It’s been over 10 years since I left the hallowed halls of academia. That being the case I may not be current on the latest trends in creative statistical-analysis. I’m fairly certain, however, that logic has been around since Aristotle.
Sadly it doesn’t seem like IANSA’s Elizabeth Mandelman – a Masters student at the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs - got the memo.
In her latest blog post Elizabeth comes to the conclusion:
These statistics illustrate the need for gun control not only to reduce and prevent domestic violence, but violence in general. Many weapons are used to domestically abuse and assault people, but none are more lethal than firearms.
Well, ok.
I guess that Ms. Mandelman must have clear evidence that firearms are used frequently, and with lethal effects, in cases of domestic violence.
I mean, she certainly couldn’t come to the conclusion that gun control is essential based on evidence that shows firearms are responsible for less deaths than, say, stabbing or bludgeoning on beating could she?
In 2006 (a report was not submitted for 2007), twelve of thirty-six homicides (thirty-three percent) resulted from domestic violence, and firearms contributed to twelve (thirty-three percent) of the total number of homicides. In 2005, thirty-one of the forty-nine homicides (sixty-three percent) investigated were attributed to domestic violence, and eleven of the forty-nine homicides were a result of firearms (twenty-two percent).
Oh. That’s certainly not what I expected.
In fact, it’s much worse.
In her blog Ms. Mandelman is suggesting that firearms are responsible for a good number of homicides related to domestic violence. Clearly, however, the statistics just don’t show that.
While it’s true that twelve of thirty-six homicides resulted from domestic violence, and twelve of thirty-six homicides were committed with firearms, there is nothing in those statistics that indicates how many homicides linked to domestic violence resulted from firearms. In fact, as I posted previously, in 2006 only 0.01% of incidents of domestic violence reported to police nation-wide involved firearms.
What I really want to know is if guns somehow make people deader? Why doesn’t Elizabeth Mandelman seem to care much about the causes of the other 24 homicides in 2006? Shouldn’t we dedicate our effort to reducing all types of domestic violence? All violence in general? Hell, shouldn’t we at least tackle the causes of homicide from most to least?
Obviously Ms. Mandelman isn’t really concerned with reducing domestic violence or curbing homicide in Canada. Like many lobbyists she’s only concerned with spinning and confusing statistics in order to further her organization’s agenda.
I try to stay out of firearms politics – but it’s hard when I see people climbing up on the corpses of victims of violence in order to pitch their product.
In 2006, over 36,000 men, women, and children were the victims of domestic violence so severe that it was reported to police. We need to work to resolve the root causes of domestic violence and concern ourselves with all 36,000 victims, not just a fraction of them.
- Rafael.
Leave a Reply