In our states, we work hard to keep guns out of the hands of people who have no business having them. In New Jersey and New York, law enforcement is directly involved in the concealed carry permit process and has discretion to approver deny a permit if it would jeopardize public safety.
Let me rephrase that for the Senator and Congresswoman:
In our states, we work hard to keep guns out of the hands of as many people as we can. In New Jersey and New York, law enforcement is directly involved in the concealed carry permit process, and has discretion to approve or deny a permit if the person applying isn’t well connected, or hasn’t donated to the right campaigns.
That’s more like it. I don’t know why they’d think Obama would want to issue a veto threat. If I had to guess, this White House is going to work behind the scenes to make sure this bill dies in the Senate. They aren’t going to want to publicly take a position on it if they don’t have to. That would actually play right into our hands.
Since 1995, more than 3,300 felons and people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors have regained their gun rights in the state — 430 in 2010 alone — according to the analysis of data provided by the state police and the court system. Of that number, more than 400 — about 13 percent — have subsequently committed new crimes, the analysis found. More than 200 committed felonies, including murder, assault in the first and second degree, child rape and drive-by shooting.
The question I would have is how many committed new crimes where the restoration of their civil rights was a factor in the new crime? I’m relatively unconcerned about someone convicted of tax evasion getting his civil rights restored, and then committing tax evasion again. In that instance there was no social problem caused by the restoration of that person’s right. I’d really like to know what percentage of folks having their rights restored go on to commit other violent crimes using a gun. I’d even settle for the percentage that go on to commit any violent crimes, whether a gun was used or not. I suspect the rate of people violently re-offending is probably much lower than the Times’ 13%. The Times is quick to point out anecdotes, but anecdotes are not data.
It’s also worth pointing out that a recidivism rate of 13%, compared to the 50% to 70% rate found among the general population of people having served time, is actually pretty good. If I wanted to play the same correlation vs. causation games our opponents play, I could argue that restoration of rights is an important aspect of keeping recidivism rates much much lower than they otherwise would be.
On the eve of a House vote on H.R.822, the national concealed carry law, I have a few random thoughts on Scott Brown’s statement against us on the issue. As a former Massachusetts resident, and as someone who supported his run for the State Senate, it’s a bit disappointing, but it’s far more baffling from a political standpoint.
What He Doesn’t Gain
Typically, the easiest way to figure out why a politician does something is to figure out what he will gain. This may mean the support of constituent groups or access to new campaign donors. But, Sen. Brown seems to ignore the fact that Tom Menino isn’t going to run around campaigning for him in 2012. Gun control groups in Massachusetts won’t suddenly endorse him. He won’t gain any votes for his position because anyone who looks to this as a key vote will choose to back a more extreme anti-gun candidate. I doubt he’ll line up any new donors for his single position on the bill if he won’t even earn their votes for it.
In a best case scenario, he saved himself from direct attacks on this issue. However, it won’t stop Democrats for attacking him for his previous pro-gun votes. Taking this very specific gun policy off the table doesn’t take the entire gun issue off the table, and they will hit him for every remotely positive thing he has ever said or done to support the right to bear arms. In fact, Menino has made 2011 the year of attacking Scott Brown over his support of gun owners. Ever since Brown was elected, there have been discussions about the massive warchests Massachusetts Democrats have been building to boot him from office. In other words, appeasing them on this one issue isn’t going to stop his opponents.
The Very Odd Timing
He wrote a letter to Menino nearly two weeks before a House vote. That might make sense if he served in that chamber. He doesn’t. Given that it’s nearly the end of 2011, we don’t even know if H.R.822 will be on the Senate’s radar in coming months or by the election. In other words, he made a public declaration that gains him nothing in an election as campaign season starts to ramp up before it’s even an issue in the chamber where he actually has a voice and vote. What was the purpose in that?
What Gun Owners Should Do
Make it known that he’s needlessly pissed you off if you’re a Massachusetts voter. Remind him that he needs every vote he can get, and he has now put yours at risk. Remind him that Massachusetts has a very big problem with discretionary issue of the license to even own a firearm to law abiding citizens, so the state can’t be trusted not to abuse the rights of gun owners.
What He Loses
Here’s the thing, Massachusetts gun owners are used to having to make a choice between “actively hates my rights” and “sometimes surprises us with a vote in our favor.” But, with this being the only major issue up before the election, he’s running off gun owners who might have been preparing to volunteer for him or start talking to friends and family about they planned to vote for Scott Brown.
Unlike the frustrations we sometimes face in a state where gun owners always feel safe, many folks in Massachusetts are willing to get involved and help out for a political cause. I remember when some guys would take laptops & printers to their club meetings to get everyone to write up a letter & sign it for a political issue before a big vote. The club leaders would then gather the letters & coordinate to get them to the State House. He could have had that system working on his re-election. Now, there will probably be a few who are a little less inclined to do that in 2012.
The good news is that because this isn’t an actual vote in the Senate, he still has plenty of opportunities to do the right thing so that he doesn’t lose these valuable supporters. We should try to make sure he sees enough support to come around to the right decision.
Time to get calling your reps, because the bill goes up for a vote tomorrow. It is expected to pass, and hopefully it will pass smoothly. I would emphasize to your rep that you want a clean bill. I would say this goes double if you live in Jim Gerlach’s or Pat Meehan’s district, neither of whom are co-sponsoring the bill. Both carry NRA endorsement, so I am presuming they will vote yes, but don’t ever count on the endorsement convincing them to do the right thing. The opposition is currently going wild. Bloomberg is on the radio trying to whip up hysterics ahead of the vote:
“But unfortunately the group of people who think everybody should be carrying guns, including children and people with psychiatric problems and people with criminal records still have an enormous amount of power.â€
“Some states you can have an enormous crimincal record and psycholgoical problems and be ten years old and be able to get a gun”
Also, in some states, I hear they’ll give permits to carry to dogs, cats, and ferrets. Hand to God! Of course, none of this is true, but what’s truth when it comes to achieving your agenda? The podcast Bloomberg appeared on can be found here.
Is there any doubt that having a firearm, especially in the home, is a risk for suicide? No. And yet some of the gun rights extremists don’t like it when physicians or military personnel advise people not to have guns around when someone is at risk for mental illness and/or suicide.
Having a firearm in the home is no more a risk for suicide than having Tylenol, rope, or a belt. I can assure you that my household suicide risk right now is effectively zero. Neither Bitter nor I are currently, nor have we ever been, suicidal people. Given that most of my personal fears and anxieties revolve around getting old, getting sick, and dying, I can see into the future and make a prediction that my suicide risk from now until I’m in the ground is also effectively zero. I spent way too much time watching my mother struggle to hang on to her own life, largely for the sake of our family, to just throw mine away like that.
Guns in my house do not increase my suicide risk a single iota. Would I keep guns locked away if someone in the house were suicidally depressed? Sure. But my primary concern would be that there’s someone in the house that’s suicidally depressed. I can’t remove everything a person in that state could possibly use to hurt themselves.
An official suicide count was kept, sorted according to which of the bridge’s 128 lamp posts the jumper was nearest when he or she jumped. By 2005, this count exceeded 1,200 and new suicides were occurring about once every two weeks.
Suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge is a far more effective method than firearms. I think we can also agree that most Americans live near at least one or two tall object of relative note, and that are reasonably accessible. The San Francisco community has repeatedly resisted attempts to install a suicide barrier on the bridge, for fear of ruining the classic beauty of this iconic San Francisco landmark.
So when it comes to bridges, even the most liberal city in the Untied States accepts there can be tradeoffs. Our opponents, however, do not. Dangerous objects clearly need to be restricted, because you might hurt yourself with them. I’m pretty certain your average person can successfully realize that doing such a thing is a one-way road to an infantalized society. Ultimately, I think this angle will ring hollow.
Just to update everyone on the job situation — I have accepted a position at a new employer. I will start sometime in the next few weeks. While I have managed to keep the blog up, and be very busy at work before, I have little idea how this new job will affect my schedule. Needless to say, starting a new job is going to require extra effort. It is my plan to use WordPress’s scheduling feature to get some posts up before work in the morning, add a few over lunch, and then do a few more when I get home, according to roughly the same schedule I did before when I was working.
Needless so say, I’m happy my period of unemployment will soon be at an end, even if I’m nervous and apprehensive about starting a new job. I am hoping for the best, and that it will be a challenging job, and that the work will be interesting. I’m moving back into the engineering space a bit. I am at the same time both excited and nervous about that. I appreciate everyone’s support over my job woes, and hope you’ll be patient if the blogging schedule gets a bit out of whack from having to put in some extra time to come up to speed at a new job.
I grew up in a working class area where a lot of folks didn’t end up going to college. Those that did generally tended to either go to a few years at Delaware County Community, or if they were into a four year university, to Penn State. It was with a bit of surprise that my high school guidance counselor reacted with when I informed him I did not want to apply there.
I applied to only two schools. University of Delaware, and Drexel University. I was accepted at both. I went to Drexel and graduated with a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering. My guidance counselors were telling me it was foolish not at least applying to Penn State. I went to a football crazy high school, and I considered the fact that Drexel did not field a football team to be a plus.
I keep thinking back to the guidance counselor’s advice, and wondering “Who’s the fool now?” I feel bad for the folks carrying Penn State degrees into the job market now. While if I were the hiring manager, I wouldn’t hold it against anyone, this scandal has been more than embarrassing. Hopefully the school will recover, and learn something from it. Jonathan Adler pointed out:
The cowardice of some was no doubt motivated by a sincere desire to protect the reputation of the university and its football program; to preserve the house that JoePa built. And yet, as I noted yesterday, the failure to take immediate action has, in fact, done more to tarnish the PSU football program and Paterno’s legacy than would have a determined effort to protect children from the predator in their midst. It may even hit the university’s credit rating. Placing the welfare of the football program ahead of the Sandusky’s victims protected neither.
Had Nixon been forthcoming about Watergate, and fired those responsible, rather than attempting to cover it up, it’s likely his presidency would have survived. I’ve never seen a case of covering up something wrong ultimately paying off. If the sin is big enough, people will eventually find out. When they do, the backlash is going to be severe.
A friend of mine who has a CNC machine wants to try this. This kind of stuff is making me think I should start a category called “Gun Control Can Never Work”:
I’ve always wondered how well plastic would work for prototyping. There really isn’t a whole lot on the lower that takes huge stress, especially if you strap a .22LR upper to it for testing.
Ladd Everitt seems to be pretty proud of his performance here:
I am not really impressed, to be honest. For those of you who don’t want to listen to Ladd debate for ten minutes, Everitt’s main assertion seems to be that imperfect enforceability and imperfect deterrence don’t mean the laws are not worthwhile. Our folks note, quite correctly, that laws barring people from carrying guns accomplish nothing, because the likelihood a murderer will be deterred by a sign or law against carrying the gun is vanishingly small. Everitt contends that the same thing could be said for the law on murder itself, so by our logic, we shouldn’t have laws against murder.
The problem Ladd has here is that he hasn’t really spend much time thinking about the law. While I think he brings up a good point, his mistake is to assume that the primary purpose for laws punishing murder is deterrence. I contend that it is not. When people form governments, we surrender certain natural rights to it, and retain others. One right we surrender is the right of retribution. In a natural states, if you come over to my house and kill my brother, I have a natural right to seek retribution for your depriving a loved on of his life. It is difficult, in a civilized society, to allow for individual punishment of crime. So we surrender retribution to the state, who formalizes the process, and ensures justice is served. The primary purpose of laws against murder is not so much that it will deter someone intent on committing it, so much as offers the living a sense that justice was served. If the state fails to be effective as this function, you risk a break down of law and order, and a reliance of vigilantism.
But this is not to say that laws against murder don’t also have deterrent effect. One has to examine how this deterrent effect works, however. Generally speaking, unless you’re scrupulously careful, if you murder someone, you are much more likely than not going to be caught and brought to justice. About 70% of murder cases are solved in the US. This qualifies as a fairly powerful deterrent. I would wager this probably does help keep the murder rate down significantly.
Serving justice can’t possibly be a justification for preventing someone from carrying a firearm, because there is no victim of the crime who will be seeking it. It’s fair to judge a law against the practice solely on its deterrent effect, which is not also true for murder. The problem for Ladd is that the likelihood of being caught with a concealed weapon is infinitesimally small unless you do some kind of screening in the place where carry is prohibited. I’ve been carrying for a decade, and I’ve never been stopped by law enforcement who noticed. Sure, a law prohibiting carrying concealed weapons will have a deterrent effect; it will deter people who are generally law abiding and don’t intend to commit crimes. It will not deter someone who is intending to use that firearm to commit more serious crimes that do have victims that will require justice served. It certainly won’t deter someone who is mentally deranged.
So if the law has a relatively zero change of deterring someone, other than someone who is not intent on committing a crime of violence, why is it incorrect to question whether this is a worthwhile law? What Ladd Everitt defends has a deterrent effect on one intending violence, either through criminal inclinations or madness, that is so vanishingly small is to be logically of no use to society. I think he’s wrong to so quickly dismiss this fact, and to make poor analogies to laws against murder.
