Another Person Finds out a Gun Permit Isn’t Like a Drivers License

It always seems to be the 9/11 memorial people get busted, when they go and ask the nice NYPD officer where they can store their pistols, who naturally promptly arrest them. It’s amazing how every single one of these stories go down the same way. It’s like they expect that New York City is part of America or something, but they’d be wrong. I have to imagine they cover reciprocity issues in the Texas CHL training class. My first PA LTC came with a two page letter from the Chester County Sheriff explaining various dos and don’ts, including (at the time) the lack of reciprocity with neighboring states, with a big capitalized emphasis on not carrying in New Jersey or New York.

But we can hardly blame people, which is why we need to fix this issue and make every state recognize every other states licenses. We also should be clear that the longer the other side makes us wait, the worse the eventual bill is going to be from their point of view. In fact, because the Courts have abdicated their responsibility to protect the Second Amendment rights of Americans, we’re going to be looking at a whole list of things Congress might do under their Section 5 powers of the 14th Amendment. America is coming, New York City. Better get used to it.

Bloomberg’s Everytown Distorts CRS Study

When I wrote yesterday about a new study that shows mass shootings are not on the rise, I told Bitter, “I’ll bet you Bloomberg’s mouthpieces are going to seize on the raw numbers and ignore the part about controlling for population growth.” And sure enough, right on cue. They have to deceive and distort in order to win, because the facts are not on their side. The fact is that when controlled for population, there’s no trend. But they ignore that, and rather than pointing out flaws in the study, they just leave off key facts and hope their readers don’t notice. I guess Everytown do want to be science deniers!

Polite Society Podcast

Polite Society Podcast

I made an appearance on last Wednesday’s episode of the Polite Society Podcast, speaking about anti-gun folks being after your guns, despite the fact that they constantly say they aren’t. You can find my clip here. The rest of the episode, which includes a fine interview with Jeff Knox of the Firearms Coalition, talking about the Social Security fiasco, can be found here.

The Science is Settled: Mass Shootings Not Increasing

The Congressional Research Service has put out a study (which summarizes here) that shows mass shootings are not on the rise, and that there’s no real trend. The numbers tend to be pretty volatile. That’s probably because they don’t represent more than a tiny fraction of the total violent deaths in this country. They do point out that total numbers have gone up, but when controlled for the population increase, there is no trend:



Those are raw totals, without taking population growth into account. If you look at the number of victims per capita, the average has gone up a little from 1970 to today but the numbers are so small that the fluctuations are essentially statistical noise. “Basically, there is no rise,” says Fox, the Northeastern criminologist. “There are some years that are bad, some that are not so bad.”

I would note this study when you see people spreading Bloomberg’s fabricated nonsense about mass shootings reaching epidemic levels. One key thing about this study is it distinguished between types of mass shootings, namely between “mass public shootings,” which is what most of the public thinks of when they hear the term “mass shooting,” and what the study defines as “familicide mass shooting,” and “other felony mass shooting.” I think this is an important distinction, because as the study notes, the public sees a distinction between these types of events.

Also interesting, the study looks at the use of so-called “assault weapons.” 27% of public mass shootings, in only incident in the case of familicide mass shooting, and in 9.7% of other felony mass shootings. Hardly the “weapon of choice” for mass killers that the media would like everyone to believe.

This study will be an important one for our side going forward, given Bloomberg’s desire to overstate the number of mass shootings in an attempt to drive public support for more gun control laws.

It Would Be Nice if Politifact Would Consult Experts

Politifact has taken on claim that the Social Security changes floated by the Obama Administration amount to a huge gun ban for millions of elderly Americans, and have concluded it’s bunk. They have done this because they do not understand the federal gun laws, and did not consult any experts on the topic. They did consult Gary Kleck, it seems, who is a hell of a criminologist, but he’s not an expert on gun laws. Let’s go over Politifacts claims:

The new policy would not ban all Social Security recipients from owning guns. Rather, it would only affect the small fraction who are deemed mentally incompetent, and who are thus are barred from purchasing guns under the law.

No one argued it would. Sure, that’s going around, because most people don’t bother to read, but that’s not an argument NRA has made or the LATimes article made. If you’re debunking the Times article, stick to what they actually argued, not what’s going around on the social media fever swamps.

The policy is not yet in force. When we reached out to the Social Security Administration, a spokesman responded, “We are still developing our policy.”

Well, no shit sherlock. Again, that was not what was argued. They are debunking a straw man, not what was actually argued. I would expect better than this from a site claiming to spread the truth.

The policy would not take away guns from people who already own them. There is no indication that this policy would take guns away from people who already own guns. Rather, the policy would affect the ability of some mentally incompetent people from buying new guns.

Yes it would, because it would essentially mean those people have been adjudicated mentally defective. There’s only one class of person who can’t buy guns but is still free to possess them under federal law, and that’s people who have been charged or indicted for a felony offense. The government needs a legal basis for reporting someone to NICS. If that legal basis is that they are “mentally defected” they are prohibited from possessing firearms, even if they don’t realize they are in the system. This is just flat out wrong, and if they had consulted experts, they would have been told that.

This is a vast exaggeration of the actual policy under consideration. It would not affect all Social Security recipients, but rather those who have already been declared mentally incompetent, and thus ineligible under current law from purchasing a gun.

That wasn’t the criteria reported in the LA Times article. The LA Times article noted the proposal was that anyone who had a fiduciary assigned would be reported to NICS. These people were in no, way shape or form “adjudicated” as the law requires. Many of them, including Bitter’s grandfather, are still capable of handling a firearm safely, they just can’t deal with their own finances. We don’t want our older citizens reluctant to turn over their finances to loved ones, and risk losing property, risk their credit, or risk losing things like heat and running water because in their old age they have become forgetful and absent minded. These people are not a danger to themselves or others, and should not meet the standard for adjudication under the Gun Control Act. Politifact should be ashamed for giving such an important topic, that will affect millions of Americans, the short shrift, and should immediately correct their error.

h/t to Bearing Arms, who came to the same conclusion.

Silencing Unpopular Opinions

Clayton Cramer published an article about whether homosexuality is driven by childhood sexual abuse. I should note that in his follow up article that I was the blogger he was speaking up here:

Most simply ignored it; one (a supporter of SSM) was surprised that the left hadn’t already burned down my house.

I don’t think there’s anything illegitimate about Clayton’s line of inquiry, and I don’t think any journal should have to fear publishing it. Some of you might remember back in 1994, when this controversial book was published. I doubt today you could find a publisher who would dare publish it. I don’t buy the conclusions in “The Bell Curve” because I believe theory of Intelligence Quotient is crap, but as a society we should be free to discuss these kinds of things.

Today we fear controversial ideas, and to a large degree it seems large portions of our population have become infantilized. Is Clayton’s theory correct? I don’t know. But I don’t see why it should be beyond discussion and legitimate inquiry. The famous quote by Justice Louis Brandeis from Whitney v. California would seem to apply to the situation our society currently finds itself in: “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

The Gift that Keeps on Giving

Well, well, well… I guess you can add terrorists to the list of people Fast and Furious was arming. I wish I could say, “It’s amazing no one has gone to jail over this,” but it’s not surprising. Accountability in government has become a quaint notion. I’m particularly curious about this:

Soofi’s attempt to buy a gun caught the attention of authorities, who slapped a seven-day hold on the transaction, according to his Feb. 24, 2010, firearms transaction record, which was reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Then, for reasons that remain unclear, the hold was lifted after 24 hours, and Soofi got the 9-millimeter.

There’s no provision in the Brady Act for a seven day hold. There can be a 72 hour hold while the case is reviewed. After that the dealer can go ahead under a “default proceed.” In this case, the sale was cleared after 24 hours. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) is demanding to know what the reason for the hold was, why the sale was cleared, and why the purchase was allowed to go ahead. The FBI is declining to comment. I would tend to think they’d be eager to comment if this was just an ordinary NICS issue.