Buckeye Reporter

By Salam Fatohi

A recent study published in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) titled "Deer Hunting Season and Firearm Violence in US Rural Counties" has sparked controversy. Critics argue that the study, which links deer hunting to gun violence, is flawed and agenda-driven.

The data used in the study originates from the Gun Violence Archive, a source criticized for its reliability. Notably, even anti-gun publication The Trace has distanced itself from this archive. Furthermore, deep within the study, the authors acknowledge they “did not find a linear association between hunting licenses per capita and shootings.” They also reported that "the start of deer hunting season was associated with null effects on overall crime, as well as a reduction in alcohol-related arrests," according to police data.

Despite these admissions, media outlets have widely disseminated the study's findings. Lee Williams of Shooting News Weekly commented on this trend: “Sharkey’s study is a twofer for the gun ban industry. It manages to denigrate both hunting and gun ownership.”

The primary author of the study, Princeton sociologist Patrick Sharkey, received financial backing from John and Laura Arnold, known supporters of gun control efforts. This funding extended to Princeton University’s research department where Sharkey is employed.

Critics highlight several flaws in Sharkey's methodology. For instance, he admits that due to “the absence of a centralized source for information on deer hunting season,” he had to approximate timelines for his analysis. Additionally, while his main data source indicated an increase in shootings after the start of deer hunting season involving handguns rather than long guns typically used by hunters, this nuance was overlooked in broader interpretations.

Moreover, Sharkey's report contains contradictory statements about the correlation between hunting licenses per capita and shootings. On one page it states no linear association was found; on another it suggests a pronounced effect in states with higher numbers of hunters relative to their population.

Critics argue that studies like Sharkey's are part of a broader agenda to demonize lawful gun owners and hunters while ignoring criminal misuse of firearms. They urge vigilance among law-abiding gun owners against legislative efforts based on such research.

Republished with permission from NSSF.

---