October 2010 – Page 15 – Shall Not Be Questioned

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 caseÂ the number of guns tracedÂ 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.Â 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.Â But theÂ 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, butÂ 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.

Castle Doctrine Finally Overcomes Opposition

We’re not done yet, but Castle Doctrine has finally come through the House. The vote was earlier this evening, and involved lots of yelling, many threats, and even some cane waving. There was some of the most entertaining sausage making I’ve ever seen. I wished I had recorded it for future laughs.

The bill faced several hurdles, including an attempt to adjourn instead of actually holding a vote. The Philadelphia Democrats tried out-of-order motions to table the bill, even when the Speaker repeatedly announced the call for a vote on the actual bill.

At least one AP reporter “gets it” with this summary of what’s going on:

The vote to widen the “castle doctrine” so that it applies beyond homes and vehicles was 159-38, with dozens of Democrats voting with Republicans, the latest demonstration of how gun issues do not follow partisan political lines in the Pennsylvania Legislature.

It’s so refreshing knowing to see a reporter acknowledge that the important issues doesn’t break along party lines. The article also reports that a Senate Republican source says the Senate will, in fact, take up the bill next week. Gov. Rendell still won’t say whether he will veto or sign.

Having Lost on “Keep” …

… the Brady Center is doing all it can not to lose on that whole “bear” part. Unfortunately, there’s language in Heller that could go either way, but at minimum, the Court strongly hinted that California would have to allow some form of carry, even if it’s open carry, of a gun that’s ready for self-defense (loaded, in other words).

The Odd Election Year Dance Around Self-Defense

As we wait for the House of Representatives to cast the final floor vote on Castle Doctrine today, I decided to take a look at the weird little dance that some Democrats and Republicans took around the issue. Some of these moves just leave me scratching my head. Why pick some of these fights in an election year? For others, they deserve big kudos.

Todd Eachus (D) – This guy baffles me. In 2008, he was A rated and received the NRA endorsement. Based on that, you’d think he wouldn’t have a problem with self-defense. And, based on his vote to pass Castle Doctrine, that would seem to be the case. But, his comments and other votes are what add to the confusion. First, he voted on the motion to have a floor vote on Castle Doctrine. Then, he voted against the motion that withheld the anti-gun amendments. So he wanted the anti-gun stuff to come up for a vote. Okay…that could be argued that as Majority Leader, he was just trying to appease the Philly delegation in a vote that would lose with or without his support.

But, this morning he’s quoted in the papers bitching that we were “heavyhanded” in trying to get a floor vote. If the vote was a throw away to the Philly delegation, that’s not ideal, but not the end of the world. But why be their go-to boy for the anti-gun coalition in the press? Why not leave the Philly delegation to do their own dirty work? As Sebastian said when I read that to him on his drive to work, “Aren’t the members from Philly the ones being ‘heavyhanded’ since they held up a bill with overwhelming bipartisan support?”

I’m assuming that he’ll be safe with NRA support this year, and I don’t blame them for that. But, if he insists on going above and beyond for the Philly delegation on the gun issue, then I’ll make sure we cover every statement. There’s no need to be their spokesman, they do a fine job of shoving their feet down their own throats when it comes to speaking out on our Constitutional rights.

Denny O’Brien (R) – What on earth. This guy was A rated in 2008. He is one of few and far between pro-gun Philly representatives. Really? Self-defense is what moves him to vote against us? He voted to bring the bill up for a floor vote, then he turned and voted against us by opposing the vote to keep it a clean bill, and then he voted against us on the actual floor vote. That’s disappointing because several of the police officers who have called me in the last few days to find out who to vote for have been in his district. I’ll keep an open mind until the final vote today to see if there was some confusion yesterday, but I’d hate to call them all and tell them that Rep. O’Brien suddenly voted against us on this important issue.

Josh Shapiro (D) – I’m confused. This is a representative who should not want to vote on gun issues. Yes, he represents a part of Montgomery County that very well might back a gun ban, but being anti-gun doesn’t win him any votes. In fact, he has his eye on higher office – statewide office. He cannot win with a strong anti-gun record if he has to campaign outside of his immediate area. So, you would think that it would be in his best interest to stick with us (he’s been with us a few times) when it’s a fairly uncontroversial vote and then lay low the rest of the time. It doesn’t hurt him, and he won’t have to worry about a negative record when he finally takes the plunge statewide.

While we should give him kudos for supporting the uncontroversial Castle Doctrine bill, I would love to understand why he decided to join the Philly delegation in wanting to bring up the half dozen or so anti-gun amendments forward. If their effort had been successful, he would have had to vote on every one of those amendments. While he’s probably vote with us on some, he’d then put a political target on his back for every single anti-gun vote he cast.

Jim Wansacz (D) – I took some hell for supporting this pro-gun representative in his solidly Democratic district. Unfortunately, he didn’t win the primary to take the Senate seat up there, so he won’t be serving in the legislature in the future. But, I’m really happy to see that regardless of his legislative future, Rep. Wansacz stuck with us on all three votes yesterday. If there are any readers up in his district, you should probably drop him a note of thanks.

Frank Farry (R) – He gets a mention since he’s our representative, and he voted the right way on every single vote on Castle Doctrine. This comes from a guy whose campaign didn’t return the NRA questionnaire in 2008. He actually knows he lost votes because of it, and just like we predicted, Rep. Farry is willing to stand up for our right to self-defense. Go us. (And, tomorrow I’ll see if I can track down a lawn sign to go up immediately until Election Day.)

Steve Santarsiero (D) – What is this dude thinking? His district is even farther out of Philly than ours is, and he’s a Democrat running in a year that doesn’t exactly have high expectations for his party. He was only elected in 2008, and he submitted a questionnaire that earned him a B rating against a Republican who refused to answer the questionnaire. However, his votes against us, and his subsequent endorsement by CeaseFire have shown his true colors. For a guy who rode the coattails of Obama to his office, you’d think that he’d not pick a fight with us. That would be the smart thing to do for anyone who wanted to keep their office. And now, it looks like that grade will drop, and his opponent has been reaching out to sportsmen in the district.

Once Again, With Energy, the “R” is for Rifle

Red State is getting their panties in a bunch again because the “R” in NRA doesn’t stand for “Republican.” It’s no secret that NRA is endorsing many pro-gun Democrats. NRA seems to have gone out of their way this year,Â on the PVF web site, to explain their endorsements, especially for Democratic candidates. Obviously Red State is pushing GOA as an alternative, because GOA has never met a Democrat who is pro-gun enough for them. Does GOA want to explainÂ why a solid pro-gun guy like Dan Boren (Democrat) has an A- while the rest of the (Republican) Oklahoma delegation gets solid As? Where did Dan go wrong? Do they want to explain why Markey,Â despite a solid voting record on our issue this Congress, is getting a D? Â How do they justify a low grade of C forÂ solidly pro-gun Jason Altmire? Or the same grade forÂ Chet Edwards in Texas.

I maintain that GOA’s grades are a shameful scam on the American gun owner, as is their entire organization. NRA is coming around to being more transparent about their grading system. To the extent that NRAÂ can be transparent (and they are limited with how much they can be because of political considerations), that’s a good thing. Where is GOA’s transparency? Why is it, seemingly, that Democrats can’t be pro-gun enough for them?

LA Times Favors Boxer

Hopefully they’ll remember to call her “Senator.” Either way, the Brady folks are thrilled because their issue got a mention in the LA Times, which hasn’t really been focusing very heavily on the gun issue:

Boxer supports California’s ban on assault weapons and the revival of a similar law at the federal level. Fiorina has criticized the federal law’s definition of assault weapons as “extremely arbitrary” and emphasizes other ways of combating gun crimes, none of which is a substitute for a ban. She also believes that travelers on the federal government’s no-fly list should be allowed to own firearms

I’m not sure how thrilled I’d be though, given that they balanced it with Fiorina’s view on the matter, which has a basis in fact, and they failed to frame the “terror gap” issue properly. I think most Americans understand the “No-Fly” list is a sham, but the “Terror Watch List” sounds much more ominous. Ten years ago the LA Times would have said “Fiorina wants to legalize assault weapons, which are the weapons of choice for gang members in California, and ridiculously wants terrorists to be able to buy guns.”

I guess when you’re down and out, you’ll take any piece of bread thrown at you, but given what we’ve seen from the LA Times in the past, I consider this progress.

Mini-Update on Castle Doctrine

I think the levels of ups and downs of the last two weeks was best described from Rep. Seth Grove, at least from his perspective as a legislator:

I was already to do battle against the Gun Control amendments on HB 40 – Castle Doctrine too. Maybe next time.

We were supposed to face down anywhere from six to eight anti-gun amendments ranging from one gun a month to restricting reciprocity of carry licenses. While it’s a good thing to never have to worry about anti-gun legislation, it’s also a bit of a frustration that we warn people about all of these threats that never end up happening. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good thing we had the support of 156 lawmakers to vote this thing through to another step in the process. But, it’s frustrating that I know some gun owners will believe we were blowing smoke up their asses for the anti-gun amendments that never came. We weren’t. The legislators themselves can attest to that.

So tomorrow, should the Speaker of the House indulge us, we should have the final floor vote in the House on Castle Doctrine. Hopefully the Senate will take it up. I haven’t really been paying attention to anything in the Senate lately, other than some political commentary on tax hikes that they won’t likely take up this year. So we’ll see.

I did read a few notes on Facebook by someone who said they caught part of a presser hosted by Gov. Rendell who was none too pleased about the self-defense bill actually getting traction. But, if he gives us grief, he’s gone and irrelevant in January. And, to boot, we’ll punish the rest of his party who stand with him on the issue and just flip the House so the Democrats are out to pasture in Pennsylvania politics.

More on the Scott Case

The picture Confederate Yankee is painting in his latest update is one of poor training. It sounds to me like nearly everyone involved made a mistake, and that this shooting was a result of poor training, and poor execution on that training.

As I said before, I think this shooting looks to be legally justified based on all the information so far, but that doesn’t mean it had to happen this way.

UPDATE: I should point out that “doesn’t mean it had to happen this way,” means the inevitable civil suit that will come out of this is going to be a doozie.

Question for Mayor Bloomberg

This article from the Washington Post chides Virginia for being a huge source of crime guns, ignoring the fact that Virginia already implements one of Mayor Mike’s key prescriptions for cutting gun trafficking; rationing guns purchases to one-a-month. So if Virginia already implements one of Mayor Mike’s key policies, what good is it doing? And why should other states implement it?

More Castle Doctrine Fights Today

According to some state representatives on Facebook, we’re back on to fight for our right to defend ourselves on/in our own property today. From Rep. Seth Grove:

Going to be an interesting a fun week in Harrisburg. Supposedly we might have some transportation funding votes, but we will be voting on “Castle Doctrine” and I will thoroughly enjoy voting NO on all the gun control amendments and enjoy voting YES on a clean HB 40!

FYI – I think he’s my new favorite legislator. This update comes from another co-sponsor, Rep. Bryan Cutler:

HB 40, or the Castle Doctrine bill, is expected to come up for a vote today. I know many of you have been asking about this legislation, which I am co-sponsoring. I’ll let you know how the vote turns out.

Interestingly (and wisely, IMHO), NRA-PVF has opted to withhold state legislative endorsements and grades until the vote on Castle Doctrine & the half dozen or so anti-gun amendments that will be introduced.