Podcast Summary
Gun Self-Defense Statistics: Gun owners report using their firearms for self-defense approximately 1.7 million times a year, and AR-15s and high-capacity magazines are commonly used for such purposes, making it challenging to justify bans or restrictions on them.
A University of Alabama professor named William English and his 2021 survey of over 16,000 gun owners have become a key player in the ongoing debate around gun rights in the US. The survey, which is the largest of its kind in decades, found that approximately 1.7 million times a year, gun owners reported using their firearms for self-defense. Additionally, AR-15s and high-capacity magazines, which are popular among gun owners, have been central to the gun lobby's litigation campaign. By establishing that these firearms are in common use for lawful purposes, it becomes more difficult to justify bans or restrictions on them. This research has been cited repeatedly in lawsuits challenging gun regulations across the country, leading to numerous court rulings striking down various gun restrictions.
Study transparency: The study often cited by lawyers for semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines lacks transparency as it was not peer-reviewed, raw data was not released until later, and survey questions were not fully disclosed, potentially skewing results.
A study often cited by lawyers to support the common use and self-defense purposes of semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines lacks transparency. The study, conducted by Dr. English, was not published in a peer-reviewed journal, and the raw data was not released until two years later. Additionally, the questions asked in the survey were not fully disclosed, and their phrasing could potentially skew the results. For instance, the question about self-defense use was preceded by a statement that implied policymakers questioned the frequency of such use. Similarly, the question about high-capacity magazines suggested that their popularity was in question. These issues around transparency raise concerns about the validity and reliability of the study's findings.
Defensive gun uses study: The study claiming 1.67 million defensive gun uses per year in the US has raised red flags due to concerns about its methodology, origin, financing, and author's lack of transparency, potentially influencing legal outcomes.
The study claiming 1.67 million defensive gun uses per year in the US, which is frequently cited in gun-related cases, has raised red flags due to concerns about its methodology and the reluctance of the study's author, Dr. William English, to discuss it publicly. The survey's findings are on the high end of the range compared to other studies, and questions about its origin, financing, and Dr. English's background in gun research have gone unanswered. Despite efforts to contact him, Dr. English has not responded to inquiries from various sources, including the media and lawyers involved in gun-related cases. This lack of transparency and the survey's potential influence on legal outcomes have raised concerns about its credibility.
Impartiality of research funding: Researchers' impartiality can be questioned when their funding sources or past affiliations are not disclosed, potentially leading to biased findings and misinformation.
The research conducted by Dr. English on gun ownership and use, which was used in a national survey, may not be as impartial as presented due to his past role as a paid expert witness for pro-gun plaintiffs in lawsuits. This relationship was not disclosed in his national survey, and the funding for the survey was not clearly stated. Additionally, the Center for Human Liberty, an organization that joined with Dr. English in a court filing, was found to be a phantom organization created and funded by a firearms policy coalition, which is known for its aggressive litigation efforts to overturn gun restrictions. This discovery led to the exploration of the world of dark money and its role in funding nonprofit advocacy groups with opaque or anonymous funding sources.
Gun Research Funding: Pro-gun group paid Dr. Lott and his team significant amounts for research and Supreme Court Amicus brief, raising questions about potential influence on survey results and case outcome
The Constitutional Defense Fund, a pro-gun group, made significant payments to Dr. John Lott and his research team around the time of his national survey on gun ownership. These payments included $58,000 to Dr. Lott himself and an $80,000 payment to a law firm that helped file an Amicus brief in the Supreme Court's Bruen case on behalf of Dr. Lott. The Amicus brief, which cited Dr. Lott's research, was cited in at least five briefs in the case and was mentioned during oral arguments. While the funding itself does not necessarily indicate wrongdoing, the lack of transparency surrounding the payments raises questions about potential influence on the survey's results and its use in the Supreme Court case.
Amicus Briefs scrutiny: The lack of a mechanism to vet Amicus Briefs allowed a controversial gun study to influence court decisions, leading to the overturning of gun laws nationwide. Ensuring credibility and impartiality of research used in legal proceedings is crucial.
The Supreme Court did not thoroughly scrutinize a controversial study used in a landmark gun rights case due to the lack of a mechanism to vet Amicus Briefs, which can contain opinions and information from various sources. This oversight allowed the study's findings to influence lower court cases and ultimately lead to the overturning of gun laws across the country. The responsibility for keeping such studies out of the courts lies with the ongoing efforts by gun lobby groups to change the interpretation of the Second Amendment, leading judges to rely on uncertain scholarly information for their decisions. This situation highlights the importance of ensuring the credibility and impartiality of research used in legal proceedings.