A good single study is still a single study.
So...any specific problems with its methodology and conclusion, or are you just arm waving? You realize that it's a massive review of the literature (more of a meta-meta-analysis than anything else) comparable to the earlier First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws
? This isn't just some twenty page review of studies surrounding a single issue, but a broad analysis of the entire breadth of laws and firearms data we have.
Taking one study (especially one from eight years ago) and ignoring the rest of the peer-reviewed literature is bad practice, and ignoring other peer-reviewed papers because they are cited on wikipedia is misguided and unjustified.
My issue is with citing Wikipedia
, not studies being cited on Wikipedia. I specifically indicated that citing actual meta-analysis was fine.
Just pointing out that a broad-based meta-analysis came out a while ago does not mean anything. Is there some radical new evidence that wasn't available in 2004 which would have changed the entire committee's results? If so, could you show it?
A nice quote from your favorite study:
Yes, did you read it? First, it is talking about "the relationship between firearm-related homicides and firearms availability", rather than between overall
homicide and firearm availability. Second, it explicitly notes
the methodological errors with those studies in your very quote: "the methodological problems in this research (measurement of key variables is of questionable validity, the use of nation-states as the unit of analysis may mask subnational variability, and models tested are poorly specified) do not encourage us to place much weight on this research." Finally, it notes that these fail to prove correlation
violence and firearm availability, but are merely suggestive. Considering that we are still light years away from establishing a causal
relationship between overall
violence and firearm availability, I have no idea why you think that means anything for bans on guns reducing violent crime rates.
Seriously, it looks like you just went through the meta-analysis, cherry-picked a quote that you thought would support your position, and didn't even read the bit immediately before it or the bit in the middle of it. That's not very reassuring.
I don't know how familiar you are with meta-analyses, but out of hundreds that I've used, I can count on the fingers of one hand the studies whose authors were happy with the scope, quantity, and quality of the underlying research. "More and better studies!" is ever their mournful cry.
This seems like a fancy way to just reject a conclusion you don't like. The next time something I think is happening gets shot down, I'll just pull this one out and be right as rain.
And considering this meta-analysis in question focuses intently on the widespread methodological concerns in most firearm/violence research, I have no idea what you're saying. Most of its executive summary is taken up on addressing the widespread methodology issues at play. But apparently that can all be ignored, because you once read a meta-analysis that wanted more data.
So I would not lay too much stress upon "suggestive but not conclusive" and rather more with the vast majority of these studies conclude that homicides and availability are closely associated.
Yes, the vast majority of the methodologically flawed studies suggested a correlation between firearm violence and firearm availability. And?
Homicide, Suicide, and Unintentional Firearm Fatality: Comparing the United States With Other High-Income Countries, 2003
All this does is conclude that the US has a higher firearms death rate. That's it. It doesn't even posit a correlation between US firearm availability and firearm homicide - it just states that the firearm death rate and overall homicide rate are higher. It's also from 2003, so it's older than the NAS meta-analysis. Why did you even link this? It doesn't even remotely address the question we're trying to deal with.
Firearms and Homicide in Europe
This is a single meta-analysis, not even remotely comparable to a broad, in-depth review of the literature like the NAS report or the CDC report. Neither its conclusions nor its methodology are available. And, from what I could read in the introduction, the most it purports to do is correlate female firearm homicide and firearm availability (short of a limited 1990 survey which it itself downplays). This does not address the public policy question we are asking: what is the relationship between gun control/gun ownership and overall violent crime rates? Again, why did you even link this?
Preventing suicide and homicide in the United States: The potential benefit in human lives
You didn't link this. You just linked the first one again.
In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half.
Are you serious? The NAS report is wrong, because Krugman says that Australia had less murders with firearms after it passed a law against them? Of course, post hoc ergo propter hoc!
So, to summarize: you dismissed a 250 page review of the literature by the National Academy of Sciences because it is singular and from 2004, selectively quoted a section that is unrelated to the policy question we're asking, ignored its reservations regarding methodological errors in the studies it was describing, and then decided that suggests = concludes because meta-analysis you've read are careful to remain scientific and stick to the evidence available.
Then you linked a study that simply described that the US has higher firearm death rates that was released before the NAS report
that you criticized for being too old, followed by a gated study that talks about possible correlations between firearm
violence and firearm ownership, ie. not the question we're addressing. Then you quoted Paul Krugman using his divine powers to figure out the causality around a single event in which firearm regulations lowered firearm crime - again not the question we're asking.