The VPC is hawking their most recent in their series of “Google Studies” proposes, this time, to show a massive increase in violence against law enforcement officers using so-called “assault weapons” in the past two years. What are Google Studies, you might ask? Anything you have to add this kind of disclaimer to:
The information described in the following pages is based on a compilation derived from multiple searches using a variety of terms (“assault weapons†and “assault rifles,†for example) of reports published in U.S. news media and included in the commercial database Nexis between March 1, 2005 and February 28, 2007. Stories that recounted firearm-related events outside of those date ranges were discarded. For example, if a story within the date range reported an appellate decision or trial of a shooting that occurred prior to the date range, that story was eliminated.
Here all this time I’ve been compiling the very same terms on Google (though, I will admit I don’t have access to Nexis), I could have been releasing study after study. Of course, if you read the whole study, they don’t claim this to be scientific, or comprehensive, though you can bet they won’t mention that part when they pitch this to their media contacts, and you can absolutely bet on their media contacts not bothering to actually read the study, or include said disclaimers in whatever stories they write about the latest menace caused by semi-automatic rifles.
They also blame us for the dearth of information available on the evil “gun lobby”. But you know, if they hadn’t used that information in the past to try to sue gun manufacturers, dealers, and anyone else involved in the firearms business out of business, we wouldn’t be in this situation, would we? I don’t think too many of us are against the government doing studies, or tracking data. What we are against is that data being used to crap all over our rights by groups like HCI and VPC.
“”I say, reasonable people can indeed have honest dialogue with no evidence at all. They can easily talk about controversial issues, especially ones in which conflicting “proof†is offered on both sides.
Sometimes it’s less honest to insist upon proof instead of admitting obvious conclusions.”
-MikeB302000
Obviously you put too much relevance in facts and proof, Sebastian. They are OBVIOUSLY not needed! ; ]
I wonder if they counted any jeeps this time?
Sebastian,
Check your local library, many of them offer access to Nexis as a service.
Some, like mine, have online – remote access so you don’t have to be at the library to use Nexis.
Some of the spike may simply be due the fact that reporting of particular weapons as “assault weapons” increased after the AWB expired. After the ban expired, a lot of reporters probably thought that connecting a crime to the formerly illegal guns made a more sensational headline than simply writing something like “Man shot and killed.”
I glanced at the report. I love the chart at the end that said there are 115 deaths due to assault weapons–over a 2 year period? What is that? 0.5% of all homicides?
Why don’t they use the DOJ and FBI’s data? Those two break down violent crime in every possible way. Rifle, pistol, black, white, felon, police officer, its all there.
You know why they don’t?
Because the data they want doesn’t exist. If you go by the numbers, their PSH doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
I glanced at the report. I love the chart at the end that said there are 115 deaths due to assault weapons–over a 2 year period? What is that? 0.5% of all homicides?
Assuming 12,000 firearm-related homicides a year, it breaks down to 0.005%.
Wonder why they picked 2005 and 2006 rather than more recent data?
I have a theory