BY JIM N. TAYLOR
The mathematical field of study used by scientists to indicate the probability or likelihood of any given set of conditions causing or preventing a particular type or definition of incident or event is known as statistics.
Those who obtain a Master’s Degree or PhD in any of the sciences (as well as in some of the arts) are required to gather and test statistical data using the indicated formula or algorithm to obtain the degree of probability that correlated conditions are the cause (or lack) of an event, or if the event is due to randomness or chance. If these methods are not used, we can be near certain that the conclusions drawn by analysts are no better than ‘confirmation bias’; definition: the tendency to interpret evidence as confirmation of one’s existing belief(s) or theories, regardless of the facts.
We expect those holding an advanced degree to draw conclusions based upon interpretations of data provided in a quantity and within parameters which make its application to the situation in question feasible to establish validity levels of cause and effect.
Max Gulker, PhD writing for the American Institute of Economic Research (AIER), using the established standards of statistical data analysis declares that we cannot conclude: *1 School shootings are happening more frequently since 1990? USA gun-related homicides tend to fall from 15,000 toward 10,000/ year; school shooting fatalities have averaged just over 7 per year since 1990 – less than 0.1 percent in all but the worst years.
Time passage is unrelated to variation in events’ number.
*2 More laws restricting gun ownership would reduce these incidents? The number of shootings is far too low to compare with changing gun laws, either over time or by state; no data is available as to what alternate activity a shooter would have had he not procured the weapon by his actual method.
*3 More guns in the hands of on-site school staff would reduce these incidents? Again, because of the small number of incidents, it cannot be established with confidence that unintended consequences of more guns on school grounds would not offset any outcomes. If there were three fatalities in one year resulting from the wrong persons getting their hands on these guns, then the conclusion is invalid.
*4 Private schools are more effective at preventing shootings than public schools? Of 89 shootings since 1990, there were 83 (or 93%) in public schools and 6 (7%) at private schools. Private schools are thus under-represented statistically so that it would only have taken a couple of more shootings at private schools to sway the results in the opposite direction.
*5 Prohibition of gun ownership by gun type, age of owner or totally would reduce shootings? The examples we have from prohibition in the history of alcohol and other drugs give us the experience that what is prohibited is that which is most sought by those being restricted.
In the case of guns, we have the additional influence of the 2nd Constitutional amendment favoring the freedom of and right to bear arms.
We have no reason to conclude that gun ownership would be reduced among those vulnerable to their misuse; contrarily, experience with prohibition indicates we probably would find prohibition to increase gun ownership among those most likely to misuse guns.
*6 Those least likely to use sound methods of analysis for making policy decisions are those emotionally marching on Washington, against Republican politicians, the NRA and gun owners; these are children and their progressive liberal parents supporting them.
Jim Taylor is a local resident who regularly writes to the Valley Morning Star.
