I reported earlier in November on the trial of Mayor Adam Bradley of White Plains, who is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Or maybe that was Illegal Mayors Against Guns, or something like that. He has apparently been convicted of his crimes involving domestic violence. There was also some issues earlier in the year with Mayor Bradley that involved witness tampering, but he was found not guilty on those charges.
A Basis for Gun Control?
Hard as I try to just let her be, Common Gunsense is the blog that keeps on giving. There’s no end to the ridiculous things emanating from our favorite Brady Board Member’s keyboard, and here is the latest thing:
Educated people shoot people as often as those poor uneducated people. I wonder why the gun lobby prefers not to believe that? Does it get in the way of their trying to convince us that most homicides are committed by criminals? Most homicides occur among people who know each other and often the shooter was not a criminal until he/she pulled the trigger.
We prefer not to believe it, because it’s simple just not true. Let’s look at what this study has to say on education and recidivism:
Inside our prisons, 19% percent of adult inmates are illiterate, and up to 60% are functionally illiterate. In contrast to this, our national adult illiteracy rate stands at 4%, with up to 23% functionally illiterate.
Or this study, which also shows that crime among more highly educated people tends to drop sharply. In fact, there’s no shortage of studies done by education advocates that show an inverse relationship to education levels and violent crime. As for homicides, there were 14,180 homicides in 2008, and of those, 44% of them authorities were unable to determine a relationship. Homicide among intimates represents only about 17% of the total. The largest category in “people who know each other” are acquaintances. It’s worthwhile pointing out that this would include the drug dealer capping a rival drug dealer.
As for the assertion that most murderers being non-criminal, that is also bunk. See this DOJ study on the matter, and we find:
- 54% have at least one felony conviction
- 70% have at least one conviction
- 56% have two or more felony arrests
- 67% have at least one felony arrest
- 81% of all homicide defendants have at least one arrest on their record
Now an arrest shouldn’t count for purposes of denying someone their rights, but it’s interesting data. This would suggest that no, the people who pull the trigger are largely already criminals.
Sorry Joan, but we don’t believe it because it’s not true. If you’re going to advocate for your ideas to be the basis of public policy, I think it’s imperative to argue from the right set of facts. Those facts just don’t support your conclusions.
Governor Christie on Brian Aitken
There’s been a lot of news in the Brian Aitken case lately. First there was a rally planned, then there wasn’t a rally planned. Then people started speculating what was up. I’ve been trying to get information on what’s going on. People are being very tight lipped, but there are many people working to get this guy some justice, and not all of it can be publicly broadcast. Governor Christie has this to say about the petition for clemency:
Needless to say this is a delicate matter. Anyone who’s followed Gov. Christie knows this isn’t a guy you can just push around. I’d like to think the Governor wants to do the right thing here, and issue a pardon, but wants to make sure he has his ducks lined up. The fact that this has appeared on the Governor’s own YouTube channel is hopefully a positive sign that he is at least taking this matter under serious consideration. Let us hope he does the right thing.
Hat Tip to Ian Argent
How We Catch Terrorists
A lot of folks on the Internets aren’t too happy with how the FBI is catching terrorists these days, by seemingly manufacturing them. I can’t say it’s a perfect method for catching terrorists, but I’m not sure what they are doing isn’t the least evil of the options available. First off, suggesting that the FBI is manufacturing terrorists is probably a bit of a hyperbole. Generally speaking, what constitutes entrapment is pretty well defined, and if the FBI wants to have a case, they will be careful to avoid it. So what are the elements of entrapment?
- The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
- Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
- The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
If this turns out to be entrapment, I’ll jump on board in criticizing the FBI’s methods. But I don’t really like the idea of violent jihadis wandering around the United States, with only a lack of materials standing between themselves and the next Oklahoma City. If you think about it, the alternatives are probably worse than what the FBI is doing. What alternatives would there be?
- More controls over explosives and explosive precursors. Given how many chemicals are explosive precursors, this method doesn’t enthuse me. Plus, much like gun control, it’s not going to stop someone determined. But it will definitely be annoying for people who lawfully use explosives or their precursors.
- More domestic spying. If you’re going to keep close enough eye on them to catch them when they finally do hook up with Ahmed the Truck Bomb Maker, you’ll need to keep a close watch on them and anyone they associate with. Without thinking about the manpower issues involved here, it’ll be a big problem if one of these jihadists manage to slip away from his FBI watchers after securing an uncomfortable amount of Semtex.
- Widen the GWOT to ensure terrorists have no places to train, hide, or get radicalized. This would be my preferred option, but it’s not politically or economically feasible. You’d have to send troops into Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, and Yemen. The only way we’re paying for such an expansion of military action is either through massive tax hikes or adding even more to our deficit. That still doesn’t stop the problem of people who are already over here and already radicalized.
- Doing nothing as long as terrorism is a low level problem. I’d probably be OK with this too, but the first time one of these guys manages to get his hands on something and executes another Oklahoma City, I can promise you there will be all kinds of restrictions put on not only explosives and precursors, but many civil liberties.
- Institute extreme violations of civil liberties for Muslim Americans. I don’t find this option to be remotely acceptable, and don’t think anyone else should either.
So as much as it might feel better if we catch terrorists just before they are about to trigger the detonator on the truck bomb Ahmed built, setting the bar at that height seems to have an awful potential for someone actually pulling it off before agents can intervene. You can’t just think of what your reaction would be to a potential truck bombing. You have to think of what the now frightened population is going to let the civil servants get away with, and it can be guaranteed they will try to get away with as much as they can. Last time we went through this, our wonderful civil servants almost ended model rockery as a hobby in the United States, among other things.
So for now, provided the FBI isn’t unlawfully entrapping people, I’m fine with the FBI hooking up people who have the will to commit violent jihad with what they think is the means, and then busting them. It’s probably the lesser of available evils at the moment. It’s not the explosives that are dangerous, but the jihadist who has no issues murdering men, women and children as they go about their daily lives that’s dangerous. That’s generally been our philosophy when arguing against gun control right?
Rule 6: Never Give a Monkey a Gun
Ohio Court Finds 2A Rights for Misdemeanants
The Ohio legislature is looking to fix this issue as we speak, but an Ohio Court of Common Pleas has found that non-violent misdemeanants, in this case people who have had a misdemeanor drug conviction in their past, can’t be stripped of Second Amendment rights. It’s interesting that the holding is limited to self-defense. Does that mean if he had firearms for hunting that might be a problem? That sure seems to turn the “sporting purposes” language in the federal gun control act on its head, doesn’t it?
Daley Annoyed
Apparently his gun registry system, meant to tell first responders how many guns are in any given house, isn’t operational and he’s pissed. It’s a well known fact, after all, that armed robbers, violent gang members, and drug dealers register their firearms with police. All this is going to do is get innocent gun owners killed when the police feel the need to send in an armed SWAT team with itchy trigger fingers because Joe Gun Owner, who has an “arsenal” of a few pistols and a shotgun, ended up with a warrant out on him because of a traffic summons he forgot about a few years ago.
Cutting the Cord
I was intrigued by this article on the return of rabbit ears. Glenn Reynolds says “It really is the 1970s all over again.“Â I’ve decided it’s finally time to stop paying wildly inflated prices for 500 channels and nothing on. Who needs it when there’s Netflix and Hulu Plus?
Bloomberg Looking to Run?
He’s certainly putting out messages that would indicate he’s thinking about it. The real question is who is he going to spoil? It’s possible the hope is he’ll pull away enough independent voters from the GOP to help out the Democrats in 2012. But polling has shown people don’t like Bloomberg all that much, and his close margin of victory for his third term runs shows even New Yorkers are tiring of him. The idea that he’s a serious contender is a non-starter, but that’s not to say he can’t be a spoiler. It’s worth nothing that Bill Clinton won two terms with a plurality.
Gun Rights Advances in Ohio
Looks like they managed a successful discharge petition in the Ohio house, advancing several pro-gun measures. But the Democratic Speaker, who is against these measures, may be able to thwart a vote.