Instead of spouting policy platitudes, we can choose to solve well-defined problems

Of course everyone is now talking about mass shootings and ninety percent and more of what is being said is generated by emotional convictions around ideologies and belief systems.  Not much comes from a perspective of defining the problem, collecting and testing data and then designing solutions which might have some prospect of reducing either the frequency of mass shootings or deaths from guns (or both.)  

We all want to reduce or eliminate mass shootings, individual shootings, accidental deaths from guns and suicides.  How we do so is the critical issue and the one least moored in logic, reason, or objective empiricism.  

It drives me crazy when, after a shooting, the first inclination from the anti-gun groups is to propose bog standard policy solutions which would not have had any impact on the actual instigating tragedy.  We need to implement realistic solutions, not parrot rote talking points.

As always happens though, some new data, interpretation or perspective turns up in the conversation after these tragic events.  They turn up and are almost always instantly buried because it does not conform to the preferred talking points.

In this case, I saw a study of which I was unaware.  It is introduced through Gun policy needs a “Decision Support System” by BJ Campbell.  A decision support system is characterized by making as good decisions as possible with empirical data and clear reasoning around issues which are inherently undefined, unmeasured or constantly evolving.  Static problems tend to be easier to understand and fix.  Undefined, unmeasured and evolving problems are difficult (similar to wicked problems.)

1. DSS tends to be aimed at the less well structured, underspecified problem that upper level managers typically face;
2. DSS attempts to combine the use of models or analytic techniques with traditional data access and retrieval functions;
3. DSS specifically focuses on features which make them easy to use by non-computer-proficient people in an interactive mode; and
4. DSS emphasizes flexibility and adaptability to accommodate changes in the environment and the decision making approach of the user.

Violent death and guns fall into the category of a problem characterized as inadequately defined, inadequately measured, and dynamic.  Campbell writes:

Michael Siegel and his research team at Boston University gave us the closest reasonable approximation to a Gun DSS backbone in the spring of 2019. He and his group have done a lot of research about gun violence in the United States, but this was the first time I’ve heard of a study that looked specifically at the efficacy of policy changes on firearm suicide and homicide rates. It was a longitudinal study, looking at changes over time based on when certain laws were passed or repealed. It was multivariate, and controlled for the other major factors that impact these rates, such as black population rate, poverty rate, unemployment rate, per capita alcohol consumption, and such. The study seems, by my read, to be solid. Let’s look at the study’s findings:

• “Assault weapon” bans have no effect.
• Magazine capacity bans have no effect.
• None of the gun laws they modeled affected the suicide numbers at all.
• Limiting handgun purchase to age 21 and over has no effect.
• Trafficking prohibitions (restrictions on buying with the intent to sell) have no effect.
• Junk gun laws (prohibiting handguns that fail to meet certain requirements) have no effect.
• Stand-your-ground laws have no effect, positive or negative.
• Permitless carry laws have no effect, positive or negative.

There were only three laws that had any effect whatsoever. 

• Universal background checks, either through required background checks for all sales or through a firearm purchase permit, reduced gun homicides by 14.9% and had no effect on suicide.
• Prohibiting those convicted of a violent misdemeanor from buying a handgun reduced gun homicides by 18.1%, and had no effect on suicide.
• Shall-issue laws, which ensure that law enforcement officers can’t discriminate when issuing concealed carry permits, increased gun homicides by 9.0% and had no effect on suicide.

It is important to read the original study.  Crisp bullet points belie the assumptions that need to be made and the intricacies of measurement, definition and data collection, much less interpretation.

While there is plenty to be concerned about in terms of just how confident we can be with precision, these findings are broadly consistent with much of what I have read over the past thirty years.  

The sociology of gun research started out from a very weak base and has improved substantially but it is still nowhere near as precise and reliable as we would want.  But the research is far better than it was and better than research in other critical policy areas (ex. Covid-19) where decisions are made on the barest of data.

Before we could have any meaningful policy discussion, we would need a lot of people to get on board with this DSS (or provide a better and more reliable DSS).  But this DSS requires a lot of people to give up near-theological beliefs and so the policy discussion whirls and whirls without any desirable outcome.

While the findings were not too terribly surprising, it felt like it was incomplete but I could not put my finger on what was missing.  Then, today, I see a much more granular and specific piece.  It is not really data-based but it does flag the missing elements.  From How to Cut Crime in the Murder Capital of America by Douglas Carswell.  That murder capital being Jackson, Mississippi based on the murder rate.  

Carswell is not focused on gun control but on the murder rate in Jackson, Mississippi.  Related, but not identical issues.  He has five recommendations, four of which are relevant anywhere, not just in Jackson.

1. More police: Despite the often heroic efforts of individual law enforcement officers, there are simply not enough of them. 
2. Prosecute: No matter how effective the police are at chasing suspects through the streets, there are serious failings when it comes to pursuing them through the courts. Who in Jackson has not heard stories of suspects being allowed to walk free?
3. Detention: The failure to have enough detention capacity in Hinds County is outrageous. Build it. 
4. Clear the courts: The bureaucratic backlog in the courts is perhaps the single biggest impediment to effective justice. Clear the backlog of cases. If those that administer the court system can’t cope, bring in administrators that can.

He does not provide the data but all these are relatively well researched and data supported policies.  Proactive policing reduces crime in general and violent crime in particular.  Prosecution with targeted and well-calibrated detentions also reduce crime.  Basically he is recommending that the police department be staffed for the magnitude of the problem, that prosecutions are reliably brought, sentences imposed, and punishments exacted.  

No need to be brutal, reckless or punitive in any of this.  A well-trained police force with an adequately staffed public prosecutors office, functioning and reliable court systems and good prisons with both effective diversions and alternative punishments are all predicates.  

But between these two pieces, one research and one opinion based on research, we actually have a reasonably complete policy recommendation to reduce all violent crimes including gun crime, reduce crime, and also reduce suicides from guns (the biggest issue).  It would look something like:

Adequately staffed, trained and funded police departments based on the magnitude and nature of the crime problem.

Adequately staffed, trained and funded public prosecutors who reliably bring winnable cases based on good evidence provided by the police. 

Adequately staffed, trained and funded courts which keep up with the rate of crime commission and which impose targeted sentences based on the nature of the crime, the impact on the community, and the capacity for mercy and redemption through reliably effective diversionary programs as well as incarceration.

Adequately staffed, trained and funded diversionary programs as well as jails and prisons with services (such as health treatment, psychological counseling, and job training) geared to the successful reintegration of the perpetrator back into society at the completion of their punishment.

Universal background checks, either through required background checks for all sales or through a firearm purchase permit program

Prohibition of those convicted of a violent misdemeanors or crimes from buying a handgun

Modified shall-issue laws according to the above two criteria

Of course careful and sequenced implementation is required.  Data has to be collected and monitored to ensure that policies are yielding the outcomes desired.  Services and facilities might need to be expanded.  In the near term, taxes might need to rise before falling significantly over a 3-5 year span.  

But the outcome, likely, would be in five years a much lower crime rate, a much lower murder rate, fewer deaths from guns, and fewer suicides.  That's the prize.  But to achieve it, all sides have to come to the table of data and evidence and check their ideological convictions and policy obsessions and focus on the defined problem.  If the policy shows no prospect of delivering the desired outcome, then it shouldn't be part of the conversation.

One other first order effect likely to occur might be a much improved visibility into the cause, consequences, and treatments of public mental health.