Do We Live in a ‘Post-Truth’ Era?

Have we entered a ‘post-truth’ era? This article is an attempt to answer this question by (a) offering an explication of the notion of ‘post-truth’ from recent discussions, (b) deriving a testable implication from that explication, to the effect that we should expect to see decreasing information effects – that is, differences between actual preferences and estimated, fully informed preferences – on central political issues over time and then (c) putting the relevant narrative to the test by way of counterfactual modelling, using election year data for the period of 2004–2016 from the American National Election Studies’ Times Series Study. The implication in question turns out to be consistent with the data: at least in a US context, we do see evidence of a decrease in information effects on key, political issues – immigration, same-sex adoption and gun laws, in particular – in the period 2004–2016. This offers some novel, empirical evidence for the ‘post-truth’ narrative.

Over the Barrel of a Gun?

The Christchurch attack on 15 March 2019, when 51 Muslims were murdered by a right-wing extremist carrying half a dozen semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, brought the nation’s relaxed gun laws to light. Prior attempts to pass gun safety legislation have been thwarted by groups purporting to represent New Zealand gun owners. However, the swift and decisive political actions in the immediate wake of the attack signalled greater political appetite for meaningful change. Using unique data collected immediately in the wake of the Christchurch attack, this study examines who gun owners are, New Zealanders’ trust in gun owners and the pro-gun lobby, and whether trust differs by gun ownership and political ideology.

A comparison and analysis of seven gun law permissiveness scales

Background Due to the differences in the way gun law permissiveness scales were created and speculation about the politically motivated underpinnings of the various scales, there have been questions about their reliability. Methods We compared seven gun law permissiveness scales, varying by type and sources, for an enhanced understanding of the extent to which choice of a gun law permissiveness scale could affect studies related to gun violence outcomes in the United States. Specifically, we evaluated seven different scales: two rankings, two counts, and three scores, arising from a range of sources. We calculated Spearman correlation coefficients for each pair of scales compared. Cronbach’s standardized alpha and Guttman’s lambda were calculated to evaluate the relative reliability of the scales, and we re-calculated Cronbach’s alpha after systematically omitting each scale to assess whether the omitted scale contributed to lower internal consistency between scales. Factor analysis was used to determine single factor loadings and estimates. We also assessed associations between permissiveness of gun laws and total firearm deaths and suicides in multivariable regression analyses. Results All pairs of scales were highly correlated (average Spearman’s correlation coefficient r = 0.77) and had high relative reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.968, Guttman’s lambda = 0.975). All scales load onto a single factor. The choice of scale did not meaningfully change the parameter estimates for the associations between permissiveness of gun laws and gun deaths and suicides. Conclusion Gun law permissiveness scales are highly correlated despite any perceived political agenda, and the choice of gun law permissiveness scale has little effect on study conclusions related to gun violence outcomes.