I just read the article, which is available at
http://press.psprings.co.uk/ip/june/150_ip16212.pdf. One thing I like about it as a researcher is that the author actually went out and did his own observations. You don't see that very often any more.
Unfortunately, there are also a number of things not to like. Most importantly, one of the main variables, observations of "straw purchases", is not clearly defined. The only information presented is that "A gun sale was classed as a straw purchase only if the purchase was made from a licensed dealer, the required forms were completed, and there was clear evidence that the person purchasing the firearm was not the intended possessor." But there is not information about what constituted "clear evidence" in the author's eyes. If I were reviewing this article I'd regard this omission as unacceptable regardless of the results.
Presumably licensed dealers are required to display their licenses, if not the author's classification would be meaningless.
Not much to say about the statistics except that the numbers in the categories where he found differences (i.e. "armed attendees") are very small and so it is difficult to see how they have any practical significance.
There are some odd statements in the discussion. For example, "One important difference [between California gun shows and those in AZ, FL, NV, and TX], was in the frequency of undocumented private party gun sales. Prohibiting such sales appears to greatly diminish their frequency." Duh.. Then there's "Gang members, for example, may be unable to travel to a gun show." I guess drug dealing isn't as profitable as we've been led to believe. Here's a good one.. "Of particular concern were pistols based on AR15 and AK47 rifles. Less than 24 inches long, they use the same ammunition and high-capacity magazines that the rifles do. With the magazine detached they are easily concealed, and in airport security screening the AR15-type pistol resembles a curling iron." [a newspaper article from the New Jersey Star-Ledger is cited here]. A curling iron. Anyone want to try testing that one out next time you go to the airport?
In the "limitations" paragraph the author puts a positive spin on the problems of sampling, limited statistical power, observer bias, and measurement by noting "We may have grossly underestimated the incidence of straw purchases, as only 1 observer was present and such transactions may be more common on Sundays [a newspaper article from the Arizona Republic is cited here]; rate ratios should be less affected. Our results will need validation by teams of observers at shows nationwide." Of course gross overestimation is at least as likely as gross underestimation.
Teams of observers at shows nationwide, coming to a gun show near you! You can tell because they will be mumbling into their cell phones.
Not surprisingly, the authors conclude that more regulation of gun shows are in order.
Even though there's also nothing there to inspire confidence that the observations have any reliability or generalizability, there is also nothing in this article to suggest that the allegations of straw purchasing at gun shows are incorrect. Sometimes claims based on poor methods and poor inferences turn out to be true. If there really is a problem here, it needs to be addressed if residents of states with less restrictive laws would prefer not to have California-style regulation.
I was wondering about Injury Prevention's review process, but the editorial comments that accompany the article make it clear that the piece was included as a matter of editorial perogative, illustrated by a quote from a New York Times editorial:
"'The horror of tens of thousands of annual gun deaths will be compounded if the new crop of presidential candidates manages to duck an issue that more than 200 mayors, led by Mr. Bloomberg, are fighting from the trenches.'
Make that 200 mayors, too few researchers, and at least one editor."
Think about that one next time you ask someone to back up scientific claims with citations from peer reviewed journals...
