Researchers from Public Health, Criminology, and Economics have different views on gun control

Here is a link to a paper, "Do Researchers from Different Fields have a Consensus on Gun Control Laws and do Registered Voters Agree with any of them?

The authors are:

Arthur Z. Berg, MD Associate Professor Emeritus, Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School.

John R. Lott, Jr. President, Crime Prevention Research Center.

Gary A. Mauser Professor Emeritus, Department of Marketing, Simon Fraser University.

The paper surveys views from researchers in three fields - Public Health, Criminology, and Economics.  Researchers in Criminology and Economics tend to agree on what works.  Researchers in Public Health have very different views.  The latter also tend to use inappropriate statistical methods that make their results (and in my opinion, their views) problematic.

Here are some excerpts.

------------------------------------------

Executive Summary

Hundreds of millions of dollars go to firearms research on crime, suicides, and accidental
deaths, but the vast majority of the money, particularly government money, is being spent on
public health research. We got a response rate of over 43%, or 120, from the 277 researchers
we approached, and we found large statistically significant differences in the views of academic
researchers in criminology, economics, and public health on 33 different gun control policies for
both mass public shootings and murder will reduce crime and save lives. Our sample is much
larger than two surveys of 32 researchers by the New York Times. While none of our groups are
quite as supportive of gun control as reported by the Times, public health researchers come
closest.

• We find that Economists and to a lesser extent criminologists rank order the efficacy of gun control policies in the opposite order that public health researcher do. Using the New York Times survey of registered voters shows that their rank order is random when compared to any group of experts.

• Regarding proposals that can reduce mass public shootings, while public health researchers give a score of at least 5.5 on a 1 to 10 scale for two types of gun control regulations (gun and ammunition bans as well as universal background checks), criminologists and economists only give that high of a score to just one type of gun regulation (eliminating gun-free zones).

• Regarding proposals that can reduce murder rates, while public health researchers give a score of at least 5.5 on a 1 to 10 scale for one type of gun control regulation (universal background checks), economists only give that high of a score to just one kind of gun regulation (eliminating gun-free zones).

• As a group, criminologists are generally extremely skeptical of gun control regulations. In none of the broad overall categories of gun control do either group give a score of at least 3.0 on a 1 to 10 scale for Red Flag laws, gun bans, universal background checks, or licensing and regulations.

• Economists are even more skeptical of gun control regulations. In none of the broad overall categories of gun control do either group give a score of at least 2.0 on a 1 to 10 scale for Red Flag laws, gun bans, universal background checks, or licensing and regulations.

----------

Here, we compare the views of public health researchers with those of criminologists and economists on a wide range of gun control policies. Specifically, we ask academics to assess the impact of these policies on mass public shootings and murder rates. Our survey examines a very broad range of topical gun control policies and issues.

It’s only natural for there to be a diversity of views across academic disciplines that differ fundamentally in their theoretical foundations and research methodologies. No one should be surprised that criminologists, economists, and public health researchers would disagree about how
to approach public policy. Economics is based on the “law of demand,” which holds that as
something becomes more costly, people do less of it. Applied to crime, this concept means that
crime will decrease as punishments become more severe or the probability of arrest and conviction
increases. In sharp contrast to criminologists and public health researchers, all empirical
work by economists on crime includes law enforcement as a key factor.

Statistical techniques also vary greatly across the groups, with much of public health research
still relying on purely cross-sectional evidence. By contrast, such evidence is almost unheard of
among economists in the last couple of decades. Economists would argue that cross-sectional
comparisons cannot properly account for all of the differences across places.

Economists are much more focused on issues such as substitutability in methods of committing
suicide or murder. They look at total suicide or murder rates, whereas public health researchers
focus heavily on firearm suicides and homicides. Economists would argue that even if firearm
suicides significantly declined after a particular gun control law, most or even all of the people
who would have used firearms might have picked another method of killing themselves.

Unlike most economists and criminologists, public health academics also see themselves as
more than just researchers. “Public health academics are expected not just to study problems,
but also to reduce them,” Hemenway and Miller (2019) note. “The dual mission of public health
academics is reflected by the mixture of academics, advocates, practitioners, and policymakers
who attend the annual American Public Health Association meetings.”

In our survey below, we obtained responses from 32 economists – the same size as the Times’
entire panel of researchers and more than 10 times as many Ph.D. economists. We also have
more criminologists (38) and public health researchers (50) than either the New York Times or
the HICRC surveyed. Altogether, we have almost four times as many respondents as the number
of experts on the Times’ panel.

Respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of each policy on a scale of 1 to 10 -- first in
terms of whether it would reduce “murder rates,” and then whether it would reduce “mass
public shootings.” The scale ran from “1” as not effective at all to “10” as extremely effective.

Table 1: List of questions

Respondents were asked to evaluate 33 gun control policies. First, they were asked to
evaluate each policy’s effectiveness at reducing mass public shootings, and then its effectiveness
in reducing murder rates. Two distinct types of policy questions were included: [1] 25 questions focused on increasing governmental restrictions on firearms by civilians, and [2] 8 questions asked about the effectiveness of policies that relaxed or decreased governmental restrictions on firearms or drugs.

25 questions focused on increasing governmental restrictions on firearms by civilians. 20 of these matched the policies previously included by the New York Times in their studies:

1. Assault weapons ban

2. Banning the sale and ownership of all ammunition magazines with capacities
greater than 10 bullets

3. Bar sales to convicted stalkers

4. Bar sales to people deemed dangerous by a mental health provider

5. Implementing a national "buy-back" program for all banned firearms and magazines,
where the government pays people to turn in illegal guns

6. Limiting the amount of ammunition you can purchase within a given time period

7. One gun per month purchase limit

8. Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been convicted of violent
misdemeanors

9. Requiring a mandatory waiting period of three days before a purchased gun can
be taken home

10. Requiring all gun owners to possess a license for their firearm

11. Requiring all gun owners to register their fingerprints

12. Requiring all guns to microstamp each bullet with a mark that uniquely matches
the gun and bullet

13. Requiring reports of lost or stolen guns

14. Requiring that all firearms be recorded in a national registry

15. Requiring that all gun buyers demonstrate a "genuine need" for a gun, such as a
law enforcement job or hunting

16. Requiring that all gun owners store their guns in a safe storage unit

17. Requiring that gun buyers complete safety training and a test for their specific
firearm

18. Semiautomatic gun ban

19. Universal background checks (Checks on private transfers) for gun buyers

20. Universal background checks (Checks on private transfers) for ammo buyers

Five additional questions included on increasing government restrictions:

1. Allow judges to take away a person's guns based on "probable cause" that a person
might commit a crime

2. Allow judges to take away a person's guns based on the "Preponderance of the
evidence" that a person might commit a crime

3. Allow judges to take away a person's guns without a hearing

4. Allow judges to take away a person's guns without requiring testimony by mental
health experts

5. Requiring all gun owners to provide login information for their social media accounts

Eight additional questions were asked about policies that relaxed or decreased governmental
restrictions. This provides insight into how experts evaluate policies that encourage individual freedom and self-help.

1. Allow teachers with permits to carry concealed handguns at K-12 schools and
college campuses

2. Allow the military personnel at military bases to again carry guns

3. Authorizing nationwide stand-your-ground laws that allow people to defend
themselves using lethal force, without requiring a person to first retreat as far as possible

4. Encouraging public places to eliminate gun-free zones for concealed handgun
permit holders

5. Legalizing drugs to eliminate drug gangs as a major source of illegal guns

6. National reciprocity for permitted concealed handguns

7. Reducing the government-imposed costs of acquiring guns in terms of background
checks, licensing fees, and costs of concealed handgun permits.

8. Relaxing OSHA restrictions to let companies determine if people can carry concealed
handguns in workplace settings

----------

Criminologists and economists differ somewhat in how strongly they feel that different policies
will work, but they rank policies similarly. Both have the same top four preferred policies for
stopping mass public shootings. American criminologists rate the following policies most highly:
allow K-12 teachers to carry concealed handguns (with a survey score of 6), allow military personnel
to carry on military bases (5.6), encourage the elimination of gun-free zones (5.3), and
relax OSHA regulations that pressure companies to create gun-free zones (5). The top four for
economists are the same, but in different order: encourage the elimination of gun-free zones
(7.9), relax OSHA regulations that pressure companies to create gun-free zones (7.8), allow K-12
teachers to carry concealed handguns (7.7), and allow military personnel to carry on military
bases (7.7).

By contrast, public health researchers place these same policies near the bottom of their list.
Their top policy choice of barring gun sales to people deemed dangerous by a mental health
provider is the fifth most valued policy by criminologists (4.88), but their other top policies
aren’t viewed positively by criminologists. Their second through fourth top-ranked policies are
banning magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets (6.2), banning semi-automatic guns (6.1),
and prohibiting assault weapon (5.98). All of these policies involve highly restrictive bans. For Criminologists, these were their 21st (2.6), 20th (2.8), and 10th (3) ranked policies. There was an

even larger gap between economists and public health researchers.

The patterns are similar when these different groups rate the effectiveness of policies at reducing
murder rates. While the proposal ranked most favorably by criminologists is reducing government-
imposed costs of acquiring guns (5.2), economists want to relax OSHA restrictions that
interfere with companies setting rules for people having guns (7.1) and public health people
want to prevent the sales of a firearm to people convicted of violent misdemeanors (7.3).

----------