By attempting to riddle a van with bullets. I say attempting, because they weren’t very good shots.
Category: Crime
Surprise
Federal bureaucracies enjoy trumping up issues that tend to get them more funding from Congress. The Mexican Gun Canard has been a fantastic issue in this regard for ATF and the DOJ. It’s also been a bonanza, and will continue to be, from our opponents. When bureaucratic interests line up in our opponents favor, that’s never a good thing for gun rights.
Vicious Yogurt Attack on I-95
So Sumguy is driving down I-95 in Virginia and gets into an altercation with Sumdude who cut him off. Sumdude throws a container of yogurt at Sumguys’s car. Sumguy brandishes a firearm to ward off the yogurt wielding madman. Take a guess who’s getting charged with the felony and who’s getting charged with the misdemeanor. The answer might be surprising.
Compare and Contrast
This shows the difference between how gun people think versus how other people think better than anything I’ve seen in a long while. The article is in the local paper for Pottstown, Pennsylvania, about a recent shootout in one of their bad neighborhoods. One resident:
And how do you suppose we “take a stand”? They have guns!! We are supposed to depend on law enforcement for protection but there are just too many kids, punks, drug dealing slime balls in this town for them to keep up. My kids know if they hear a gunshot to get to the floor and then crawl to the middle of the house. Unfortunately I can’t move right now and that is the reality of a lot of people in this town. Until they get the drugs off the streets in this town the guns will stay out there and I for one can’t stand up to a gun.
To which I was thinking “So get yourself a gun, and start calling the cops on the drug dealers and gangs. If the cops won’t do anything start a community patrol to kick them off the corners.” Someone else commented:
You Pottstown people need to come out of your submissive shells, and turn the lights on , on these cockroaches. So what if they have guns. Outsmart them, arm yourselves, learn how to shoot. The more of these dirtballs that take a bullet in the skull by Joe citizen protecting himself, they will take the hint and vanish.
That’s a key difference. They want the government to fix the problem, and we value individual initiative.
When Not Being a Criminal is a Problem
Last night, we caught an episode of Border Wars that just really set me off. Most of the folks they featured were caught crossing illegally, and it was pretty obvious. Their documents were either clearly faked, their behavior/clothing/attitude was so off that anyone with common sense would agree there was something worth checking, or they were caught in the act of sneaking across illegally. Yay, we like when law enforcement does a good job of catching those folks.
But then one guy pulled up in his car. He was an American citizen coming back into the country, and they pulled him out of line for a search because his car had some scratches on it and he looked a bit stiff. They pulled in a drug dog who may have possibly smelled something, but it wasn’t a hard hit. They pulled up the carpet, got under the car, yanked everything out, and went through to read any and all papers he had in the vehicle. No sign of any drugs, no indication that the car had been altered to hide drugs, no hit on the person. Nothing. And they were clearly frustrated. Then, one of the officers found a copy of a warrant. They called up to the local authorities who issued the warrant, and they confirmed that the guy had come in, the legal issue was resolved, and he was not wanted for any crime whatsoever. While all of this was going on, the citizen was being detained in their offices. The golden moment came when a supervisor came out and shared in his frustration at not being able to charge him with anything. When the officer doing the search closed up the car and officially declared it clean, the supervisor sighed and said, “Well, you win some, you lose some.”
EXCUSE ME?!?!?!? What fucked up view of the law do you have to have when finding an American citizen who hasn’t committed a crime is a sign of a bad day, and considered “losing some”? Does someone need to head down there with a gentle clue bat reminder that Americans are innocent until proven guilty? And if car scratches and being uncomfortable around officers who view people as guilty until innocent are all the evidence you need of wrongdoing, then I’m sure I should be hauled off.
So, even though there could be more at issue than what’s in the article, my outrage meter has already been set to “OMG – Fire them!” for the week when I read about a case in Philly that involves the police taking guns & licenses off a guy.
On two afternoons in a row last week, Solomon, 24, was arrested after hanging out at a North Philadelphia bus stop, and each time, the cops confiscated from him a legally owned gun and a separate license to carry a gun, the licensed security guard said yesterday.
“They locked me up for loitering at a bus stop,” said Solomon, who has a special concealed-carry permit for security-training officers and one of the controversial gun permits issued by Florida. “And they took my guns away.”
Police think that Solomon was being insolent and used poor judgment, including by showing up armed at the same bus stop at which he was arrested the previous day.
“If he’s that defiant, should this guy have a gun?” said Sgt. Ray Evers, a police spokesman. “The most uncommon human trait is common sense. He’s not using good, adult judgment.”
First, let’s take issue with a cop who classifies the most rare trait in all of humanity as common sense. There’s a reason it’s called common sense. It’s pretty common. If you think it’s the most rare of all traits, then I do believe that means you may be the one lacking it.
Second, would you like to know what Solomon was doing that is considered a violation of this most rare and precious trait we call common sense? Standing at a bus stop. Waiting on a bus. Is it really defiance to continue to wait on a bus? Police say that because he let some busses go by, he was suspicious. That might be the case. But, if his version is remotely true, not unreasonable. He says that the first couple of busses were loaded with kids because school just let out, and he didn’t want to be on a bus full of kids. As someone who recently spent 6 hours surrounded by misbehaving kids on a plane, I’m not going to condemn that judgement. If I had time on my hands, I’d consider waiting for another bus, too. Again, not an unreasonable position.
But, it gets better.
Solomon, of Germantown, an independent contractor who works with the Parapet Group, a security and law-enforcement training company, said he was taken into custody and held for seven hours. He said city police confiscated his gun and his Act 235 license, issued by State Police to security-training officers.
Solomon had received that same gun back one week earlier, after petitioning the courts for months to return it. The gun had been confiscated when he was a passenger during a 2009 car stop, he said, adding that he was never charged in that case. …
[In the latest incident, Solomon] was again taken into custody and held for six hours. He said he received a property receipt for his gun, but not his permit. He was not charged with a crime, according to online court records.
Evers said that Solomon has been “evasive and uncooperative” and that police had every right to take his guns and permits.
So they can’t find anything to charge him with, but they keep taking his guns and permits. More importantly, he’s having to go through legal hassles to get his guns back months after the incidents. I consider myself close to quite a few police officers, so I feel bad highlighting the negative ones in their ranks, but my Lord. Just because a person doesn’t do what you want, doesn’t mean you get to take the gun. You might have a bad feeling about someone, but that doesn’t make them a criminal. You have to do the job of finding evidence and pressing charges, and you know, that crazy process of convicting a person. It’s what our judicial system was founded upon, and our rights should be respected until a person is proven guilty.
Political Violence
Much hay is being made of this incident at a Rand Paul rally:
It’s temping in political discourse to think your side is better than the other, but it’s self delusion. I don’t care if your issue is saving puppies, I’d estimate at least 5 to 15% of your fellow activists are complete assholes. So save me the lefty moral outrage. Personally, I don’t think either the stompers or stompee in this case can claim to be without wrong doing in this particular incident, though only one side bears any legal wrong.
So I do condemn the men who unlawfully restrained and stomped the MoveOn employee, but I also condemn the immature actions of the MoveOn employee that stoked this fire. The Other McCain in his analysis of what’s going on:
When I was covering the big rally in Searchlight, Nevada, I remember Sarah Palin being hustled through a phalanx of security without time to say “hello†or shake hands with her supporters. Even with a press pass dangling around my neck on a lanyard, I was careful not to make any move that Palin’s security might interpret as potentially threatening.
Now imagine if some crazy woman at Searchlight had come shoving through the crowd wearing a blonde wig and carrying a sign mocking Palin.
You see what I’m talking about? I’m not advocating, endorsing or defending the stomping of heads. I’m just saying that this mob scene in Lexington was exactly the sort of situation where these kinds of incidents happen. It’s unfortunate and wrong, but it is ridiculously misleading to politicize this incident as if it were somehow typical of those “crazy right-wingers,†which is what Boehlert, et al., are attempting to do.
That’s why I can’t totally forgive her actions even as I condemn what the two individuals did to her. There were police present in the video if you look closely. One of the stompers is chastising police for refusing to do anything about the woman, but what were they going to do? It’s not illegal to wear a wig in public with a sign. They couldn’t have done anything until she did something illegal, and that something has to be more than approaching the candidate through the crowd, which last I checked was legal. If she had a weapon in her hand, this would have been completely different, but she had a sign. She actually would have been completely justified in using force against the people attempting to unlawfully restrain her.
CeaseFirePA Attacking Corbett
So implies CeaseFire PA, who I can’t imagine has the cash to actually air this video:
Ryan Hacke was killed in 1997, four years before Pennsylvania entered into a reciprocity agreement with the State of Florida, under a different Attorney General than Tom Corbett. His death was certainly a tragedy, but it has exactly nothing to do with the issue being touted.
What you never hear about is Vaughn Mathis, the criminal that murdered Ryan Hacke. We give kudos to Allegheny County for actually prosecuting criminals, which is more than you can say for Philadelphia, but in 1993 Mathis plead guilty carrying without a license and having a firearm with an altered serial number, a first degree misdemeanor and second degree felony respectively. He received probation, though at this point it was illegal for him to purchase or possess a firearm, or get a license to carry in PA or Florida.
It’s worth noting that if he had gotten the maximum allowed under law for the initial weapons charge, he never would have been on the streets to murder Ryan Hecke. But it doesn’t stop there. Mathis was out on bail awaiting trial for rape charges, terroristic threats, and aggravated assault when he committed the murder. The crimes he was out on bail for were committed in 1995, and two years later the state had not yet gotten around to trying him. He was only tried on that arrest after the Hecke murder.
In all this talk of loopholes, guns, our opponents are forgetting about the piece of human debris that pulled the trigger, and the justice system that failed to keep him behind bars and off the streets.
So Many Questions…
Every once in a while, there’s a tweet that can kick start your imagination. The other day, I came across one of those tweets. From @pgPoliTweets:
Watching Smart Talk. Hbg Mayor Thompson just said the solution to downtown crime is to have more vigilantes. Wow!
Harrisburg is bankrupt, so I suppose it could be a cost cutting measure. Regardless, it’s one of those things that makes me happy they accommodate those who choose to carry at the State Capitol since it sounds like folks should be prepared to carry a little more firepower in Harrisburg.
Oh, and I might add that this is a MAIG mayor calling for more vigilantes.
Ask And You Shall Receive: Murder Rates
Someone e-mailed today and mentioned the following:
Strictly speaking, the Bradys don’t argue that gun control will lower violent crime, they argue that it will lower the rate of violent deaths by decreasing the effectiveness of the violent criminals (and by making suicide attempts less successful).Do you have any data on how rates of gun ownership correlate to murder rates (or even to violent death rates including all suicides)?
That much is true. I have heard gun control advocates claim this. I don’t have suicide data readily handy (if someone knows a source, I can plug it into my spread sheet). I also suspect suicide will correlate some, because suicide by gun is more effective, and an option many will pick if it’s available. That’s why they use “gun death.” Â I just don’t think taking away dangerous things from people because they might hurt themselves with it is proper public policy for a free society, statistics be damned. But here’s the murder charts:
Statistically there’s no correlation here. Plotting along X are the Brady scores, and along the Y is the murder rate per 100,000 population of that state. Also, if you look at gun ownership levels versus the murder rate, you get something similarly uncorrelated:
Here we also have no correlation. We have percentage of gun ownership as X, and murder rate per 100,000 as Y. Compared to gun ownership, murder rate is random noise. So what does the murder rate correlate to? I actually did run all these numbers, but did not include them in the original post, because it was rather long. Murder correlates weakly to poverty indicators, as does violent crime. It’s uncorrelated with urban density, though Brady score is strongly correlated with urban density. I was surprised that urban density does not correlate with violent crime or murder. Not surprised urban density plays a role in how much gun control a state has.
The essential thesis stands. Gun control does not accomplish what it’s advocated to do. The typical retort from gun control advocates to statistics like these is “Well, gun control in this country has never been tried.” That might be true, but to the extent it has been tried, it’s failed. Given the constitutional and political realities present in this country, it’s an academic argument anyway. The types of gun controls promoted by the Brady Campaign do not work, unless they want to offer their own statistical model that shows it does.
Debunking MAIG’s Latest Study
By now everyone has seen MAIG’s latest study that I said seemed to jump to conclusions. Not wanting the other side to have a monopoly on drawing conclusion based on data, I’ve been looking more closely at the data in my <sarcasm>copious free time</sarcasm>, and compiling this post. I am by no means a statistical expert, and I hope that someone like Power of Epsilon Blog can look this over and tell me if it looks reasonable. A large percentage of the MAIG study seems to hinge on 2009 Interstate Export Ranking, which is based on traces per capita, in this case the number of guns traced back to a state per 100,000 people in that state. The first thing I decided to do is use the Brady score as a proxy for how many MAIG-approved gun control laws a state has passed. Since MAIG and Brady have the same agenda, this would seem reasonable. There is a slight correlation, but it’s not remarkably strong:
These look inversely correlated, which would would no doubt please the Brady folks, but the set has a correlation of -0.56, which for a sample size of 50, isn’t all that remarkably strong. So I set out to find out which data the trace per 100,000 data does correlate strongly with, to see if we can find an explanation.
Here we have traces per 100,000 persons on the X-axis, compared to household gun ownership on the Y-axis. Now that’s a better correlation, with an Pearson r value of 0.65, which is strong. This makes sense. States with a higher household gun ownership have more guns to later be traced by ATF. MAIG’s statistic could be just as easily explained by the fact that states with high rates of gun ownership have more guns stolen than states with low rates of gun ownership, and that states with low rates of gun ownership necessarily have fewer legal channels for purchasing guns. States with fewer gun owners have fewer legal sources for guns to be traced back to. It’s hardly surprising this correlates more strongly than law.
But to me, this isn’t where the rubber truly meets the road. Any promotion of gun control s public policy ultimately has to face off with Joe’s question. It’s here that MAIG’s research falls apart.
Despite the very slight upward trend line, the correlation here is 0.09, which for a sample size of fifty is essentially uncorrelated. Even if you were to assume that the states which are exporting guns are exporting violence, this doesn’t seem to be the case, since that would result in a negative correlation. If you were to assume that states with high rates of gun ownership, and thus high traces, were more violent, you would also be wrong. In fact, here’s the graph of the correlation between household gun ownership percentages and violent crime:
The general trend line is slightly dropping as gun ownership increases along the x-axis, but the correlation here is -0.13 which for a sample size this small is essentially uncorrelated. Note that I’m counting violent crime as a whole, not just “gun violence” and not “gun deaths” (counting suicides) as our opponents like to do. It does most people little comfort if they are stabbed to death, as opposed to being shot. Getting your head bashed by a baseball bat is likewise unpleasant. Overall rates of violent crime are all the really matter.
Interestingly enough, one of the strongest correlations I came across was the correlation to Brady Score and levels of household gun ownership in that state, which had a Pearson’s r value of -0.73, meaning the higher the Brady score goes, the lower household gun ownership becomes, and that the Brady Score is a reasonable predictor of levels of gun ownership in a given state. But the Bradys can’t argue their score is a predictor for violent crime, as the correlation between Brady Score and violent crime in a given state is 0.02, which is uncorrelated.
A possible conclusion that could be drawn is that all the Brady agenda accomplishes is driving down overall levels of gun ownership, while having no discernible effect on violent crime. This would lend support to the theory that gun control only disarms the law abiding. One wonders how anyone can support an agenda that does not accomplish its claimed goal, but I would argue that driving down overall levels of gun ownership is exactly what our opponents mean to accomplish. Gun control has never been about combating crime, but about combating gun ownership itself. This article from the Untied Kingdom is no better example of this. In this sense, gun control has been a rousing success where it’s been tried, it’s just a shame it does nothing to lower violent crime.