On The Wrong Path

For John, BLUF:  I don't think we can end gun violence going down the path laid out by the Democratic Majority in Congress.  Not all paths lead to success.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Together, we can end gun violence.

From Congresswoman Lori Trahan, 13 March 2021, 9:01 AM.

Here is the lede plus one:

I normally try not to clog your inbox with multiple emails in the same week, but this is too important to wait.

Each year, tens of thousands of people in the United States -- including thousands of children -- lose their lives to senseless and preventable gun violence.  As an American, this sickens me.  As a mom, it infuriates me.

On Thursday, I took action.  The House took up and passed two key pieces of legislation to get at the root cause of the gun violence epidemic in our nation.  These bipartisan bills would require universal background checks on all gun purchases and finally close the “Charleston Loophole,” which allows guns to wrongly be sold to violent offenders and domestic abusers.

I applaud our Congresswoman, Ms Lori Trahan, for trying to do the right thing.

I fear, however, she and her colleagues are looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope.  Over half our gun deaths are suicides.  Yet we do not lead the world in suicides.  We are middling.  Yes, many of our suicides are from guns.  That said, I don't think a lack of guns will reduce suicides.  Other nations, with stricter gun laws, have more suicides.  When people wish to commit suicide, and our mental health support is weak,♠ they will find a way.

As to the smaller proportion of gun deaths, from Wikipedia we have:

Gun violence against other persons is most common in poor urban areas and is frequently associated with gang violence, often involving male juveniles or young adult males.

So, it isn't evenly spread across the nation, but is concentrated in pockets.  To me that suggests there are factors other than, or in addition to, the availability of guns.  Further, the gun of death is not the rifle,♥ but the handgun.

So gun violence seems focused in poor urban areas.  What impact would a 3% change in the Labor Participation Rate have on this?  I think noticeable. We need change.  We need some creative thinking.  Congresswoman Trahan should hire an analytic contrarian.

On the other hand, it probably wont be me.  I am a creative thinker,♦ but I am older and I am a Republican.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Our mental health system is not good.  The reason is that when problems of the old system were exposed in court, the state (and Federal) governments just abandoned the mentally ill to their fate.
♥  This suggests that the vaunted ban on 206 "assult weapons" is not the key to stopping gun violence.
♦  In Elementary School my teacher wrote on my Report Card that I was a "Critical Thinker".  My Mother told me the techer probbly meant "Critical Stinker."

Is Mass Murder Out of Control?

For John, BLUF:  .  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Comparing the Global Rate of Mass Public Shootings to the U.S.’s Rate and Comparing Their Changes Over Time

From SSRN, by Researcher John R. Lott, 28 September 2020.

Here is the Abstract for a longer paper from the Social Science Research Network (SSRN):

The U.S. is well below the world average in terms of the number of mass public shootings, and the global increase over time has been much bigger than for the United States.

Over the 20 years from 1998 to 2017, our list contains 2,772 attacks and at least 5,764 shooters outside the United States and 62 attacks and 66 shooters within our country.  By our count, the US makes up less than 1.13% of the mass public shooters, 1.77% of their murders, and 2.19% of their attacks.  All these are much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population.  Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, they are also much less deadly on average.  Out of the 101 countries where we have identified mass public shootings occurring, the United States ranks 66th in the per capita frequency of these attacks and 56th in the murder rate.

Not only have these attacks been much more common outside the US, the US’s share of these attacks has declined over time.  There has been a much bigger increase over time in the number of mass shootings in the rest of the world compared to the US.

This is inconvenient.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Arming the Citizens

For John, BLUF:  When guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Look at Shooting at Church of Christ, White Settlement, Texas♠

This is from the InstaPundit himself, 1 January 2020.

Here is the blog post:

AND DESERVEDLY SO:  USA Today Dragged to Hell Over Op-Ed on ‘Terrifying’ Heroism in Texas Church Shooting.

Well, here’s some stuff we know about the other armed parishioners that we allegedly know nothing about.  First, they stood up to place their own bodies at risk (“Greater love hath no man,” etc. So the Bible says, and it still is news.)  Second, when Jack Wilson put down the gunman with a single shot, they calmly reholstered their weapons.  Nobody took any unnecessary shots, nobody shot anyone else by accident, and that was that.  Honestly, this is better performance than you’d expect — or usually get — from a like number of law enforcement officers, who nowadays seldom seem to let things stop with one shot, and whose shooting ability seems well below what was displayed here.  So we do know some pretty important things.  The oped author was just too dense, or bigoted, to notice.

Note the reference to police shootings.  This went much better than some famous police shootings, such as the New York Police handling of the Amadou Diallo case or the Chicago Police shooting of Laquan McDonald.

This is not to obscure the fact that the police have a difficult job, requiring split second decisions, some of which will be the wrong decision.  The vast majority will be the right decision.  However, the police are not always on scene when a gunman shows up.  Then it is up to the Immediate Responders, you and me.  The folks at the Church of Christ were exemplary.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  White Settlement is a strange name.  The residents voted on a name change, back in 2005, but the proposed change failed.

Accepting Responsibility

For John, BLUF:  Now that gun manufacturers may be sued over guns used in crimes, this could not be far behind.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Supreme Court Allows Victims Of Heart Disease, Obesity To Sue Utensil Manufacturer

From The Babylon Bee, 15 November 2019.

Here is the lede plus three:

Acme Forks & Knives was trying to block a lawsuit brought against them by the obese community.  The lawsuit suggested that the company's utensils were deadly tools that caused people to become overweight.

The Supreme Court has blocked the company's attempt to block the lawsuit, paving the way for victims of heart disease and other diet-related ailments to sue Acme.

"Finally---the big forks and knives lobby will be held accountable for contributing to heart disease and obesity, the leading causes of death among American adults," said a spokesperson for the oppressed obese community.  "No human action leads to these deaths.  It is entirely on the sentient utensils used to carry out the mass eating events."

"Blood is on their hands!" protesters cried.  "Fight the corporate fork and knife lobby!"

Seems reasonable to me.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Gun Confiscation

For John, BLUF:  CandidateBeto promised to grab our AR-15s, but I have my doubts about impimentation.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Colorado's Large-Capacity Magazine Ban Is a Colossal Failure

Here is the sub-headline:

Can't buy it?  That's okay, you can easily get the pieces to build one yourself.

From Reason, by Mr Noah Shepardson, 14 November 2019.

Here is the lede:

An unintended loophole in a Colorado gun control bill illustrates what happens when lawmakers legislate technology they don't understand:  Firearms owners find a way to work around the law without breaking it.

While I think the Democrats can garner votes by going for gun control, I think it will also repeal many other voters.  And you average American will resist laws he or she finds to be wrong.  And this is a good thing.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Gun Grabbing

For John, BLUF:  I wonder if Beto saw this, or Senator E Warren.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

New Zealand’s Gun Confiscation Shaping Up To Be Massive Failure

From Bearing Arms, by Blogger Cam Edwards, 4 November 2019.

Here is the lede plus three:

New Zealand’s gun grab, instituted in the wake of the Christchurch massacre, isn’t going so great.  In fact, with less than two months to go before the government-imposed deadline, fewer than 20% of the estimated number of banned firearms have been handed over.

New Zealand Police Minister Stuart Nash announced this week that more than 32,000 prohibited weapons have been returned to the government since collections began in mid-July.  Some estimates put the number of newly-banned military-style semi-automatic rifles in the country at up to 175,000.

This would suggest a compliance rate, so far, as low as 18 percent, 16 weeks into the buyback program.  With seven weeks left to go until the amnesty period ends, if the current rate of return holds, the New Zealand government is on track to collect around 50,000 prohibited weapons pursuant to the buyback.  That would impute a final compliance rate of around 29 percent, at the lower end, which would represent a modest but tangible success for policymakers.

A “modest but tangible success”?  I think it’s more like a complete failure.  Let’s say when the deadline passes less than one third of the banned firearms have been turned in.  What exactly has been accomplished, other than the compensated confiscation of a few thousand firearms and the criminalization of tens of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens?

There is no "Second Amendment" in New Zealand, explicitly enumerating the right to bear arms as a Right of the People, and yet tens of thousands of Kiwis are keeping their guns, rather than turning them in.

I wonder, if they are listening, what message Democrats take away from this?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

It Doesn't End With Guns

For John, BLUF:  In the effort to stop murder and mayhem by elimination of the tools there is a never ending chain of items to be banned.  It will not end with the AR-15 and the AK-47.  Then it will be all guns, and then knives and then….  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Let us pray for our bishop, Mug

From Samizdata, by Ms Natalie Solent (Essex), 26 September 2019.

Here is the lede plus six:

Church leaders urge government to ban pointed kitchen knives.

Church leaders in the Diocese of Rochester have called for the government to enforce stricter rules on the sale of domestic knives.

They’ve written an open letter asking for a ban on the sale of pointed kitchen knives.  The letter was also signed by leading crime experts, as well as MPs, and community leaders.

“Historically we needed a point on the end of our knife to pick up food because forks weren’t invented.  Now we only need the point to open packets when we can’t be bothered to find the scissors,” the letter reads.

It continues:  “A five-year study in Edinburgh found that of the sharp instruments used in homicides, 94 per cent were kitchen knives.  Research demonstrates kitchen knives are used in a large percentage of homicides due to their availability and lethal nature.

“Criminologists have demonstrated that reducing availability in turn reduces crime.

“The UK has worked for the public good by restricting handguns, paracetamol, smoking in public and plastic bags – now it is time to say ‘no bloody point’.”

.

Regards  —  Cliff

Gun Red Flag Law Hypocrisy

For John, BLUF:  The Democrats in Congress are serious about gun control, just not for everybody.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Dems Veto Red Flag Law for Gangbangers

From The American Thinker, by Daniel John Sobieski, 21 September 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

If Democrats were serious about using red flag laws to keep guns out of the hands of people who might use them to senselessly murder others and therefore are danger to society, and not just as a gun-control tool to disarm law-abiding citizens, then why did they kill an attempt to use compiled lists of known gang members, which many police departments and law enforcement agencies possess?  Why did they kill a measure to red flag gang members?  And if Beto O’Rourke is going to come and take our guns, particularly our AR-15s, is he going to start on the south side of Chicago?

Read the whole thing to see the excuses.  But, gangs are killing a lot of people with guns, just not always four per event.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Anti-Gun Culture

For John, BLUF:  Our betters believe they have to save the rest of us from our ignorance.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Guns and the ‘New Class’

Here is the sub-headline:

Column:  Why the debate over gun control is so polarized

From The Washington Free Beacon, by Mr Matthew Continett, 9 August 2019.

Here is the lede plus three:

The pattern was established long ago. A killing spree happens.  The Democratic Party and mainstream media erupt in calls for gun control.  Republicans shy away from cable news for a few days. Various fixes to the background check and mental health systems are proposed, video games are criticized, and eventually our attention turns elsewhere, until another spectacular attack restarts the cycle.  President Trump increases the volume and heightens the perceived stakes.  The advocates of gun control, such as Elizabeth Warren, say he's a "white supremacist.  Opponents of regulation say he's the only thing that stands between them and dispossession of their Second Amendment rights.

Disentangling the various threads of argument in the debate over guns, mass shootings, mental illness, white nationalism, and domestic terrorism would take volumes.  What interests me, as someone who is inclined to support some gun controls, is why the debate takes the shape it does.  Indeed, the fact that I, a child of the D.C. suburbs and graduate of Columbia University, am a self-confessed squish on guns points to a possible explanation.  For the argument over firearms is not really over any of the specific proposals floated in the aftermath of mass murder.  It is over who shall direct the shape of American society, and by what means.

Beginning in the 1970s, some of the writers and editors who became known as neoconservatives observed changes in the American elite.  The tradition of liberal internationalism, which held individual liberty as the preeminent value and believed in equality of opportunity, as well as a safety net, was under assault.  A rising generation of activists charged liberal internationalism with hypocrisy: not only abroad, where intervention in Vietnam had run aground, but also at home, where formal equality under the law had not produced substantive results.  Something was wrong with America, the students said. Only a fundamental transformation of our nation would set things aright.

Neoconservatives called this incipient elite the "new class."  It consists, Irving Kristol wrote in 1975, "of scientists, lawyers, city planners, social workers, educators, criminologists, sociologists, public health doctors, etc.—a substantial number of whom find their careers in the expanding public sector rather than the private." To that list one might add journalists, professors, post-docs, adjuncts, foundation officers, and a great number ofprogrammers, managers, human resource officers, and CEOs.  The neoconservatives never defined the "new class" precisely—something their critics pointed out.  The category was meant to be a catchall, a handy description of the well-schooled professionals who began their long march through America's academic, media, entertainment, government, and corporate institutions in the aftermath of 1968.

The New Class is an excellent term, but it wasn't invented here.  Yugoslav intellectual Milovan Đilas, who defined the Communist apparatchiks as The New Class in his book of the same name.  Per Wikipedia:  "He proposed that the party-state officials formed a class which 'uses, enjoys and disposes of nationalised property'".

Here is how the article ends:

No amount of evidence showing the inefficacy of gun control, or the virtues of alternative policies, will convince the new class to drop its crusade for regulation.  That is not just because guns are safety hazards.  It is because guns remind the new class that it has not succeeded in imposing the values of one part of the country, and one segment of the population, on the rest.

Isn't that the truth!

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Watch Your Hand Gestures!

For John, BLUF:  Don't point your index finger as someone, with your thumb up and your other fingers curled back.  At least in Pennsylvania it can get you in trouble.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Making a 'Gunlike Hand Gesture' Is a Crime, Pennsylvania Court Rules

From Pajama Media, by Mr Rick Moran, 29 August 2019.

Here is the lede plus two:

Remember the case of a 7-year-old Maryland boy who ate his pop tart into the shape of a gun?  He was suspended for two days because he apparently upset some of his classmates.

The kid's parents sued and the case was eventually settled.  The boy was suspended for two days, but at least he wasn't charged with a crime.  Unfortunately, 64-year-old Stephen Kirchner wasn't so lucky.

A Pennsylvania court ruled that Kirchner could be charged with "disorderly conduct" for the crime of pretending his hand was a gun and pointing the "gun" at his neighbor.  Another neighbor saw the gesture and became frightened enough to call 911.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Blacks and Guns

For John, BLUF:  The history of Blacks and the Second Amendment is complex.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Mass shootings are a call to arms for some black Americans, not a moment for gun control

Here is the sub-headline:

Black gun rights advocates say limiting access would make them more vulnerable to racist attacks, especially in the absence of real problem solving.

From USA Today, by Mr Kim Trent, 26 August 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

Black Americans have had a curious relationship with firearms.  These weapons were used to keep them subdued during slavery, then terrorized in the Jim Crow south.  African-American gun advocates argue that guns also preserved our ancestors’ peace when they were menaced by racists in the antebellum South and the divided North.  They argue that, as with all social issues in America, the role of race cannot be downplayed in gun control debates.

I am an adamant proponent of what I believe to be sensible gun reform.  But I also recognize that America’s offirearm fetish won’t be addressed by folks like me having conversations in a vacuum.  So I reached out to Kofi Kenyatta, a gun rights advocate I deeply respect, to get his take on how the issue affects America in general and the black community specifically.

Those with a smattering of post-Civil War history know that "gun control" legislation was a way of keeping guns out of the hands of Black Americans.  I don't think now is the time for Blacks to walk away from the Second Amendment.  Nor other thinking Americans to walk away.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Mass Murder as Domestic Terrorism

For John, BLUF:  I checked The Center On Terrorism website and din't see a link to the data mentioned.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Let's tackle mass shootings like we do terrorism

From The Hill, by Opinionator Courtney La Bau, 1 September 2019.

Here is the lede plus two:

Mass shootings are a uniquely American tragedy.  I have worked in the extremism and counterterrorism space for a long time, as a federal contractor for the Department of Homeland Security and as a national security expert for several think tanks around the world.  I have sat in prison cells and interviewed convicted terrorists.  I have sought to understand the nuances of violent hate whether it manifests in an ISIS-inspired bombing in Sri Lanka or a white supremacy-driven shooting in El Paso.

What I have seen is a common narrative: hatred, the notion of superiority and cleansing, and mobilization to violence in the name of an ideology.  But in the United States, we’ve chosen to fight back a lot harder against the kinds of violent extremism perpetrated by foreigners or those with a certain color of skin.  We created a vast toolkit to counter al Qaeda and ISIS, but we do nothing to prevent these homegrown extremists who happen to be white from accessing weapons of mass destruction in our country.

Though the radicalization process might be the same across the extremism spectrum, the numbers do not lie.  The Center on Extremism released statistics showing that 73 percent of extremist-related murders in the U.S. over the last 10 years (through 2018) were committed by right-wing domestic extremists.

Except the Global War on Terrorism isn't working.  The current Administration is working on a way to pull out of Afghanistan, but without having eliminated terrorism.

The other thing is that gun violence in certain neighborhoods in Chicago, and other cities, is a major source of terror for individuals and families.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Root Causes of Mass Murders

For John, BLUF:  Mass murders need a better explanation if they are going to be halted.  Or maybe they are just the cost of our current culture, a price we are willing to pay for the satisfaction of other ego issues.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Mass Shootings:  A Materialist Horror

From The American Conservative, by Blogger Rod Dreher, 13 August 2019.

We are told that Mass Murders are not the result of mental illness.  The knifing spree in Garden Grove, California, the same weekend as the El Paso and Dayton shootings, suggests it isn't guns, or just guns that cause mass murders.♠  We need a better explanation.

From Mr Dreher's Blog we have this start:

Tara Isabella Burton is telling us something very, very important about these mass killers:

Domestic right-wing terrorists, like the man accused of the shooting last weekend in El Paso, are not so different from their radical Islamist counterparts across the globe — and not only in their tactics for spreading terror or in their internet-based recruiting. Indeed, it is impossible to understand America’s resurgence of reactionary extremism without understanding it as a fundamentally religious phenomenon.

Unlike Islamist jihadists, the online communities of incels, white supremacists and anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists make no metaphysical truth claims, do not focus on God and offer no promise of an afterlife or reward. But they fulfill the functions that sociologists generally attribute to a religion: They give their members a meaningful account of why the world is the way it is. They provide them with a sense of purpose and the possibility of sainthood. They offer a sense of community. And they establish clear roles and rituals that allow adherents to feel and act as part of a whole. These aren’t just subcultures; they are churches. And until we recognize the religious hunger alongside the destructive hatred, we have little chance of stopping these terrorists.

She goes on to describe how these ideological communities serve as pseudo-religions for their members. It’s hard to overstate the importance of what she’s seeing here. As I’ve been saying, Hannah Arendt says these factors are exactly the kind of thing that, when it went viral (so to speak), created 20th century totalitarianism.

Here is the last paragraph:

Tara Isabella Burton suggests that the apocalyptic violence we keep seeing in these mass shootings are social and psychological consequences of metaphysical materialism.  She’s right, I believe.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  While our laws do need to be strengthened with regard to background checks and "red flag" actions, adding more laws will never be enough.  Politicians who promise "gun control" as the answer are liars, or so misinformed as to never be qualified for your vote.

Gun Control Statistics

For John, BLUF:  "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."—H. L. Mencken.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED:  I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

This 13 August 2019 blog post at InstaPundit, by Professor Glenn Reynolds, highlights an article in The Washington Post, I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.  The Author, Leah Libresco, is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site.  She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”

Here is the key excerpt:

The thing to understand is that gun control isn’t about saving lives.  It’s about humiliating the deplorables and keeping them in their place.  It’s culture war of the crassest kind.

Then there is Senator Ed Markey's Primary opponent in 2020, Ms Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.  She has come out for abolishing the Second Amendment.

Hat tip to InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Violence in Society

For John, BLUF:  Last year the Lord Mayor of London came out strongly against knives with over a three inch blade.  Sort of a British version of New York's Sullivan Law.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

After murder rate passes NYC, London Mayor Sadiq Khan calls for sharper knife control

This is a flashback to April of last year.

From USA Today, by Mr William Cummings, 9 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced a crackdown on knives Sunday in response to the rising levels of violence in London, which recently surpassed New York City's homicide rate for the first time.

"No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife," Khan tweeted.  "Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law."

While firearms may make killing easier, there seems to be no limit to the tools employed by those who wish to express their anger by violence.  Yes, guns are used in the United States (and elsewhere), but world-wide there is use of knives, airplanes, knives, fire, high explosives, poison gas and other tools of violence.  Remember, so called "Angels of Death" use medical tools to kill over time.

On the other hand, we are assured by the Media that the kind of violence we saw about ten days ago (El Paso, Dayton, Garden Grove) had nothing to do with mental health.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Nuking the Gun Owners

For John, BLUF:  The way I see it, no matter the degree of "gun control" there will always be another incident, and people calling for more "gun control".  There will never be enough gun control for those who seek gun control.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

How Much Blood Would Leftists Be Willing To Shed To Disarm Patriotic Americans?

From Town Hall, by Mr Kurt Schlichter, 6 December 2018.

Here is the key question:

My question for Congressjerk Eric Swalwell is pretty simple: “How many Americans would you murder to achieve your goal of disarming us?”

This came from California Democratic Congressman Swalwell texting that the Federal Government has nuclear weapons with which to respond to any resisting armed citizenry.

Of course Snopes says it was a joke, and thus not real.  Still, not something to joke about.

By the way, Author Kurt Schlichter has a new book out on a Blue/Red Civil War in the United States, Wildfire

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Do We Really Know the Facts Regarding Guns?

For John, BLUF:  Yes, defensive gun use is a thing, and a big thing.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence that Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns

Here is the sub-headline:

CDC surveys in the 1990s, never publicly reported, indicate nearly 2.5 million defensive uses of guns a year.  That matches the results of Gary Kleck's controversial surveys, and it indicates more defensive than offensive uses of guns.

From Reason Magazine, by Mr Brian Doherty, 20 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

Many people who support gun control are angry that the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are not legally allowed to use money from Congress to do research whose purpose is "to advocate or promote gun control."  (This is not the same as doing no research into gun violence, though it seems to discourage many potential recipients of CDC money.)

But in the 1990s, the CDC itself did look into one of the more controversial questions in gun social science:  How often do innocent Americans use guns in self-defense, and how does that compare to the harms guns can cause in the hands of violent criminals?

It is free.  Read the whole article.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

CDC Gun Study

For John, BLUF:  The problem with real studies is that you might learn new things.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’

Warning, the Way Back Machine

Source is CNS News, by Ms Alissa Tabirian, 17 July 2013.

Here is the lede plus two:

“Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).  The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,”  the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

The report, which notes that “ violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past five years,” also pointed out that “some firearm violence results in death, but most does not.”  In fact, the CDC report said, most incidents involving the discharge of firearms do not result in a fatality.

So, a CDC gun study that seems to say they may be of some value in the hands of civilians.

Remarkable.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Gun Control and The Second Amendment

For John, BLUF:  Since an "assault" weapons ban will not end shootings, over time the gun control folks will wish to further and further restrict gun ownership.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

I had been hearing about this on the news and traced it from InstaPundit to Hot Air and Cap't Ed Morrissey, back to the original Old Gray lady Opinion Piece by retired Supreme Court Justice, "John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment".

So the former Justice wants us to repeal the Second Amendment.  What are the odds?  Not high.  Two-thirds of each House of Congress and approval by three-quarters of the states (38).  There are some variations, like having a Constitutional Convention, but basically it is hard.  There aren't that many Amendments.

The other thing is that if owning a gun is a natural right, then eliminating the Second Amendment won't change that.  Maybe a Constitutional Amendment saying that civilians shall not own weapons (guns, swords, knives?) should be the law of the land.

Then there is the question of who SHOULD have weapons.  The police, but perhaps not the cop on the beat.♠  Then there are all those other Federal (and State) agencies, as Forbes points out:

The number of non-military federal officers with arrest and firearm authority (200,000+) now exceeds the number of U.S. Marines (182,000).  Spending on guns, ammo and military-style equipment at 67 federal agencies – including 53 regulatory, administrative agencies amounted to $1.48 billion between 2006-2014.  The IRS gun-locker is an example of this growing federal firepower.  Nearly $11 million was spent on guns, ammo and military-style equipment for 2,316 ‘special agents’ during this period.  The IRS stockpile includes pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns with buckshot and slugs; and semi-automatic AR-15 rifles (S&W M&P 15) and military-style H&K 416 rifles.

Finally, how will this anti-gun stance work in November of this year, when we vote in a new House of Representatives and a third of the US Senate?

Exit question:  If you need to be 21 to purchase a gun, should you have to be 21 in order to exercise the right to vote?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Given that the police have no special responsibility to protect the individual, why should they be armed when we are defenseless?  It doesn't seem balanced and fair.

How to Prevent a Shooting—Enforce the Law

For John, BLUF:  Enforce the laws, please.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Existing gun control law barred Devin P. Kelley from buying a gun.

This is about the 5 November shooting at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas.

By Law Professor Ann Aulthouse.

Here is the lede plus one:

This bolsters that standard anti-gun-control argument that what we need is to enforce the laws we already have. The NYT reports:

A day after a gunman massacred parishioners in a small Texas church, the Air Force admitted on Monday that it had failed to enter the man’s domestic violence court-martial into a federal database that could have blocked him from buying the rifle he used to kill 26 people.

Under federal law, the conviction of the gunman, Devin P. Kelley, for domestic assault on his wife and toddler stepson — he had cracked the child’s skull — should have stopped Mr. Kelley from legally purchasing the military-style rifle and three other guns he acquired in the last four years....

Passing more laws is exciting political theater, and there's ongoing enthusiasm for the show (and the attendant opportunities to express contempt for fellow citizens who don't want more laws burdening law-abiding people).

Yes, the Air Force (or someone within the Air Force) dropped the ball on this.  And there were consequences, including the death of one of its own, Retired Air Force Chief Master Sergeant Robert Corrigan, and his wife Shani.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff