When I wrote yesterday about a new study that shows mass shootings are not on the rise, I told Bitter, “I’ll bet you Bloomberg’s mouthpieces are going to seize on the raw numbers and ignore the part about controlling for population growth.” And sure enough, right on cue. They have to deceive and distort in order to win, because the facts are not on their side. The fact is that when controlled for population, there’s no trend. But they ignore that, and rather than pointing out flaws in the study, they just leave off key facts and hope their readers don’t notice. I guess Everytown do want to be science deniers!
Year: 2015
Polite Society Podcast
I made an appearance on last Wednesday’s episode of the Polite Society Podcast, speaking about anti-gun folks being after your guns, despite the fact that they constantly say they aren’t. You can find my clip here. The rest of the episode, which includes a fine interview with Jeff Knox of the Firearms Coalition, talking about the Social Security fiasco, can be found here.
The Science is Settled: Mass Shootings Not Increasing
The Congressional Research Service has put out a study (which Reason.com summarizes here) that shows mass shootings are not on the rise, and that there’s no real trend. The numbers tend to be pretty volatile. That’s probably because they don’t represent more than a tiny fraction of the total violent deaths in this country. They do point out that total numbers have gone up, but when controlled for the population increase, there is no trend:
Those are raw totals, without taking population growth into account. If you look at the number of victims per capita, the average has gone up a little from 1970 to today but the numbers are so small that the fluctuations are essentially statistical noise. “Basically, there is no rise,” says Fox, the Northeastern criminologist. “There are some years that are bad, some that are not so bad.”
I would note this study when you see people spreading Bloomberg’s fabricated nonsense about mass shootings reaching epidemic levels. One key thing about this study is it distinguished between types of mass shootings, namely between “mass public shootings,” which is what most of the public thinks of when they hear the term “mass shooting,” and what the study defines as “familicide mass shooting,” and “other felony mass shooting.” I think this is an important distinction, because as the study notes, the public sees a distinction between these types of events.
Also interesting, the study looks at the use of so-called “assault weapons.” 27% of public mass shootings, in only incident in the case of familicide mass shooting, and in 9.7% of other felony mass shootings. Hardly the “weapon of choice” for mass killers that the media would like everyone to believe.
This study will be an important one for our side going forward, given Bloomberg’s desire to overstate the number of mass shootings in an attempt to drive public support for more gun control laws.
It Would Be Nice if Politifact Would Consult Experts
Politifact has taken on claim that the Social Security changes floated by the Obama Administration amount to a huge gun ban for millions of elderly Americans, and have concluded it’s bunk. They have done this because they do not understand the federal gun laws, and did not consult any experts on the topic. They did consult Gary Kleck, it seems, who is a hell of a criminologist, but he’s not an expert on gun laws. Let’s go over Politifacts claims:
The new policy would not ban all Social Security recipients from owning guns. Rather, it would only affect the small fraction who are deemed mentally incompetent, and who are thus are barred from purchasing guns under the law.
No one argued it would. Sure, that’s going around, because most people don’t bother to read, but that’s not an argument NRA has made or the LATimes article made. If you’re debunking the Times article, stick to what they actually argued, not what’s going around on the social media fever swamps.
The policy is not yet in force. When we reached out to the Social Security Administration, a spokesman responded, “We are still developing our policy.”
Well, no shit sherlock. Again, that was not what was argued. They are debunking a straw man, not what was actually argued. I would expect better than this from a site claiming to spread the truth.
The policy would not take away guns from people who already own them. There is no indication that this policy would take guns away from people who already own guns. Rather, the policy would affect the ability of some mentally incompetent people from buying new guns.
Yes it would, because it would essentially mean those people have been adjudicated mentally defective. There’s only one class of person who can’t buy guns but is still free to possess them under federal law, and that’s people who have been charged or indicted for a felony offense. The government needs a legal basis for reporting someone to NICS. If that legal basis is that they are “mentally defected” they are prohibited from possessing firearms, even if they don’t realize they are in the system. This is just flat out wrong, and if they had consulted experts, they would have been told that.
This is a vast exaggeration of the actual policy under consideration. It would not affect all Social Security recipients, but rather those who have already been declared mentally incompetent, and thus ineligible under current law from purchasing a gun.
That wasn’t the criteria reported in the LA Times article. The LA Times article noted the proposal was that anyone who had a fiduciary assigned would be reported to NICS. These people were in no, way shape or form “adjudicated” as the law requires. Many of them, including Bitter’s grandfather, are still capable of handling a firearm safely, they just can’t deal with their own finances. We don’t want our older citizens reluctant to turn over their finances to loved ones, and risk losing property, risk their credit, or risk losing things like heat and running water because in their old age they have become forgetful and absent minded. These people are not a danger to themselves or others, and should not meet the standard for adjudication under the Gun Control Act. Politifact should be ashamed for giving such an important topic, that will affect millions of Americans, the short shrift, and should immediately correct their error.
Silencing Unpopular Opinions
Clayton Cramer published an article about whether homosexuality is driven by childhood sexual abuse. I should note that in his follow up article that I was the blogger he was speaking up here:
Most simply ignored it; one (a supporter of SSM) was surprised that the left hadn’t already burned down my house.
I don’t think there’s anything illegitimate about Clayton’s line of inquiry, and I don’t think any journal should have to fear publishing it. Some of you might remember back in 1994, when this controversial book was published. I doubt today you could find a publisher who would dare publish it. I don’t buy the conclusions in “The Bell Curve” because I believe theory of Intelligence Quotient is crap, but as a society we should be free to discuss these kinds of things.
Today we fear controversial ideas, and to a large degree it seems large portions of our population have become infantilized. Is Clayton’s theory correct? I don’t know. But I don’t see why it should be beyond discussion and legitimate inquiry. The famous quote by Justice Louis Brandeis from Whitney v. California would seem to apply to the situation our society currently finds itself in:Â “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
The Gift that Keeps on Giving
Well, well, well… I guess you can add terrorists to the list of people Fast and Furious was arming. I wish I could say, “It’s amazing no one has gone to jail over this,” but it’s not surprising. Accountability in government has become a quaint notion. I’m particularly curious about this:
Soofi’s attempt to buy a gun caught the attention of authorities, who slapped a seven-day hold on the transaction, according to his Feb. 24, 2010, firearms transaction record, which was reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Then, for reasons that remain unclear, the hold was lifted after 24 hours, and Soofi got the 9-millimeter.
There’s no provision in the Brady Act for a seven day hold. There can be a 72 hour hold while the case is reviewed. After that the dealer can go ahead under a “default proceed.” In this case, the sale was cleared after 24 hours. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) is demanding to know what the reason for the hold was, why the sale was cleared, and why the purchase was allowed to go ahead. The FBI is declining to comment. I would tend to think they’d be eager to comment if this was just an ordinary NICS issue.
Weekly Gun News – Edition 9
I don’t know about you, but days where the mercury tops 90 degrees, well, screw those days. This Friday, we have the annual company outing to Hershey Park, where highs are predicted to be in the mid-90s, with a heaping dose of humidity. I have no plans to visit the water park, but you won’t be able to tell, because I’ll either be covered in sweat, passed out, or both. I’m thinking I’ll be playing a lot of Skee Ball in the air conditioned arcade, and watching the sea lion shows. But enough about the weather, here’s some gun news:
Miguel on CSGV’s protest at the White House: “I have seen bigger crowds at hot dog stands.”
Does MAIG even still exist? I thought Bloomberg deep-sixed MAIG because too many of its members were getting indicted?
Bernie Sanders is under pressure to cave completely on guns. If you look at polling, this would be a bad idea. Even though a majority of Democrats like them some gun control, it’s not an important issue, while about 20% of Democrats own guns, according to polling. The real number is probably a lot higher.
Los Angeles has banned “large capacity” magazines outright. Unfortunately the 9th Circuit already endorsed this.
I have to agree with Tim at Gun Nuts Media that “senseless violence” is a misused term.
WaPo: “Guntry Clubs Target a new Breed of Shooter.” I think we could use a “Guntry Club” here in Southeastern, PA. There are a lot of affluent shooters in the area. We also have a lot of clubs, so perhaps there isn’t the market I would think, but a lot of clubs have hopelessly broken cultures.
Shannon Watts doesn’t think it’s ever too soon to politicize a shooting. They have to reach people when emotions are still raw. Once they start thinking, support for their position drops.
Anti-gun politician shoots home invader. Laws are for the little people.
Eugene Volokh has another take on the ‘Docs v. Glocks’ law. I’m perfectly willing to cut a deal with doctors groups: I’ll respect their 1st Amendment rights if they agree to respect my 2nd.
Business Insider article paraphrased: “Cheer up, gun control people, it’s not as bad as it looks.” No, it’s as bad as it looks.
I see the old home town liberal rag hasn’t changed a bit.
Kurt Schlichter: “American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-gun liberals. Here it is, in its entirety. Ready? ‘Screw you.’ That’s it. Except the first word isn’t ‘Screw.’” We’ve won because we’re persistent. The rest of the center-right coalition could learn a lesson from that.
Second Amendment advocates “cowardly” and “soulless” according to anti-gun group. Even the media can’t understand that a person can both have sympathy for victims of a mass shooter, while also believing in a strong and robust Second Amendment.
Austin Bay: “To Counter Domestic Terror Attacks, Selectively Arm Military Personnel”
NPR: “Flouting The Law, Some New Yorkers Won’t Register Guns.” Some? From the statistics I’ve seen, it seems it would be more accurate to say nearly everyone won’t.
Obama isn’t done with guns yet. I guess we could use another hundred thousand NRA members, and putting a few hundred thousand more ARs in civilian hands. Some extra motivation in 2016 couldn’t hurt either.
In other news, it’s Thursday.
Joe Manchin doesn’t think his bill has a prayer.
Here we go again with the tired and thoroughly debunked “Why don’t we treat guns like cars” argument again. One reason blogging gets tiring is the antis haven’t come up with any new arguments in like two decades.
TrackingPoint looks like it may be hackable.
SayUncle notes that the most segregated place he ever lived was South Jersey. That’s definitely true in the northeast. I’ve never heard of a Catholic neighborhood though, but if a neighborhood was an Italian or Polish neighborhood, it was pretty much Catholic by default.
Something Rotten in New Jersey
Holding out the possibility there’s more to this story than is being reported, am I the only one who read this article and wondered why it’s the kids being charged and not the cop? AÂ story over at NJ.com has more information, where former prosecutors agree that state trooper in question could be in big heap trouble. The trooper claims he believed the kids were burglarizing his house, and there’s also some dispute as to whether he identified himself as a police officer. But you know what? If I shoot at fleeing burglars, I’m going to jail. The fact that the kids called 911 after being shot at also doesn’t speak for the fact that they were attempting to burglarize the house, or that the officer identified himself. If he did not identify himself, according to the article at NJ.com that could mean additional serious charges:
If he’s not treated as an on-the-job officer — and Romankow was more skeptical the trooper would be — any number of other charges might come into play, Bianchi said. Second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose could mean 5 to 10 years, with 3 years of parole ineligibility. Fourth-degree pointing a weapon at another person carries 18 months of parole ineligibility.
If this is a case of an officer losing his cool, at the least it should be the end of his career, and he should face the same charges any similarly situation civilian would face under these circumstances.
Citizens Defending Recruiting Stations & Rifle Open Carry
I’ve seen a lot of discussion about people stepping up to defend military recruiting stations in the wake of the Chattanooga attack, and putting it in the same class as rifle OC. We’ve certainly seen our share of derp associated with some of these folks, but conceptually, I have a difficult time putting this in the same class as people carrying long guns into Target. I think the reason is because context matters. After an attack on a recruiting station, I think people can put two and two together and understand what’s going on. There is context for ordinary people to put this in that doesn’t make it as strange or threatening. I think we could certainly do without the derperators, but I don’t really see a problem conceptually with citizens stepping up responsibly, to do an important  job our government won’t. No one can top this guy, though.
UPDATE: This!
Cut the Cord and Unsubscribe
I’ve been an advocate for some time for gun owners and center-right people of all persuasions to stop giving money to people who hate them. I’ll repeat that no gun owner should subscribe to a paper that insinuates “gun nuts” are either very dumb, or mass murderers. Nor should they pay any coin to people who wish them dead. It’s one thing to pen an op-ed against your position, but quite another to actively hate on millions of fellow Americans.
If you subscribe to a paper that hates you, call now and cancel your subscription, and tell them why. When they have free delivery days, call them and complain about them littering your property with trash. Bitter and I have been trying to convince family to cut the cord and ditch the papers, but for older people, it seems like asking them to cut off a limb. You can find alternatives online which don’t cost money, and if you use an ad blocker, or don’t click on ads, you’re not earning them any money either. Old people complain about the horrible articles in the paper, but they keep giving them subscription money. If someone tells me they hate me, it seems a logical thing to stop giving them my money. That seems masochistic to me.