Month: April 2008

I might actually be able to say I agree with The Brady Campaign that the parking lot laws that are being passed in various states are wrong, but this is just so much PSH that it almost makes me want to support them.

A May 2005 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that workplaces where guns were permitted were 5 to 7 times more likely to be the site of a workplace homicide compared to workplaces where guns were prohibited.

Reading over the study, it suffers from many of the same flaws the infamous Kellerman study it cites suffers from, namely it allows the reader to jump to a conclusion that because workplace homicide correlates with gun policy, that it must be gun policy that causes workplace homicide.  If allowing concealed weapons license holders to carry at work caused homicide in the workplace, then the Brady’s would have us believe that this demographic, which has shown itself to be exceptionally law abiding everywhere else, will suddenly start murdering people when it comes to workplace disagreements.

The study also doesn’t pass the smell test, in that it seems rather absurd to believe that a workplace policy on guns would actually prevent someone intent on mowing down his coworkers.  Do derranged and disgruntled sociopaths wake up in the morning, load up the AK-47, and then think “Oh, but damn, the employee handbook says I can’t.”  I don’t think even the Brady’s are warped enough to believe that.

I’m late linking to this post by Dr. Helen, since I tend to keep things open in tabs that I mean to blog about, and sometimes I don’t.  But I wanted to get back to this one:

I think the point about gun owners being less outraged than non gun owners is an important one. If you listen to many people who are adamant gun control supporters, they often (mistakenly) believe that people simply shoot others because they are impulsive and angry, and a gun is nearby. My guess is that this is projection. This is what they feel they would do because they do not know how to modulate their own anger. They do not trust their own instincts (maybe with good reason!) and project their anger and inability to control themselves onto others.

A question in my mind is whether these people avoid weapons specifically because they consciously believe they could not handle them?  Or do their anger issues unconsciously create an aversion toward weapons?  Its difficult for me to understand the mindset.  Why don’t such angry people fear people with baseballs bats, kitchen knives, or golf clubs?  All are pretty deadly weapons in the hands of someone who can’t control their anger.  The other curious thing is whether these people, given access to firearms, would actually fly off the handle and kill someone.  I suspect they probably would not.  I’d imagine these people are probably more frightened of their own temper than anything, which is difficult to understand given that to not be in jail, that person would have had to exercise a considerable degree of self-control if they did have a temper.

David has uncovered some useful information about our friends at AHSA.  Bitter actually has a lot of expeirence professionally in this area of non-profit, so we’ll have to dig too.  Typically, it’s not unusual for a group like AHSA, which I’m guessing is organized as a 501(c)(4), to have a 501(c)(3) foundation to cover activities which 501(c)(3)s can do.  NRA also does this.

A (c)(3) can advocate for a political position, such as gun control, but it’s more limited in terms of lobbying for legislation.  Generally only about 15% of its activities can be used for this purpose.  However, a (c)(3) can’t make an endorsement.  I suspect what’s happening is that AHSA is not receiving more than $25k annually for its 501(c)(4) because it has no members, and its donors are giving to the foundation, which is tax deductible, and can fund most of the activities that AHSA is undertaking.  Their web site, newsletters, etc, so long as they don’t mention candidates or legislation, can be funded through the (c)(3).  Any activity associated with, say, endorsing Barack Obama would have to be funded by the (c)(4), though I doubt AHSA actually put anything other than a press release into that endorsement.

That’s not to say these boundaries don’t often get crossed in non-profit, so it’s important to keep an eye on our opponents.  The penalty for making a mistake here can include losing your status as a non-profit.