ShareThis Page
John Stossel: Bogus gun research | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

John Stossel: Bogus gun research

John Stossel
| Friday, February 22, 2019 7:00 p.m
773246_web1_gun-KO

Last week Rep. Nancy Pelosi warned President Donald Trump that if he declared an “emergency” to build a wall, “think what a president with different values can present… Why don’t you declare (the epidemic of gun violence in America) an emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would … . A Democratic president can declare emergencies as well.”

Her fellow Democratic Sens. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren quickly agreed.

Warren tweeted: “Gun violence is an emergency. Climate change is an emergency … .”

Yikes.

Not every problem in America should be declared an emergency — or used by a president to justify acting without Congress.

But why are guns on the Democrats’ “emergency” list anyway?

One reason is sloppy reporting by lazy media.

Last year, they claimed that there were school shootings at “hundreds of schools.” It was “an almost daily occurrence” in the U.S., some said.

This was nonsense. NPR reporters looked into the 235 shootings reported by the U.S. Dept of Education and were only able to confirm 11 of them.

It turned out that schools were added to the list merely because someone at a school heard there may have been a shooting. Good for NPR for checking out the Education Department’s claim.

Economist John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, spends much of his time researching gun use and correcting shoddy studies.

A few years ago, much of the media claimed that the U.S. has “the most mass shootings of any country in the world.” President Barack Obama added it’s “a pattern now that has no parallel anywhere else.”

CNN and the L.A. Times wrote about “Why the U.S. Has the Most Mass Shootings.” (“The United States has more guns.”)

But the United States doesn’t have the most mass shootings, says Lott. It’s a myth created by University of Alabama associate professor Adam Lankford, a myth repeated by anti-gun media in hundreds of news stories.

“Lankford claimed that since 1966 there were 90 mass public shooters in the United States, more than any other country,” says Lott. “Lankford claimed ‘complete data’ were available from 171 countries.”

But how could that be? Many governments don’t collect such data and even fewer have information from before the days of the internet.

A shooting in say, India, would likely be reported only in local newspapers, in a local dialect. How would Lankford ever find out about it? How did he collect his information? What languages did he search in?

He won’t say.

“That’s academic malpractice,” says Lott.

When Lott’s research center checked the data, using Lankford’s own definition of a mass shooting, “four or more people killed,” the center found 3,000 shootings around the world. Lankford claimed there were only 202.

Lankford said he excludes “sponsored terrorism” but does not define what he means by that. To be safe, Lott removed terrorism cases from his data. He still found 709 shootings — more than triple the number Lankford reported.

It turns out that not only did the U.S. not have the most frequent mass shootings, it was number 62 on the list, lower than places like Norway, Finland and Switzerland.

If journalists had just demanded Lankford explain his study methods before touting his results, his “more mass shootings” myth would never have spread.

So if Pelosi, Harris and Warren ever follow through on their threat to declare gun violence a “national emergency,” be sure to check their math.

Or just remember the wisdom of the Second Amendment.

Government’s desire to control us — and to lie to make its case — is the real emergency.

John Stossel is author of “No They Can’t! Why Government Fails — But Individuals Succeed.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.