Firearms owner data not bulletproof

The National Research Council, billed as “advisers to the nation on science, engineering and medicine,” released a report last month that found there’s not enough statistical evidence available to determine whether efforts to control violence by restricting guns are effective.

The spinmeisters on both sides of the gun-control-vs.-gun-rights debate could have a heyday with this.

The NRC’s analysis says that what America needs is a federally supported “robust research program” on firearms to answer questions such as whether there should be restrictions on who may possess firearms, on the number or types of guns that can be purchased, and whether safety locks should be required.

“These and many related policy questions cannot be answered definitively because of large gaps in the existing science base,” Charles Wellford, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Maryland, College Park and chairman of the committee that wrote the report, said in a news release.

A “federal” research project, huh? Think Alfred Kinsey had a tough time getting 1950s America to talk honestly about human sexuality? That was nothing compared to getting gun owners in 2005 to truthfully tell the government about what’s in their safes and night stands.

Imagine, if you will, the telephone rings.

What the voice says: “Ms. Labbe, we’re calling today on behalf of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct a survey on gun ownership in America.”

What gun owner hears: “We’re the feds. We have your name, we have your phone number, we know where you live, and we think gun owners are diseased.”

What voice says: “How many firearms do you own?”

What gun owner says: “None of your business.”

Click. Dial tone.

On an intellectual level, the need for a definitive study is apparent. Just look at the point/counterpoints that are spun these days from an issue such as the impact of right-to-carry laws.

Thirty-four states have statutes that allow certain adults to carry concealed handguns. Every time another state legislature takes a look at proposing a similar law, the gun-control people go ballistic about how it will lead to increased violent crime. The gun-rights crowd matches the rhetoric by saying such laws decrease violent crime. Both sides cite existing studies that bolster their arguments.

Just this month, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence United With the Million Mom March (seriously, that’s what’s on the top of the electronic news release) warned that “most U.S. states don’t make the grade when it comes to gun violence prevention laws.”

Of course, the Brady Center assumes that any state with a concealed-carry law is an evil place and automatically marks it down – even though, according to the NRC, definitive research to support that supposition doesn’t exist.

The NRC report said that new research tools are needed to evaluate right-to-carry laws – that it is impossible to draw any strong conclusions about their effects from research on hand.

The center is calling for the development of a National Violent Death Reporting System and a National Incident-Based Reporting System to begin collecting data.

Yet here’s the problem with an “incident-based” reporting system: When a gun owner successfully thwarts a crime by “using” a firearm, often it occurs without a shot being fired. If you scare off an intruder at your home by displaying a gun, what are the odds that you’ll call the local sheriff to report it? Slim.

When is an incident not an incident? When it’s not reported.

But now we’re back to the “anecdotes do not solid data make” refrain that can legitimately be voiced by the gun control advocates.

When asked her thoughts about a national research project on firearm ownership, Alice Tripp provided an answer that reflects the quandary some gun owners might find themselves in if queried in a survey.

“My immediate response would be … I ain’t saying nothing!” said Tripp, an Austin lobbyist for the Texas State Rifle Association. “But then my second impulse is to want people to understand that I consider protecting rights to be paramount and that personal safety is necessary and instinctive.”

It is important to note that the NRC study does not address specific state or federal gun policies – only the quality of available research data on firearm violence, control and prevention efforts.

And the quality isn’t good, not if opposing sides can look at existing studies on, say, suicide and criminal violence and reach conflicting conclusions on what role gun ownership by private citizens plays in those statistics.

But good luck, Uncle Sam, on gathering accurate data on who owns firearms.