plan to reduce gun

violence.

The director of the CDC, Rochelle

Walensky, declared in August that

the agency would begin treating gun

violence as a public health crisis,

and Congress approved an initial $25

million in new funds toward

scientific research on the topic.

For those who are worried about

research in this area, I'm

not here about gun control.

I'm here about preventing gun

violence and gun deaths.

These are complex issues that

require rigorous scientific

investigation to come to any kind

of useful conclusion, and

they depend far more on individual

variation, as well as broad social

and cultural factors than

on any regulation.

We should not panic and pass more

laws that sweep up innocent victims

while doing more harm than good.

All with the alleged backing of

science, they can't possibly

tell us what we need to know.