Timothy Wheeler, MD
I was interviewed for this article in Yahoo News. This article, one of dozens placed in news outlets nationwide since the Newtown shooting, is more balanced than similar media coverage of this topic in the past. Still it perpetuates a meme that public health advocacy researchers are desperately pushing now—only gun research done by them counts, and privately funded criminology research doesn’t exist.
The reporter mentions that:
“a National Academy of Sciences review of gun-related research in 2004 found that higher gun-ownership rates are associated with higher suicide rates. The report did not find evidence that right-to-carry laws lead to either an increase or decrease in violent crime. The report also noted that researchers are hog-tied by a lack of good data on firearms collected by the government, including data on gun ownership. Without this data, it’s hard for researchers to make strides, even with federal funds.”
I was an invited discussant at one of the academic workshops that went into the National Academy of Science committee’s conclusions. Those conclusions are presented in the Academy’s 2004 book, “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review.” A crucial conclusion of the committee was not mention by this Yahoo reporter:
“In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide.” (page 6 of the book). The late James Q. Wilson, a universally respected criminologist and member of my workshop, wrote a dissent (Appendix A of the book), saying John Lott’s studies of the effect of state right to carry laws on violent crime are generally valid. In my conversation with Professor Wilson during a break at the Newport Beach, California workshop, he expressed similar concern to me that the committee undervalued Lott’s contribution.
The National Academy of Sciences committee did what scientists do—they insisted more research is needed. And they, like all the anti-gun advocacy researchers, prefer federal grant money. After all, there is so much of it—tens of millions of dollars. The collective taxpayers’ pockets are much deeper than any private foundation’s. Still, much of the valuable criminology firearm research done so far has been privately funded, a fact that the anti-gun advocacy researchers and their friends in the media have done their best to suppress.
We all benefit when criminology research is well-designed and free of political bias favoring gun control. Unfortunately, the past and current statements of anti-gun rights advocacy researchers indicates they still have no intention of doing that.
—Timothy Wheeler, MD is director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, a project of the Second Amendment Foundation.