Fact checking one of the worst WaPo gun control stories ever
posted at 9:31 am on June 14, 2015 by Jazz Shaw
There’s a gun control piece up at the Washington Post this weekend with one of the most definitive titles imaginable.
Gun killings fell by 40 percent after Connecticut passed this law.
Well, that’s just got to be some great news for people looking to restrict the rights of gun owners. But as usual, a closer look is merited before we start popping the champagne corks. The story is talking about the early nineties, a period of time when gun crime and violent deaths were skyrocketing in Connecticut along with the rest of the nation. And so, in 1994, Connecticut passed a set of gun control laws regulating the permitting process. But not everyone felt it would be effective.
Critics scoffed at the plan. They argued that a permit system would hassle lawful citizens, while crooks would still get guns on the black market. If the problem was criminals with guns, why not clean up crime instead of restricting guns?
“This will not take one gun out of the hands of a single criminal,” State Rep. Richard Belden complained to the New York Times in 1994.
Even some supporters of the law, which took effect in 1995, called it a “small step” — a gesture to placate residents alarmed at the gun violence.
Now, two decades later, researchers at Johns Hopkins University and the University of California, Berkeley, say that Connecticut’s “permit-to-purchase” law was actually a huge success for public safety.
In a study released Thursday in the American Journal of Public Health, they estimate that the law reduced gun homicides by 40 percent between 1996 and 2005. That’s 296 lives saved in 10 years.
That’s amazing! A 40% drop after passing that permitting law is certainly impressive, isn’t it? Or at least it would be if there were any sort of concrete evidence to support the claim. Even the author acknowledges some “difficulties” with quantifying the results.
Of course, there’s no way to measure the true impact of Connecticut’s “permit-to-purchase” law. We can’t access the alternate universe where Connecticut’s law never existed. But we can compare Connecticut against the 39 states that didn’t have similar legislation at the time…
In the control states, homicide rates tumbled in the mid ’90s — but in Connecticut, the gun homicide rate fell faster and farther, even after controlling for demographic changes, incomes and policing levels. This is a sign that Connecticut’s gun policy was having an effect.
“Faster and farther” is a rather speculative term in this context, but they do at least admit that gun violence was falling all across the nation. Before we get too excited about the amazing success of Connecticut’s “permit to purchase” law, let’s see how things were progressing across the rest of the nation.

Hmmm… noticing a pattern? Including in the 39 states which had no such laws? But let’s move on.
The author also notes some other “potential problems” with the study. In order to compare what Connecticut would look like without the law, they created a “synthetic” Connecticut — a Frankensteinian creation that is mostly Rhode Island, with some Maryland, and traces of California, Nevada and New Hampshire. Seriously? What could possibly go wrong with that? You’re comparing actual data to a model you created out of thin air involving multiple places which are not Connecticut? Hey… Science!
Before we get to the real reason behind these figures, here are two more at least somewhat honest comments from the author. (Emphasis added.)
Together, these two reports offer compelling (if somewhat indirect) evidence that permit-to-purchase laws help save lives, probably by keeping guns off the black market…
Are these annoyances worth it? That depends on how many lives you think are saved by keeping guns out of criminal hands. It’s a number we can only guess at. So far, the best estimate seems to be: a lot.
As I showed above, gun deaths were going into a period of steep decline nearly everywhere, gun control laws being in place or not. And what was the real cause? People were fed up and angry about the dangerous conditions they were enduring and demanding action. Places like New York City implemented the Broken Windows policy and the rest of the nation followed their example when they saw how effective it was. So, was Connecticut on board with those ideas as well? Examples abound. Starting in 1995, Connecticut began expanding and deploying their state troopers into high crime areas, not just to catch criminals after the fact, but to crack down on drug dealers coming into the area and shooting the place up.
The city’s coordinated, rapid response last week to an unexpected rise in slayings also illustrates the increased sophistication of state and local authorities around the nation in understanding the violence plaguing inner cities and the most effective ways of dealing with it.
Bridgeport did not call in troopers to help catch the thugs responsible for the crimes. Rather, officials said, the idea was to keep drug purchasers out.
“You would not have the money to fuel the urban center (drug) market without the 70 percent of the buyers who come in from the suburbs,” said Police Chief Tom Sweeney. “It’s people coming in off the turnpike to buy drugs.”
So far, the strategy appears to be working. “The buyers haven’t been able to get near the drug dealers in a week,” said Sweeney, who was brought into the troubled city of 141,000 in 1990, and helped lead a turnaround in what had been called the murder capital of New England.
Connecticut also, in that same period, began cracking down on both gang leaders and car theft rings, locking up career criminals in large numbers. And after only a year or so, that’s what they credited with cutting their murder rate in half.
The crime rate has dropped sharply from the early 90’s here, not only from the putting away of the gang leaders but also from a series of police initiatives, including concentrating on auto theft — Bridgeport was once third in the nation — and community policing. In 1991, at the height of the gang violence, there were 61 murders. There were only 32 murders last year.
This year looked even better, with no murders in August. But with 11 murders in September, including three in one night, the toll has risen to 38 this year, bringing a new sense of unease.
Police Chief Thomas J. Sweeney said he considered the recent killings an aberration and said, ”We’re not being run ragged, the way we were in ’90.” There seemed no clear pattern to the killings, he said, except that drugs seemed to figure in most of them.
I’m glad the Washington Post author was honest enough to admit that the study results were somewhat indirect and drew conclusions that they can only guess at, but it would have been nice to note those things before making the opening claims which strongly suggest they’ve found the answer. Creating a fake Connecticut Frankenstein and comparing it to the real world is absurd. Strong policing and a fed up populace who demanded protection from the thugs who ignore gun laws are what brought down the crime rate. I’m afraid that the Hot Air Fact Checking Organization is going to have to rate this one as not only Pants on Fire but Underwear Up in Flames as well.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air

Open thread: The biggest, classiest New Year’s Eve thread ever

Crumble: Ben Carson’s campaign manager, communications director quit over “internal [expletive]”

A higher minimum wage doesn’t reduce poverty, says… the federal government






Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Games. Too funny. This is where NP gets her “gun knowledge”? Too easy, she’s a puppet.
bernzright777 on June 14, 2015 at 12:18 PM
Thanks, every day is a school day, unless you’re purepartisan.
antipc on June 14, 2015 at 12:18 PM
That and ranges, don’t forget it’s been to ranges.
Oldnuke on June 14, 2015 at 12:22 PM
QOTD: “I’m a socially liberal conservative”… Tawlk amongst yaselves:)
bernzright777 on June 14, 2015 at 12:22 PM
You know I’ve seen another commenter on here make that exact same claim. Wish I could remember who it was.
Oldnuke on June 14, 2015 at 12:25 PM
Exactly the opposite is true. In the early 1990’s Savannah GA was having a murder spree that put the rate up there with cities like Detroit. After busting and locking up members of just one gang, the Ricky Givens gang, the murder rate dropped like a rock. Not one law attempting to supress gun ownership was passed. Common sense would tell you that busting thugs not more laws did that.
Barleybaby on June 14, 2015 at 12:34 PM
This describes almost all of your comments.
Guess what? Even if your flawed, overly-simplistic correlation analysis was correct it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if gun crimes can be lowered by infringing on the right to bear arms. Because the constitution says that it “shall not” be done.
blink on June 14, 2015 at 12:45 PM
Weird how synthetic Connecticut performed worse than the unweighted U.S. average while real Connecticut performed better.
crowtreboot on June 14, 2015 at 1:08 PM
Quantify. Prove that the people who are willing to be subjected to a permitting process, and the people who are willing to commit gun crime, have even the slightest overlap. In my Venn diagram, those circles do not even tangentially intersect.
Fail. You believe what you wish, and there is no evidence which can change your mind. Reducing the ability of common people’s ability to have a gun cannot conceivably reduce gun crime, since it automatically increases their opportunity for victimhood.
Freelancer on June 14, 2015 at 1:13 PM
A+
There is hope for you.
p.s. when did you not do that?
Schadenfreude on June 14, 2015 at 1:20 PM
Obviously, the writer knows neither the meaning of the term “black market” nor how it works.
*Puffs on cigarette*
Dusty on June 14, 2015 at 1:24 PM
Hey, while you’re at it why don’t you dazzle us with your legal knowledge, Mr. Harvard Law grad.
NotCoach on June 14, 2015 at 1:28 PM
As well as ten rapes aren’t as bad as some criminal losing their life.
arnold ziffel on June 14, 2015 at 1:31 PM
Yeah, that one still frazzles my mind.
bernzright777 on June 14, 2015 at 1:33 PM
Where did you get the data showing there were less guns in Connecticut over that time period?
Where did you get the data that shows a direct proportionality and degree of significance between legal guns and illegal guns in society.
Where did you get the analysis that fewer guns, if true, is attributable to this law rather than the increased “law and order’ policing?
Common sense would normally prevent people from posting comments like yours.
Dusty on June 14, 2015 at 1:37 PM
I went to Salon’s site the other, as I do when I need to be reminded of white privilege and also need a laugh. They were pushing this study as the one that will finally set the NRA back on its heels. Very amusing.
juliesa on June 14, 2015 at 1:37 PM
I still love how he won’t answer what area of employment he is currently working. Since he went to the trouble of going to Harvard law but decided not to practice. Course jacking around on the internet is pretty useful putting gas in the caro and food on the table.
arnold ziffel on June 14, 2015 at 1:37 PM
Which is why they compared the decline in conneticut to the decline in non-gun control states and further controlled for changes in demographics like race and economics. Their data suggests that Connecticut’s rate fell much “faster and further.”
That’s a perfectly valid analytical methodology.
No not really. You left out that they ALSO compared the actual Connecticut’s data to the rest of the data. The synthetic Connecticut was not the entirety of the analysis despite your desperate attempts to paint it that way.
Tlaloc on June 14, 2015 at 1:38 PM
woo hoo, nonpartisan tapped out, relief pitcher now on scene.
arnold ziffel on June 14, 2015 at 1:42 PM
Right on, which is why “it” can’t be taken seriously. What educated person would write on a blog that they once “assumed” something, (non-lethal skeet shooting) and then proclaimed they were wrong.
bernzright777 on June 14, 2015 at 1:44 PM
Sweet! Ya gotta love their “stick-to-it-iveness”..
bernzright777 on June 14, 2015 at 1:46 PM
Actually it’s still nonintelligent. The stupid and prideful ignorance of both is just too similar.
NotCoach on June 14, 2015 at 1:52 PM
I estimate about 60% of WaPo’s ‘facts’ are based on speculation. The rest are just made up.
ghostwalker1 on June 14, 2015 at 2:14 PM
“Neat” — Tlaloc
Schadenfreude on June 14, 2015 at 2:38 PM
Less looting, less mooching.
See how easy that is.
“That’s too simplistic” — nonbrain
Schadenfreude on June 14, 2015 at 2:39 PM
“Read subtext, ninnies” — Tlaloc
Schadenfreude on June 14, 2015 at 2:40 PM
Regarding CCW “may issue” vs. “shall issue” from WaPo comments:
One prime example of this is from the former Kern County Sheriff, Carl Sparks. A woman applied for such a permit and he stayed with the existing law in the determination. Two days later she was murdered. A very visibly shaken and distraught Carl Sparks went public and said never again will this happen. From that day forward anyone wanting a permit who has no criminal background will be issued a permit upon fulfilling any requirements. “Need” is no longer a question. Sparks served 4 terms as a result of his actions, finally retiring, and every Sheriff since has stood that ground.
bernzright777 on June 14, 2015 at 2:42 PM
Get back to me after the headline is fixed.
Then, I’ll let you know that the effectiveness of such laws is immaterial. There are plenty of illegal ways to reduce certain crimes.
blink on June 14, 2015 at 3:50 PM
First learn the proper use of FEWER vs LESS. Then maybe we’ll listen (not).
Nutstuyu on June 14, 2015 at 4:11 PM
Connecticut actually had a 3.7% increase in per capita murders comparing the average of 5 years before the law (1991-1995) to 5 recent years (2009-2013). Missouri, who the article criticizes, had a 38% drop in murder over the same time period. This doesn’t differentiate between gun vs. non-gun, but if you are murdered you won’t care. What this tells me is that arming people decreases overall murder, and disarming them increases overall murder.
munseym on June 14, 2015 at 5:18 PM
.
LessFewer guns, more people (mostly women) bludgeoned to death.listens2glenn on June 14, 2015 at 6:49 PM
Meh. They’re going to intersect some. You’re always going to find folks to be your “front man” – legally speaking re guns, “straw purchasers”. I think you’ll also always find folks willing to resell their weapons (not *quite* straw purchasers) to folks they know are no good, while maintaining their own starched shirt reputation. A registration scheme will eventually stop that – in a totally closed system. Of course, a registration scheme will also allow the jack-booted thugs to come kick in your door or shoot your wife and child or burn down your multi-family living quarters whenever they decide you should no longer have guns.
Very little ointment there, whole lotta fly.
GWB on June 14, 2015 at 8:08 PM
Oh, come on! Everyone knows that when the warranty expires at 50,000 rounds the things just fall apart and you *have* to go buy a new one! It’s planned obsolescence!
GWB on June 14, 2015 at 8:11 PM
Why should you care?
Makes a lot more sense if you think he’s a sock puppet.
Based on some of the statements you’ve made around here, oh yes, you certainly do need to be mocked about your “knowledge” of guns.
GWB on June 14, 2015 at 8:26 PM
Now THAT was funny…thanks for making me smile :D
Zooid on June 14, 2015 at 8:50 PM
Q: Gun control?
A: Medium rise thumb break.
S. D. on June 14, 2015 at 10:07 PM
Ya know, NP, I caught this in the first go around, but the lawn was beckoning.
Are you saying that playing your video games makes you seek out the experience of a head shot?
WryTrvllr on June 14, 2015 at 11:49 PM
If he’s the relief pitcher, he’s doing his best Jonathan Broxton impression. (0-1, 5.92ERA, 26G, 24.1IP, 28H, 16ER, 5HR, 6BB, 1.40WHIP, .292/.333/.490/.823)
Freelancer on June 14, 2015 at 11:56 PM
“Difficulties”
That word seems to crop up in a lot of academic studies these days, particularly when it involves the subject of gun-control.
It must be code for “making sh*t up”.
Another Drew on June 14, 2015 at 11:57 PM
I don’t love guns. I fear and respect them. I don’t have a desire to shoot things, but I do practice the art, because I love liberty and am aware, as the Founding Fathers were, that self-defense is essential to sustaining one’s liberty. Self-defense against whomever seeks to violate my Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
As if it were even remotely relevant, I have played some FPSs as well, why don’t you name some of the “ton” that you prefer. I only ask because you’re full of baloney, and want to give you a clear opportunity to prove it.
Freelancer on June 15, 2015 at 12:08 AM
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
CT deserves it too. They elected these people.
TX-96 on June 15, 2015 at 8:48 AM
Jazz Shaw.
Hey you, Mr. Jazz Shaw !:
DAMN FINE POST
Younggod on June 15, 2015 at 9:10 AM
That would explain all the Blood On The Asphalt in the Mazda dealer’s show lots.
And the epidemic of cops shooting each other in
station houses.
And don’t get me started on the rampant fratricide among our troops. That firefight between Alpha and Charlie Companies, the “Battle of the Barracks”,is seared, seared
into my memory.
I think you may be on
tosomething.soundingboard on June 15, 2015 at 9:44 AM
Fewer knives equals fewer stabbings. Fewer pools equals fewer drownings. Less alcohol equal fewer drunk driving deaths.
So, why don’t we just get rid of freedom and liberty altogether? What good is freedom if we don’t have 100% safety? What is the point of liberty if people may get hurt somewhere?
If we just got rid of cars and made everyone live in cities and tax buses and subways, we’d get rid of automobile deaths. After all, there are far more automobile deaths than gun deaths each year.
If we forced everyone to use butter knives and get rid of anything sharper than that – many fewer stabbing deaths.
And if we outlawed all pools except for municipal pools, less drownings.
We could have utopia within our grasp! All that pesky liberty and freedom is really holding us back. Don’t you people understand?
why, we could regulate how much people earn, where they work, what education they can receive, and what they can say/think – and the world would be happy, health, and prosperous. No more “hate crimes” or “hate speech”, no more violence, no more income inequality, no more violence, everyone earning a living wage.
Why do you rethuglicans fight against progress?
Monkeytoe on June 15, 2015 at 9:50 AM
Do you truly believe that playing a video game and actually firing a weapon are the same thing?
Seriously? That’s your claim for “quite alot (sic) about guns”
that you would even bring that up as evidence of your knowledge demonstrates you have none.
Monkeytoe on June 15, 2015 at 9:57 AM
In all fairness to the left’s idiocy – if the Gov’t were somehow able to confiscate all or almost all guns (legal and illegal) from civilians, there would be less gun violence as people (both law-abiding and criminals) would not have guns to use.
The chance of that happening is just about nil though, all that would actually happen is that law-abiding people would lose their guns while criminals kept their guns.
And, of course, there is the problem of the Constitution and freedom and liberty. But those things mean little to a lefty.
Monkeytoe on June 15, 2015 at 10:01 AM
Hmmm, gun violence might actually go back up after a while – if only the gov’t has guns.
GWB on June 15, 2015 at 11:48 AM
good point.
Monkeytoe on June 15, 2015 at 12:24 PM
Fewer guns = more ball peen hammer/baseball bat/butcher knife/you name it killings.
S. D. on June 15, 2015 at 7:00 PM
Agree with both statements.
soundingboard on June 15, 2015 at 10:53 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2