Garen Wintemute is at it again. For those of you just joining us, he’s a doctor at the University of California Davis Center who made his mark turning the gun-control debate from a political issue into one of perceived public health back in the early 1990’s.
This week, he published a study entitled Inside Gun Shows: What goes on When Everybody Thinks Nobody’s Watching. He was assisted by the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program, which received $175,000 from the Joyce Foundation (pdf) this year for “Gun Violence” research.
As is to be expected, the “research” here consists almost entirely of take-my-word-for-it anecdotes. The recovering academic in me took immediate notice of the fact that there are very few citations or statistics presented, and that many of those are self-referential (1).
Gun shows simply aren’t a significant source of guns used in crimes. In fact, only ~2% of crime guns can be traced back to gun shows. Yet gun shows are a favorite target for the gun control crowd, one which they continue to target with attempts at regulation.
They generally fail in this endeavor. In fact, this year’s version appears to have thankfully stalled out.
Wintemute’s report makes a concession to the statistical reality, but he read the Bureau of Justice stats, and he noticed that straw purchases make up the largest source of crime guns. So, his attempt here is to combine these factors by implying that a significant portion of straw purchases take place at gun shows (2).
Bingo! Now we’re back to square one: demonizing gun shows.
And boy does he. In chapter five, he shares pictures of crude and misogynistic bumper stickers (most likely from one vendor among hundreds–we don’t know). His conclusion: “the ephemera at gun shows have a great deal to say about men’s relationships with women.” Sidestepping the obvious insult, I’d challenge Dr. Wintemute to explain why women are the fastest-growing segment of the shooting sports if this is the case.
Chapter six gleefully lumps libertarians and gun-rights activists in with Nazis, the KKK, apocalyptic types and Confederate revivalists. Notice that there are plenty of damning sidebar quotes, but not a single one from normal centrist-conservatives, who make up the vast majority of the crowd.
But, since he managed to find a few white supremacists, he uses this to reinforce his preconceived notion that we’re all a bunch of racists. Of course, that doesn’t explain the turnout of blacks at these shows, so he goes one better.
Several pages of photographs are included, in which he claims to document straw purchases by disqualified individuals. Every single photograph of these suspected straw purchases involves black people. Now, that’s a bit odd. I’ve shut down a couple dozen attempted straw purchases during my time in the industry, and only one of those ever involved a black person.
It could be argued that demographics and geography might explain the discrepancy, except that Dr. Wintemute claims to have visited numerous gun shows in several cities. If he’s so adept at spotting straw purchases, why couldn’t he find a single white person committing one? C’mon, he was in Jacksonville.
In fact, if he was witness to a potential crime in progress (or, by his account, many), then why didn’t he alert the authorities? After all, he’s our self-proclaimed Watchdog of Accountability.
Perhaps it’s because he can’t prove anything. Nor does he want to.
The whole thing reads like a grade-school summary of an afternoon field trip. He’s not doing this to present evidence, because he can’t find any. Like Michael Moore, he’s content to make innuendos and let those who already agree with him sign off on the grants.
Saying “I think I saw this” or, “I bet this happened” isn’t the behavior of any scientist I’ve ever met. But then again, this isn’t science. It’s politics, plain and simple, and a sloppy sort of politics at that.
In the world of computer programmers, it’s referred to as “FUD,” which is short for “Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.” Under a strategy of FUD, you don’t have to prove anything, you just have to plant that seed of fear and doubt. Then you can dodge the responsibility of producing evidence, since you don’t make any direct accusations that may demand proof.
Come to think of it, that’s not even politics. It’s simply a petty and vile sort of cowardice. Which is exactly what I expect from some quarters.
(1) …which is patently dishonest, unless I’m the one doing it.
(2) If someone’s going to conduct an illegal transaction, why are they doing so in an arena where it’s likely to attract notice, anyway? Criminals aren’t stupid; they can get guns without doing so in broad daylight.