Keep and bear, not use?

Interesting news story yesterday. The Seattle police had sued over the new “use of force” rules, saying in part that it violated their 2nd Amendment rights.

The judge’s decision came down, and she (judge Marsha Pechman) dismissed the suit. According to the KOMO article :
The judge also dismissed the officers’ constitutional arguments, saying that while the Second Amendment ensures the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn’t protect the right to use the weapons.

Ummmm…. Excuse me? That’s like saying you have the right to free speech as long as you don’t say anything.

Quote of the day—Candace Fay

The AR-15 is an assault rifle and in my mind there is no reason why a civilian needs to own an assault rifle.

Candace Fay
p1-fay-10_16_14
Democratic candidate for Connecticut state representative.
October 16, 2014
Carter, Fay spar over gun control at league debate
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

This is also an excellent example of how people intent on doing evil do not fit the Hollywood vision of an evil doer.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rollen "Buddy" Bradshaw

What the gun signs in effect did was disarm a law abiding citizen, and I didn’t feel comfortable being a part of that. I think this makes us safer. In my opinion removing the signs is the same thing as removing a bullseye.

Rollen “Buddy” Bradshaw
County Mayor
October 14, 2014
Signs banning guns taken down at Loudon County government office building
[It’s a Mayor Against Illegal Laws!—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bruce Schneier

We have one infrastructure. We can’t choose a world where the US gets to spy and the Chinese don’t. We get to choose a world where everyone can spy, or a world where no one can spy. We can be secure from everyone, or vulnerable to anyone. And I’m tired of us choosing surveillance over security.

Bruce Schneier
September 19, 2014
Fake Cell Phone Towers Across the US
[A similar statement can be made about gun ownership.

We don’t get to choose between the everyone has guns and only the good guys have guns. The bad guys will always have guns or at least lethal weapons of some sort. And since they get to choose the time, location, and victim they will frequently succeed in their attacks when the innocent are stripped or discouraged from owning guns.

It’s only when the potential victims have the capability of causing near immediate serious consequences that perpetrators give serious consideration to their life choices. If there are not serious consequences then the case can be made they would be stupid to not to take advantage of those who are vulnerable. If the consequences are significantly delayed, as in a possible jail term a year or two in the future, the perpetrators may not be able to integrate those consequences into the decisions being made in the present.

I’m tired of politicians giving us the false choice of tolerating infringements on our right to keep and bear arms in exchange for imagined security.—Joe]

Another nail in the coffin of gun control

Via email from Mike we have ELIZABETH E. MORRIS; and ALAN C. BAKER, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, et al., Case No. 3:13-CV-00336-BLW:

While the Corps retains the right to regulate the possession and carrying of handguns on Corps property, this regulation imposes an outright ban, and is therefore unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny, as set forth in Heller and Peruta.

For all of the reasons cited above, the Court will grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment…

Summary judgment! Can school and Post Office carry be far behind?

Yes, I recognize this decision is dependent upon the Ninth Circuit and other circuits have contrary ruling but when SCOTUS ultimately takes the case we will have that much more data demonstrating the risk, if any, to respecting the right to keep and bear arms is low. Claims of government being “special” will warrant little more than a raised eyebrow.

As Say Uncle said, Ban on guns violates second amendment? Who knew?

Quote of the day—Jane Thynne

It would be surprising, as Amis says, that such a warped psychology as Hitler’s could ever be “a considerate and energetic lover”. Yet, once I began to write about the Nazi wives, I realised that the ability of mass murderers to compartmentalise their lives is one of their most disturbing aspects.

A new documentary about Himmler’s home life, called The Decent One, by the acclaimed filmmaker Vanessa Lapa, focuses on the tender personal letters between Himmler and his wife Marga, largely about their daughter Puppi, even as he perpetrated daily atrocities. It raises the same questions as Thomas Harding’s book Hanns and Rudolf, about the private life of Rudolf Höss, the Auschwitz commandant, whose children played just yards away from the camp, oblivious of the horrors occurring there.

Jane Thynne
October 15, 2014
What Hitler’s sex life was really like
[What I don’t think most people really understand is how easy it was, and is, for people to murder people on a mass scale. Hitler and the Nazi’s are viewed as terrible monsters the likes of which have only been seen once in history. Wrong.

People, across differing societies, accept orders to do terrible things to other people up to and including murder them. Read Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. Or The Gulag Archipelago. Or The Rape Of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust Of World War II. Those are just some of the better known instances.

You can’t imagine our government rounding up people and putting them in camps? “That just can’t happen in this country”? Wrong. It did happen. Read Looking Like the Enemy: My Story of Imprisonment in Japanese American Internment Camps.

The people that inflict these terrible things did not have warning beacons flashing on their foreheads. Many, if not most, were kind to their family and pets and widely admired in society at the time. In both Hitler’s Willing Executioners and The Rape of Nanking, it is documented that the perpetrators sent photos and postcards of their atrocities to their families and the public at large. They were happily doing their jobs for the good of their country and the betterment of mankind.

I think one of the key flags to identify people who do these things are that they believe that the good of society outweighs the rights of the individual. There may be exceedingly narrow circumstances where this is true, Ebola comes to mind but when I hear someone advocate people “make sacrifices for the greater good” I go on full alert. Those are fighting words to me and such a person is, at a minimum, an enabler of, if not an advocate for, the next genocidal tyrant. And as such they deserve all the contempt given Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Karagan Knowles

Gun control laws would not affect any citizen who follows the law. No one wants to take away the right every American has to own a gun. But responsible Gun control is needed to keep all of us safe.

Karagan Knowles
October 13, 2014
Opposing Opinions: Gun Control
[Uhhh… wrong. Every. Single. Sentence.

Laws that require me to seek out and pay a FFL to loan my gun to my girlfriend for the week affect me. Laws that ban nearly every gun I own affect me. Laws that require me to pay a $200 tax and wait many months to purchase a hearing protection device not much larger than my thumb affect me.

There are lots of people who want to take away our guns.

Gun control has never been shown to make anyone safer.

Please try again Ms. Knowles. And this time do a little research rather than just making up stuff as you go.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Shane Smith

After several well publicized instances of the tiny penis brigade marching through Target stores with their artificial manhood in hand, Target announces that they want you to leave your insecurities and guns at home. Since the total number of people who really want to bring a gun to Target stores is about 11, and all of them are unemployed man-children in Texas, I suspect they won’t miss the business. Hell given the number of weekly gun-fails in the US of A they might save more customers lives in a single year than they lose to the Neanderthal crowd.

Shane Smith
July 3, 2014
Stores behaving well!
[It's another Markley’s Law Monday! Via email from Bob S.

Plus we get bonus insults to our maturity and genealogy. Citation needed on the number of people that carry guns into Target stores (I’ve done it dozens of times) and potential for saved lives considering the increased risk from the suggestion that Target stores become victim disarmament zones.

I wonder if he noticed irony of the maturity comment while making references to “the tiny penis brigade”. I suspect not.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Charles Gallagher

There’s a difference between gun culture and hunting culture. They’re talking about hunting in Montana. They’re not talking about walking into a Wal-Mart with a 9-millimeter strapped to their back.

Charles Gallagher
October 10, 2014
Does race shape Americans’ passion for guns?
[Gallagher claims expertise in the field of sociology, race, and guns. I don’t know about his sociology and race credentials but when he talks about “a 9-millimeter strapped to their back” you know he has lots of work to do on the gun side of things.

Other than quoting crap for brains Gallagher in a few places it’s decent article. For CNN to publish this, it’s conclusive proof we are winning.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Marshall Dunlap

No one needs a gun, especially a handgun. The idea that a handgun is essential for self protection is a myth. If someone is pointing a gun at you then it’s too late for you to pull yours out on them. A handgun is worthless for hunting.

The government is not going to invade your home and take away your guns. Gun-rights advocates say that they need their guns in order to keep the government from confiscating them. It’s illogical, paranoid reasoning, especially given the fact that there are already almost enough firearms in private hands to arm every man, woman and child in the country. The government would not need a list in order to come after your guns. All they would have to do is go door-to-door, and they would likely find one.

Marshall Dunlap
October 7, 2014
Gun control: Background-check inconvenience worth it to keep guns from criminals
[Gun owners are illogical and paranoid? This is a few sentences after he says we handguns being used for defense is a myth (tell the police that), they are worthless for hunting and, “No one needs a gun…” And it’s a few sentences before he suggests it would be easy for the police to go door-to-door and confiscate them.

I think Mr. Dunlap is doing some projection and that he is further evidence of why we shouldn’t have registration lists of guns or gun owners.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Martin Fischer

I had a liberal colleague giving me grief about guns and that gun owners are crazy, so I just put the question to her – if someone handed you a loaded gun, what would you do with it? She said “I’d look for someone to shoot”. I told her “That’s the difference between me and you – I’d be looking to be sure it was pointed toward a safe place. You’re the one that needs professional help, not me.”

Martin Fischer
October 4, 2014
Comment to AND SHE STABBED HIM IN THE HEAD: Why Gun Control Supporters Don’t Trust You With Guns
[H/T to Paul Koning.

I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bob Owens

If you ever hear of a gun control rally happening nearby, do yourself a favor and make it a point to attend.

Do not go to share your opinion on the subject or confront their ideas as a counter-protestor, simply go to their event and listen.

If you experience turns out to be anything at all like the experiences I’ve had, you’ll note a sort of nervous energy in the supporters of gun control. If you spend time listening to them, you’ll probably see them swing back and forth from sorrow to a anger, and back again… often within the span of a few minutes. There’s often chanting involved, a repeated catch-phrase, or a mantra to help keep them focused on the cause.

Almost invariably, they’ll veer from mania to depression, and show signs of poor impulse control.

Bob Owens
October 3, 2014
AND SHE STABBED HIM IN THE HEAD: Why Gun Control Supporters Don’t Trust You With Guns
[I can second that.

They have extreme difficulty in clear thinking. The cannot seem to differentiate between facts and feelings. They will literally say, “I don’t believe your facts”. As Lyle says, they are telling us they are insane when they do this.

You can explain that eliminating all “gun deaths” does not mean people are safer and they cannot understand how that can be true and respond with “Huh? totally missed this logic. I don’t think there is any there.

They will pontificate on all they are doing for “gun safety” and then have a deer in a headlight response when you ask how many gun safety classes they have attended or taught.

They will tell you that many lives will be saved if there was a waiting period “so people could cool off” before they could buy a gun. Then when asked, “So, if I go into a gun shop, show them my concealed carry permit and a pistol on my hip then they wouldn’t need to make me ‘cool off’ before purchasing another one, right?” they will shut down the discussion because… well… I guess it’s because they have crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Cody Wilson

What excites me is giving this world to the politicians. Our strategy is to literalize and reify their nightmare, to give them the world they’re talking about.

Cody Wilson
October 1, 2014
The $1,200 Machine That Lets Anyone Make a Metal Gun at Home
[The options available to the politicians are to blatantly infringe upon numerous other rights or have it clearly demonstrated that they have no practical way to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

That works for me.—Joe]

“Research” on the right to carry

H/T to Ubu52 for the link to this recent paper on The Impact of Right to Carry Laws and the NRC Report. NRC stands for “National Research Council”.

First off it really doesn’t matter if the crime rate were to increase as fewer people had their right to carry defensive tools infringed. You don’t see people doing studies on the conviction rates because people invoke their right to have a lawyer present when being questioned by the police. The only reason they are doing these studies is because they want to eliminate or minimize to the maximum extent possible the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.

Here is part of their abstract:

Across the basic seven Index I crime categories, the strongest evidence of a statistically significant effect would be for aggravated assault, with 11 of 28 estimates suggesting that RTC laws increase this crime at the .10 confidence level. An omitted variable bias test on our preferred Table 8a results suggests that our estimated 8 percent increase in aggravated assaults from RTC laws may understate the true harmful impact of RTC laws on aggravated assault, which may explain why this finding is only significant at the .10 level in many of our models. Our analysis of the year-by-year impact of RTC laws also suggests that RTC laws increase aggravated assaults. Our analysis of admittedly imperfect gun aggravated assaults provides suggestive evidence that RTC laws may be associated with large increases in this crime, perhaps increasing such gun assaults by almost 33 percent.

In addition to aggravated assault, the most plausible state models conducted over the entire 1979-2010 period provide evidence that RTC laws increase rape and robbery (but usually only at the .10 level). In contrast, for the period from 1999-2010 (which seeks to remove the confounding influence of the crack cocaine epidemic), the preferred state model (for those who accept the Wolfers proposition that one should not control for state trends) yields statistically significant evidence for only one crime — suggesting that RTC laws increase the rate of murder at the .05 significance level. It will be worth exploring whether other methodological approaches and/or additional years of data will confirm the results of this panel-data analysis and clarify some of the highly sensitive results and anomalies (such as the occasional estimates that RTC laws lead to higher rates of property crime) that have plagued this inquiry for over a decade.

My statistics are sufficiently rusty that I don’t feel comfortable digging into their numbers much. But the first thing that jumped out at me is “11 of 28 estimates suggesting that RTC laws increase this crime”. And what about the other 16 estimates? Are they cherry picking their data? There are other indications that they are. They specifically removed Florida and Georgia data from some of their numbers:

we note is the strong influence of Florida and Georgia on our estimates of the impact of RTC laws on murder (Figure 10). When we remove these two states, the post-adoption trend lines for murder clearly shift upwards.

I didn’t read the entire paper but I didn’t see where they looked for other states to drop to see if the “trend lines for murder clearly shift” downward. What would have the result been had they done so? They justify the drop of Florida and Georgia because of the crack “epidemic” which coincided with the concealed carry laws changes. But if someone found they could drop other states and show a marked downward trend in crime I suspect they could find some other justification for dropping them. It’s easy to convince yourself of something you want to hear. It is far safer to use all the data unless you know a serious measurement error occurred.

Another issue I have with this paper is the apparent complete confidence in correlation equals causation. They always say RTC (Right To Carry) laws cause the increases in crime they found.

But the biggest issue I have is something they never bring up. And I think this is fatal flaw that completely invalidates their paper. They write about the RTC laws causing an increase in violent crime. They never say that the people exercising their rights are responsible for the crimes. I find that absolutely fascinating. I suspect they studiously ignored this obvious jump for a very specific reason. If they had claimed that then their conclusions would have been easily falsified by data that shows people who have concealed carry permits are more law abiding than the general population. Good numbers are a bit hard to come by but see, for example, the Florida numbers on the number of licenses revoked for any reason.

If their conclusions were actually true then why didn’t they go the tiny bit extra and demonstrate it was the result of all those extra people legally carrying guns that inflicted the crime upon the general population rather than just the passage of the law itself?

My hypothesis is that data proves something they have no interest in being publically known.

Update: Another thing I thought of during the night after posting this was that their model for the effect RTC laws have on crime rates is apparently something like the following. People that would not normally commit violent crimes seek out permission from the government to carry a gun. This government permission to carry a gun in public causes/enables/something them to commit crimes. Hence they obey the rules to not carry a gun without government permission then disobey rules against using the gun in an unlawful manner against other people.

Someone has to be pretty messed up in the head to believe that is a viable hypothesis. And further messed up to be able to twiddle with the data enough to confirm their absurd hypothesis.