Gun Violence is Down, Yet Low Information Adults Don't Know/Think So

A week and a half ago, I wrote a post, "" where I discuss "low information voters" and their impact on politicians legislative priorities and media coverage. I discussed how polls, especially those badly worded and structured, can lead to incorrect conclusions, false memes and badly considered policy. 

Since that post, the US Justice Department issued an extensive report, "Firearm Violence: 1993-2011" which shows that, contrary to the opinion of many, gun violence as well as violent crime, has been declining for nearly two decades. Highlights from the report between 1993 and 2011:

• Nonfatal gun crimes plummeted 69%; from 1.5 million to 467,300
• Gun-related murders dropped 40%; from 18,253 to 11,101
• Gun-related murders were only 2% of gun-related crimes
• Gun-related murders for black Americans plummeted by 51%
• Nonfatal firearm victimization rate (per 100,000 people) declined from 7.3% in 1993 to 1.8% in 2011
• The murder rate in schools dropped by almost a third, from 29 to 20
• Handguns were used in the majority of all gun-related homicides, and declined from 83% in 1994 to 73% in 2011
• Gun show loophole not used by criminals, less than one-third of state prisoners caught with a gun purchased it at a gun show
• Assault weapons not a criminal problem since only “2% of state inmates and 3% of federal inmates were armed with a military-style semiautomatic or fully automatic firearm” at the time of their arrest. 

In case you missed the key point here, it is not the huge drops in gun crimes and murders, it is the RATE of gun victimizations which adjusts for the population. In the 5th point above, the rate per 100,000 population dropped from 7.3% to 1.8%. Wow!

So if we are to believe what we are told by the gun prohibition lobby, that fewer guns means less gun violence, then the number of guns owned by civilians in the USA must have also plummeted during this time period, or at least remained steady. Then what do we make of this trend in the number of civilian firearms owned by year?

1994 192mm
1996 242mm
2000 259mm 
2007 294mm
2009 310mm
2012 350mm

So between 1994 and 2012, the number of firearms owned by American civilians increased by 82%, while the number of gun-related crimes fell by 69%.

Looked at another way, at the start of the period, 1.5mm gun crimes were committed across 192mm guns or 0.78%. By the end of the period, that rate fell to about 0.13%. 

Unlike others, I will not force a conclusion based on the above that more guns = less gun crime because there are many factors that contributed to the fall in crime over that period. Better economic conditions, smarter and more aggressive policing policies, harder sentencing and other factors all had a hand in this history.

Gun prohibition advocates try to make an argument that the federal assault weapon ban from 1994-2004 had a role in this but every reputable study done regarding that period concluded that there was no link that could be drawn to falling crime rates being due even in small part to the AWB. 

However, I will argue quite vociferously that the above shows that there is NO empirical evidence to support the central meme of the gun prohibitionists, that more guns = more gun crimes/violence.

So, it would be reasonable to think that such drastic declines in gun violence and gun death would not go unnoticed by a smart and wired American public. I mean, a Media that properly and accurately reported on gun crime, gun deaths, etc would inform the public of the trends over that past 20 years. 

Right? Well, not quite according to a new study from Pew which reports:

Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, today 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% think it is lower.

What? Is this the same American public which is so well informed that when several polls found 85-90% favored enhanced firearms background checks this was used as proof of the wisdom of the Toomey-Manchin BGC amendment?! I mean how could such an informed and enlightened public include a majority who are clearly clueless as to the actual gun crime/violence trends over the past 20 years!

So who do we blame for this? The people? The Media? The gun prohibition lobby? The political class that needs to rally its base?

And if you think the Pew study is an outlier, corroborating and even more interesting observations can be found in a new Rasmussen poll released this week. Actually, this is the part I find the most disturbing and disappointing:

64% of Americans who favor stricter gun control laws in the United States also have the misconception that gun crime has gone up in the past 20 years. A plurality (43%) of those who oppose stricter gun control say gun crime has decreased.

The mistaken view was most pronounced among respondents who identified as Democrats among whom 54% think that gun violence had increased in the past 20 years. Only 29 percent of Republicans and 25 percent of independents held this inaccurate view.

So generally, one could blame a lack of accurate inputs for ill-informed or uninformed consumers of those inputs. What are those inputs? News, media, popular entertainment, academia, politicians, think tanks, blogs, etc. So we have incontrovertible empirical evidence on the one hands showing gun vicitimizations have plummeted and we have an uninformed public that is ignorant of that.

Like in eating, if you eat crap (high carb, sugary empty calories), you get fat. The more you eat of this garbage, the fatter and less healthy one gets. Like with junk food, the more an individual consumes of inaccurate information, opinion and the like, the less informed they are going to be.

So, given that liberal/progressive "inputs" are the ones most likely to prefer people think guns are a big and increasing problem in our culutre, it would seem logical that those who are heavier consumers of such inputs are going to be the most likely believers in those incorrect inputs. Thus, it is not a surprise that 54% of those most likely to support more stringent gun prohibitions are also misinformed regarding the trends over the past 20 years, they are consuming too much junk. 

In fairness and balance, I also find it interesting that 29% of Republicans held the erroneous view while a smaller 25% of Independents did. While this is almost within this poll's 3% MoE, I might suggest that this is due to some of those Republicans also consuming junk, likely radical pro-gun inputs that do not mind making their consumers think that gun victimization is up - better to justify gun ownership, no? 

So is the media to blame? Well, given the short attention span of most media consumers combined with a 24/7 news culture that has to be sensational to draw eyeballs, one could argue that the old media adage "if it bleeds it leads" still applies. As anyone not living in a cave knows, the mass shootings in Newtown and Aurora were among the news stories most closely watched by Americans last year (confirmed by Pew). Crime has also been a growing focus for national newscasts and morning network shows over the past five years even though it has become less common on local television news.

Demographics also seem to have a role in one's views on these trends. According to Rasmussne, the most likely to believe that gun crime was up are women, people of color and the elderly. Meanwhile men, younger adults and white people are less likely to believe gun victimization is up. 

"You are what you eat" applied not only to food, but also to what information you consume and from what source. 

Now before our more spirited readers start commenting about me being cold hearted and accepting still unacceptably high gun victimization rates, let's get one thing clear. Every gun injury and death is tragic and I never trivialize such violence. My intent in this post is to highlight the mismatch between people's perceptions and reality. That even in this time of full connectedness and unlimited availability of information, people can be misinformed.

Further, I DO argue that those more likely to consume inputs from more liberal sources are the most likely to be the most uninformed. What I can not answer is whether people are open and fair enough to change their views when presented with new inputs. Will this Justice Department study showing decline rates of gun victimization have an impact on the gun-prohibition debate? 

Potential commenters, including the person with over a dozen screen names, I will only respond to comments which are on this topic. I would ask those who favor gun onwers' right to also not waste time dealing with non-sequiturs, ad hominem attacks and comments exhibiting ridiculous and irrelevant jerkitude. 

Peace!