Saturday, July 23 , 2016, 8:39 pm | Fair with Haze 67º

  • Follow Noozhawk on LinkedIn
  • Follow Noozhawk on Pinterest
  • Follow Noozhawk on YouTube
 
 
 
 

Letter to the Editor: Gun Crime Data a State Secret?

“Want to know specifics of gun crime data? Sorry, that’s a state secret.”

With so many allegations about gun safety and gun crimes swirling around, and competing plans to prevent future tragedies now in both Congress and the White House, wouldn’t you think armies of public and private analysts would be sifting through historical data to determine actual trends, rather than simply shouting cartoonish slogans at one another? I certainly would.

But if you did, you and I would be wrong. No one is doing that.

That’s because, incredibly, even though the data exists, that data is a state secret.

It’s not secret for the reasons nuclear weapons data is secret. It’s secret because of one law — the so-called “Tiahrt Amendment” — that makes it a crime for any U.S. government agency to spend even a penny assembling or releasing that data to anyone except a law enforcement officer investigating a specific crime. And if not a penny can be spent, no data can be released.

The Tiahrt Amendment was passed as a series of riders and amendments to congressional bills between 2003 and 2009 at the behest of the National Rifle Association. The NRA’s defense of its positions, available by clicking here, contains the usual laundry list of manufactured reasons why data collected at public expense should remain locked away. Tellingly, the first is, “Releasing the information serves no useful purpose. The Congressional Research Service has repeatedly said ‘firearm trace data may be biased’ … .”

Wow. I assume most people find that statement as preposterously disingenuous as I do after a long career as a research scientist. The presumption is that the same community of scientists who gave us flu vaccine, the Curiosity Rover and GPS satellites can’t distinguish data that may be biased (if, in fact, it actually is biased) from the good stuff, and fix the bias if it exists.

Really. Wow.

The NRA case is based around a disregard for scientists’ abilities to do actual research, leavened with a skepticism that government databases cannot be properly secured to protect private information such as names, while releasing relevant study data, such as gun calibers. If that were the case, we’d have no data on measles, food poisoning, faulty brakes on cars, or failed jackscrews on Boeing 727 horizontal stabilizers.

But we do.

I can get more and better data on nuclear weapons tests — including freely available simulation codes and blast data — than a criminology professor can get on gun crimes. If I suspect, for example, that blast overpresssure sensors for the Plumbbob/Diabloevent at the Nevada Test Site were systematically biased, I can make that correction to the data. A criminology professor suspecting, for example, that crazed shooters can be distracted by loud noises is totally out of luck.

What’s wrong with this picture?

A surprising number of the NRA’s public positions, including some of the most controversial, actually are arguable. Deliberate suppression of data is not one of them. It’s not credible to believe they actually think scientists are incapable of using such data properly. Shame on them for being so disingenuous.

It’s insulting for them to try to lie about their real motives. Shame on them for lying.

Wayne Norris
Santa Barbara

Reader Comments

Noozhawk's intent is not to limit the discussion of our stories but to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and must be free of profanity and abusive language and attacks.

By posting on Noozhawk, you:

» Agree to be respectful. Noozhawk encourages intelligent and impassioned discussion and debate, but now has a zero-tolerance policy for those who cannot express their opinions in a civil manner.

» Agree not to use Noozhawk’s forums for personal attacks. This includes any sort of personal attack — including, but not limited to, the people in our stories, the journalists who create these stories, fellow readers who comment on our stories, or anyone else in our community.

» Agree not to post on Noozhawk any comments that can be construed as libelous, defamatory, obscene, profane, vulgar, harmful, threatening, tortious, harassing, abusive, hateful, sexist, racially or ethnically objectionable, or that are invasive of another’s privacy.

» Agree not to post in a manner than emulates, purports or pretends to be someone else. Under no circumstances are readers posting to Noozhawk to knowingly use the name or identity of another person, whether that is another reader on this site, a public figure, celebrity, elected official or fictitious character. This also means readers will not knowingly give out any personal information of other members of these forums.

» Agree not to solicit others. You agree you will not use Noozhawk’s forums to solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites, without Noozhawk’s express written approval.

Noozhawk’s management and editors, in our sole discretion, retain the right to remove individual posts or to revoke the access privileges of anyone who we believe has violated any of these terms or any other term of this agreement; however, we are under no obligation to do so.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.



Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >