In the Santa Barbara killings, the media tries to avoid discussing murders committed with anything other than guns

On February 23, 2001, David Attias, a University of California-Santa Barbara freshman, "plowed his turbo-charged Saab into a group of young adults in the same Isla Vista neighborhood of the coastal community, killing four and permanently injuring another before climbing atop the car and declaring himself 'the Angel of Death.' Charged with murder, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity and sent to a state mental institution. He was released in 2012, having been locked away for slightly more than two years for each of his dead victims. 'He’s out because he got treatment and he finally learned what he needed to say,' said Sally Divis, whose son, Christopher, was just 20 when he was run down by Attias. 'Do I actually think he’s safe? Not really.'"

Given that both Elliot Rodger and Attias used cars to hurt people and that they occurred in the same place, you might think that the media would bring up comparisons.  But while a Google news search comes up with 156 news stories on "Elliot Rodger," there were only two news stories on "David Attias" and "Elliot Rodger."  (Click on screen shots to make them bigger.)

Google is pretty abysmal these days for any useful search.  Bing does a better job.  There are only 9 news stories that mention both names and if you limit yourself to real news services, there are four such stories.

Read More

Britain's National Ballistics Intelligence Service/BBC claims anyone attempting to fire a 3D printed plastic gun would probably maim or even kill themselves,misleading

This BBC story is quite misleading.  Note that it is only at the very end of their video that they concede that it is indeed possible to use a 3D printed plastic gun.  From the BBC:

Police are warning technology enthusiasts not to attempt to use 3D printers to make plastic guns, because each time they have been tested the weapons have exploded.
Relatively cheap plastic printed guns have been fired successfully in the United States.
Scientists in the UK say without additional expertise and the right type of ammunition, anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves.
They also point out that to do so would be illegal. . . .

Read More

Continued media misinformation on gun-free zones at restaurants? Have Sonic and Chili’s really banned customers from bring firearms into the restaurants?

The problem with these stories (such as ones I read at MSNBC, IBTimes, or other places) is that they don't make it clear whether the stores will actually post that people aren't allowed to carry in their restaurants.  The stories seem more aimed at pushing gun control than actually informing readers.

The changes at Starbucks, Jack in the Box, Chipotle, Wendy's, and Applebee's have changed in practice.  The same may be here too, but from the way the stories are written you would never know.

However, I will say that I actually believe that those who are carrying long guns into restaurants really want to try to have guns banned.

Read More

"Wide support for 'gun violence restraining orders'"

First, let me say that it isn't obvious how accurate this poll is for one simple reason: it was done right after a tragic attack (of course, the poll doesn't mention that half the victims were stabbed to death or that most of the injuries were due to the car that the killer was driving).  When you do a poll right after an attack it shows you about the worst numbers that you can show on the gun control front.  YouGov has a poll showing strong support for taking away people's guns if they have "mental illness."  California is considering taking away people's guns "if they are mentally troubled and their behaviour is reported to the authorities by friends of family."  Given current judicial precedent,  I have a hard time believing that someone's guns can be without a judicial hearing.  The incentives that this rule would create to harass people that relatives aren't happy with could create all sorts of bad consequences.

Regarding overall gun control, 49 percent want more gun control and 45 percent want things to either stay the same or be loosened.  If this is the worst that these numbers are right now, there is still a general trend against more gun control.

Read More

Seriously? Father faced criminal penalties for having a disobedient son walk an entire mile home

Is it really a horrible punishment to make a son who is misbehaving have to walk for an entire 15 to 20 minutes?  How can that be so horrible?  Are children considered by the courts to be so sensitive that they can't walk for that long of a period of time?  From Fox News:

A judge sentenced a Hawaii man to one year of probation and a $200 fine for making his son walk a mile home from school as a form of discipline.
Judge Kathleen Watanabe called the punishment "old-school" and no longer appropriate, the Garden Island newspaper reported Thursday.
Robert Demond of Kilauea said he picked up his son from school and asked about a matter that had been brought to his attention. When the son didn't respond, Demond made him walk home to think about his actions.
The age of the boy is unclear. Demond's attorney and a prosecutor didn't immediately respond to a request seeking comment from The Associated Press.
Demond was also ordered to attend a parenting class after being convicted of endangering the welfare of a minor, a misdemeanor. Demond pleaded no contest and said he would handle the situation differently now after the case went through two courts. . . . .

Read More

Media Matters gets things wrong again: "Gun Researcher John Lott Relies On Falsehoods To Downplay Gun Violence Threat To Women"

Media Matters defense of the recent Moms Demand Action is available here.

On May 24th, Shannon Watts, the president of Moms Demand Action, put out a tweet concerning violence against women in the US compared to other countries.  The impression surely created was that the US is the worst country in the world in terms of violence against women.  On two separate times I tweeted her back to ask her where she got the data for this claim (most recently asking about it two days ago).  In neither case did I get a response.


In a piece that I published today at National Review Online, I pointed out that the "Data from the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) allows you to break down murders either by the sex of the victim or by whether firearms are used, but it doesn’t allow users to identify both these categories simultaneously."  For many years the World Health Organization also hasn't provided such data.  While Moms Demand Action never responded to my questions about their data source, it turns out that they were pointing to homicide data from 1994 to 1999, not recent data.  Just as an aside, the US homicide rate was about 60 percent higher over that period than it was last year.

Now let's get to the main points.
1) "Lott further misled by claiming that the proper comparison between countries would involve examining 'homicide rates'"

The "84% of female firearm homicides in 25 countries are in US" claim compares the total number of homicides for women without adjusting for population.  To be included in their list of countries (p. 1): "We used data from only those high-income countries that had populations over 2 million."  By contrast, in 1995, the US population was about 265 million people.  As I pointed out in my piece: "Moms Demand Action’s claim doesn’t make much sense anyway; they shouldn’t compare the raw number of homicides, since that doesn’t account for differences between countries in population size. Comparing homicide rates makes a lot more sense. Map 1.6 from the UNODC shows that in 2012 the U.S. had one of the world’s lower rates of homicide against females."  As far as I can tell, Media Matters never explains why it is misleading to compare rates than the total number of homicides.

For all the countries in the world the United Nations provides this Figure (click on it to make it larger).  Not only is the US in the lowest of the six grouping of countries provided by the UN, but within this homicide rate of 0 to 3 per 100,000 women, the rate for the US is about 1 per 100,000 women.

Media Matters claims: "Lott's purpose was to distract from violence perpetrated against women."  But as far as I can tell, I was looking at total homicides committed against women.  I am not sure how that distracts from the issue of "violence perpetrated against women."

2) Homicide rates in developed countries.

As to the study in the Journal of the American Medical Women's Association, the normal way to break these comparisons down is by developed versus non developed countries.  In this figure are the female homicide rates for developed countries in 2011 using the UNODC data.  If one cares about total homicides and not how the homicides were committed, you can see the numbers here.  By the way, looking at homicides and not murders biases the numbers somewhat against the US because of the inclusion of justifiable homicides.


(Click on figure to make it bigger.)

3) "The fact is the murder rate in the United States is much higher compared to other high-income nations, with the discrepancy being largely driven by gun murders."

For a discussion on this point please see these two posts here and here.
4) "[m]ore than twice as many women are killed with a gun used by their husbands or intimate acquaintances than are murdered by strangers using guns, knives, or any other means."

What isn't explained here is that intimate acquaintances include crime involving prostitutes and johns or pimps.  On the more general point, the real risk factor is whether the attacker has a violent criminal record, not whether a gun is owned in the home.

UPDATE: Possibly some context is needed here.  One of the points of Moms Demand Action's claim is to make people fearful of guns in the home.  The response that I made is that many of these deaths are not involving events between what most people are thinking about regarding "their husbands or intimate acquaintances."  Being a prostitute is simply a more dangerous occupation than most women engage in, and thus women can reduce their risks by not engaging in this type of work.

5) Further note on the the Journal of the American Medical Women's Association study.

The study uses the percentage of suicides committed with guns as their proxy for gun ownership rates.  Unfortunately, since the method of suicide varies greatly by gender and other social characteristics, the measure is more a proxy for demographics than it is a measure of gun ownership rates.

Since Media Matters regularly rewrites their pieces after I have posted my comments, I have been taking screen shots of their original posts (click on screen shot to enlarge).

Read More

House Democrats consider pushing gun control this year

Apparently Democrats think that this is a good issue to force in an election year.  From Politico:

House Democrats are considering attaching an amendment to an appropriations bill that would force stricter background checks for gun purchases.
Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer said top Democrats are in “discussions” on an amendment but have not decided what the language would say specifically.
He said the amendment would likely be an effort to strike the “prohibition on requiring gun sellers to report on multiple sales on assault-type weapons.” . . .

Read More

Economy shrinks by 1 percent in First Quarter

Pretty amazingly bad news today.

The economy in the U.S. contracted for the first time in three years from January through March as companies added to inventories at a slower pace and curtailed investment. 

Gross domestic product fell at a 1 percent annualized rate in the first quarter, a bigger decline than projected, after a previously reported 0.1 percent gain, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. The last time the economy shrank was in the same three months of 2011. The median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 0.5 percent drop. . . .

Do you want to see what Obama's "recovery" looks like?  This is the first recovery in US history where the gap between trend GDP and actually GDP has been getting bigger over time.

Read More

Newest piece at National Review Online: "Bloomberg’s Bogus Gun-Control Numbers"

My newest piece starts this way:

Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group Moms Demand Action couldn’t let the tragedy in Santa Barbara pass without interjecting more false information into the gun-control debate. 

Given the Santa Barbara killer’s hatred of women (though four of the six victims were men), it is quite understandable that the topic of violence against women has been raised. Moms Demand Action tried fueling the fire with the claim that “84% of female firearm homicides in 25 countries are in US.” 

It is hard to see how Moms Demand Action could even make this comparison across all countries. Data from the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) allows you to break down murders either by the sex of the victim or by whether firearms are used, but it doesn’t allow users to identify both these categories simultaneously. 

Moms Demand Action’s claim doesn’t make much sense anyway; they shouldn’t compare the raw number of homicides, since that doesn’t account for differences between countries in population size. Comparing homicide rates makes a lot more sense. Map 1.6 from the UNODC shows that in 2012 the U.S. had one of the world’s lower rates of homicide against females. . . .

Read More

Newest Fox News piece: Memo to gun-control advocates: Even Elliot Rodger believed guns would have deterred him

The newest Fox News piece starts this way:

How can we prevent mass murderers? Elliot Rodger, the 22-year-old who killed six innocent people this past Friday in California, is causing everyone to ask that question, yet again.

Rodger spent over a year and a half meticulously planning his attack. 

His 141-page “manifesto” makes it clear that he feared someone with a gun could stop him before he was able to kill a lot of people. 

Consider his discussion about where he thought the best place to attack people was: 

“Another option was Deltopia, a day in which many young people pour in from all over the state to have a spring break party on Del Playa Street. I figured this would be the perfect day to attack Isla Vista, but after watching Youtube videos of previous Deltopia parties, I saw that there were way too many cops walking around on such an event. It would be impossible to kill enough of my enemies before being dispatched by those damnable cops.” 

Many gun-control advocates have long dismissed the notion that guns can deter these killers. . . . .

Read More

This is getting very embarrassing: After first not responding to the Financial Times' questions, Thomas Piketty now engages in name calling.

I have written about Piketty's letter to the Financial Times about the mistakes in his book.  Now Piketty has gone from not answering the Financial Times' questions to name calling.  You know that Piketty is in a lot of trouble.  From The Guardian:

In an interview with the Agence France-Presse news agency, the economist said: "The FT is being ridiculous because all of its contemporaries recognise that the biggest fortunes have grown faster."
While the available data was imperfect, it did not undermine his central argument about widening inequality, he said. "Where the Financial Times is being dishonest is to suggest that this changes things in the conclusions I make, when in fact it changes nothing. More recent studies only support my conclusions, by using different sources." . . .

As to Piketty's claim that the FT is being dishonest about the impact that these have on his numbers, all one has to do is look at the figures and how they flatten out the claimed inequality for the Britain, Europe, and the top 1% of Americans.

Read More

Do you want an idea of how difficult it is to use mental health screening to figure out who is going to engage in these mass public shootings?

If you are interested in some numbers on how hard it is to accurately screen out those who are a real danger to others, check out this link.

Read More

Do mentally ill, multiple victim killers purposefully pick targets where victims are most vulnerable?: The case of Elliot Rodger

For gun control advocates who actually read the Elliot Rodger’s manifesto, they will be in for some real surprises.  There appears to be real evidence that he picked the place to attack precisely because he didn't think that the victims would be defended.  

Read More

My review of Piketty's book at Amazon

For those interested, here is the review that I posted on Piketty's book "Capital in the Twenty-First Century."

Read More

Piketty's incredibly weak response to the Financial Times finding of errors, Piketty doesn't directly address any of the problems

The Financial Times did a devastating job pointing to errors in Piketty's new book (I had an initial discussion available here).  Now Piketty has published a response letter in the FT available here.  If I were to summarize Piketty's response: it is a nonresponse and he doesn't deal directly with any of the problems raised.

On the corrected European data not showing an increase inequality since 1970, the problems were data not matching the sources that he claimed he obtained the data from, observations being used that don't exist in the sources he cites, and him linking series that are incompatible.  His response is:

I certainly agree that available data sources on wealth are much less systematic than for income. . . .
As I make clear in the book, in the on-line appendix, and in the many technical papers I have published on this topic, one needs to make a number of adjustments to the raw data sources so as to make them more homogenous over time and across countries. I have tried in the context of this book to make the most justified choices and arbitrages about data sources and adjustments. I have no doubt that my historical data series can be improved and will be improved in the future (this is why I put everything on line). . . .

First note that he doesn't directly respond to any of the critiques.  He comes closest when he says that "one needs to make a number of adjustments," but a more helpful response from him would have been to specifically give one single example.  His response clearly doesn't even try to explain data that isn't available in the sources he cites nor is this really a justification for why he would link inconsistent data series.  

For example, take Giles statement that: "Here’s a list of constructed data, where there appears to be no source or where the source is not described either accurately or fully."  A response on the unexplained data would have been something like: if Chris Giles had looked at Appendix B in XXX, he would have clearly seen the source of the data for years XX and XX.  

An explanation for the adjustments would have read something like this: while the data in the original source XX doesn't show an increase in inequality, the reason that my series added 2 percentage points to the share of wealth held by the top 1 percent in the United States in 1970 is largely due to my adjusting for YY and ZZ that were not accounted for in the original data source.  Clearly, YY has to be done because of AAA.

I would really appreciate if someone could point to one place where Piketty's letter actually addresses Giles' points.

As to the US data, again Piketty doesn't explain why he would arbitrarily add on percentages to the US data.

Finally he then says that all this data is really besides the point because it leaves out certain information, which if we had it, would surely show that he is correct ("Finally, let me say that my estimates on wealth concentration do not fully take into account offshore wealth, and are likely to err on the low side.").

Even Piketty's defenders, such as Neil Irwin at the New York Times, have had to concede that Piketty isn't really responding to the points raised.

He did not specifically address the accusations of data-entry errors or give detailed responses to some of Mr. Giles’s criticisms about questionable assumptions that underlie Mr. Piketty’s broader work. . . .

Instead, the defense is one of tone rather than substance.

But in his e-mail to me, he wrote with an almost jovial tone: “Every wealth ranking in the world shows that the top is rising faster than average wealth,” adding, “If the FT comes with a wealth ranking showing a different conclusion, they should publish it!” . . .

Not only is this besides the point, it is also clearly wrong.  As Giles notes:

In constructing his long-run series (in blue), Prof. Piketty migrates from the Kopczuk-Saez data to that of Wolff (1994, 2010) and Kennickel (2009), even though these are measured on a very different basis. The result is that his line does not have the fall in inequality seen by Kopczuk-Saez but instead shows a rise.  

Looking at the two papers by Wolff, which provide estimates from 1960 to 2010, the top 1 per cent wealth share appears to be essentially flat, going from 33.4 per cent of total wealth in 1960 to 34.6 per cent in 2010. Wolff’s papers describe a modest increase in inequality, significantly gentler than Piketty’s graph shows. . . .

Paul Krugman also takes Piketty's approach to defense and doesn't directly address Giles point that different series can show different results for the US.  A proper response from Krugman would have been to point to why one measure is better than another.  Krugman completely ignores the papers by Kopczuk-Saez  and Wolff directly cited by Giles above.

There are two other points to make:

1) The changes in inequality that Piketty is focusing on are small.  I don't think that inequality is bad -- people are getting paid what others think that they are worth.  But compared to historical values, the recent changes, even if Piketty was right, are small.

2) Despite people claiming that Giles points aren't that important, I think that anyone who looks at the graphs for the UK or the top 1 percent in the US will see that they make a big difference, though the top 1 percent of the US was already relatively flat.





For Europe as a whole, the very small increases in inequality changes to becoming basically flat.

Read More

The push for gun control after the Santa Barbara attack

As usual, the media news stories got fundamental facts wrong here.  Of particular interest, half the people killed here were stabbed to death.  Also, you won't hear this much in the news, the magazines that the killer used were also apparently limited to holding no more than 10 rounds (note that the Sheriff said that all the magazines were legal under California law).  Obviously neither point fits the gun control check list.

In addition, the Santa Barbara Sheriff's office had interviewed the killer before the attack after a report from a relative that he might be a danger to himself.  In the press conference by the Sheriff's office, it was described how officers interviewed the killer and did not believe him to be a danger.  As was true in Newtown, Fort Hood, Aurora, and other attacks, the point here is again how incredibly difficult it is to identify these mass killers in advance.  It is so much easier to identify these problems after the fact.

Yet, this hasn't stopped gun control advocates from pushing for more gun control.

Mark Kelly, who is the husband of Gabby Giffords and head of Americans for Responsible Solutions, spoke out the day of the Santa Barbara shooting saying:

"Gabby and I are praying for the victims of last night's horrific tragedy in Isla Vista. Every time we learn of another senseless shooting like this one, our hearts break and we know that no words will bring peace to the families who lost loved ones. Like so many in the Isla Vista community, we are angry and shocked. But we are also grateful to the first responders who acted with such courage last night. We are hoping for strength for those who were injured."

Senator Richard Blumenthal pushes for more gun control on Sunday morning.

 A day and a half after a shooting rampage in California left six victims dead, Sen. Richard Blumenthal said Sunday the tragedy serves as a reminder of the legislative efforts to stem gun violence that occurred in the aftermath of the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting.The Democrat from Connecticut, appearing on CBS’s "Face the Nation," said statements from the California victims' families bring the nation back to "when it seemed like we were on the verge of, potentially, legislation that would stop the madness and end the insanity." . . .

On Sunday morning, CNN panelist focus heavily on gun control issues.

Criminal defense attorney Holly Hughes noted that the availability of guns should also be part of the discussion.“I think it’s time to have a discussion about legislating some of the gun issues,” she explained. “Now, I’m not against having guns, it’s a constitutional right. I own a firearm, that’s great.”
“But the disconnect is, if there is somebody with legitimate mental health issues who’s been institutionalized, who has been diagnosed, who is or should be on medication, is there a way that when you apply for a gun permit, we can give that gun shop owner access to those records?” Hughes continued. “Because they’re not going to tell the truth. And the laws that exist right now says you can’t put it out there.”
Feyerick immediately let her panel know that gun laws were not going including in the debate.
“This is an ongoing conversation, and it’s one that’s never going to be resolved,” the CNN host opined. “It’s got to be about mental health, and not firearms.”
Former New York Police Detective Lou Palumbo interrupted to agree that potential gun owners should be required to pass the same type of background checks and firearms training as law enforcement. . . .

The father of one of the young people who had been killed understandably lashed out:

“Our family has a message for every family out there. You don’t think it will happen to your child, until it does,” Martinez said. Choking on tears, he added, “His death has left our family lost and broken.”
“Chris died because of craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA. They talk about gun rights. What about Chris’ right to live? When will this insanity stop? When will enough people say stop this madness,” Martinez said. . . . 

Read More

New Breitbart article on the Crime Prevention Research Center

From the Breitbart article by Kristin Tate:

Breitbart News previously reported that economist John Lott will establish the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), an initiative to produce studies focused on the relationship between firearms and crime. Lott is largely funding CPRC with donations from individuals who support his mission. Just one month after launching CPRC's campaign on the crowdfunding site Indiegogo, Lott has already exceeded $30,000 in donations. The financial success of Lott's campaign suggests that Americans are hungry for accurate information regarding guns and crime, amid a mainstream media that often vilifies firearms and those who own them. The CPRC is currently the most successful campaign in the education section on Indiegogo and has more than double the number of funders than the other trending education campaigns. Lott's project is additionally the third trending campaign in the education section."You spend years trying to work through data to figure out what saves the most lives, and the support that we are receiving is very gratifying," Lott told Breitbart News. "People care about having an objective source that they can trust. The notes that we have received in the mail have really been encouraging." . . .

Read More

In push for gun control, Bloomberg's Moms Demand Action puts out false numbers on violence against women

The Crime Prevention Research Center has information on new false claims that Bloomberg's Moms Demand Action have put out on gun violence against women.  The information is available here.

Read More

Another mass killer who probably supported gun control

I have previously written about Dylan Klebold, Karl Pierson, and Chris Dorner's support for gun control.  Now as AWR Hawkins notes, Elliot Rodger, who killed six people in Santa Barbara, came from a family of strong gun control advocates.

Read More

Democrats pushing for $60 million to "study" gun violence

Does anyone really believe that the government can keep politics out of the research that it funds on controversial issues?  From the Washington Times:

Democrats in the House and Senate are pushing to spend $60 million for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to research gun violence, rekindling a debate over whether political agendas taint these taxpayer-funded studies.
The legislation, introduced by Sen. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat, and Rep. Carolyn Maloney, New York Democrat, would provide $10 million a year for six years, beginning in 2015, for the research.
President Obama, who last year lifted the 17-year ban on studies of violence involving firearms, included $10 million for the research in his 2015 budget proposal. But that proposal went down along with the rest of Mr. Obama’s spending plan in a crushing 413-2 defeat in the House.
“It is time we study the issue of gun violence like the public health crisis it is,” Mr. Markey said. “If we want to prevent injury and deaths from guns, we need to know what can be done to prevent it. No one should be afraid of more nonpartisan, scientific research of this issue — not Democrats, not Republicans and not the [National Rifle Association].” . . .

Fox News has a discussion here. 

Read More

Six people killed, seven wounded in deadly multiple victim public Santa Barbara shooting/stabbing spree

UPDATE: As usual, the initial media news stories got fundamental facts wrong here.  Of particular interest, is that half the people killed here were stabbed to death.  

From Fox News:

A crazed gunman went on a shooting rampage in a popular Santa Barbara student enclave, killing six people and injuring seven others before being found dead in his car, in what authorities said was a “premeditated mass murder.”
Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown said early Saturday the person who carried out "this atrocity" was "severely mentally disturbed."
Fox News confirmed that several of the dead were killed at a sorority house.
Brown said that investigators were familiar with a YouTube video titled "Retribution" and were looking into whether the person in the video was linked to the killings, KEYT-TV reported on its website.
In a rambling rant, the young man in the video promises to take revenge on sorority girls who had rejected him over the years. "Tomorrow is a day of retribution," the man in the video says into the camera while sitting in the driver's seat of a luxury car. . . .

Santa Barbara County is essentially a gun-free zone, where only 0.009 percent of the adult population is allowed to carry a permitted concealed handgun for protection (about 30 out of an adult population of 333,000).  The extremely few people allowed to carry are undoubtedly politically well connected individuals who were unlikely to have been in the part of town where this attack occurred.  As we have seen over-and-over again, these multiple victim killers pick out places where they know that there victims aren't going to be able to defend themselves.  After a three judge panel decision earlier this year to strike down San Diego's virtual ban on concealed carry, the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is now considering whether to uphold this decision.  One can only hope that their decision comes soon.

UPDATE: As of February 2014, Santa Barbara County had 53 permits out of an adult population of 337,000 -- a rate of 0.016 percent.  The rate was virtually unchanged from 2011.

UPDATE: The killer here repeatedly stab to death by three of his roommates before he shot six people to death.  It also appears that the killer committed suicide.  Those were first ones killed.

3 -- stabbed to death
2 -- shot to death outside sorority
1 -- shot to death outside a delicatessen   

Note that out of Europe today: Jews apparently targeted in shooting at Brussels Jewish Museum: three dead, one seriously wounded

Read More

A sensible policy on open carry of long guns

From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

Don’t carry long guns into Texas businesses.That was the message that gun-rights groups delivered Thursday to tens of thousands of supporters statewide through an open letter released to the media.
If that’s not enough incentive, officials remind Texans that long guns aren’t allowed in businesses that sell alcoholic drinks. Any business in violation could lose its permit to sell drinks, and any person who violates the law faces criminal trespassing charges, according to state officials.
More than anything, leaders of the effort to make open carry legal in Texas fear that the uproar over efforts to carry long guns into local restaurants is detracting from their overall goal.
“We ask that members take a step back and make an objective assessment of what we are trying to accomplish and help us get open carry passed for everyone,” according to the letter jointly sent out by Come and Take It Texas, Texas Carry, Gun Rights Across America and Open Carry Texas.
“We must be willing and able to recognize what works and what doesn’t, but we need your help to make these efforts a success.” . . .
Statewide leaders of the movement — who are also encouraging supporters to consider switching from long guns to black powder revolvers — say they needed to reach out to fellow open-carry advocates to make sure they draw the right kind of attention to the movement.
“We think that the groups have grown so large so fast and we have so many new people,” said Terry Holcomb Sr., a pastor and president of Texas Carry. “With all the mistakes we’ve seen recently, we decided we needed to go ahead and put the policy out.” . . . .

The main point of allowing people to carry guns is protection, not intimidation.  And on that point I have generally favored concealed versus open carry. 

Read More

Jews apparently targeted in shooting at Brussels Jewish Museum: three dead, one seriously wounded

From AFP:

Three people were killed and one badly injured in a shoot-out Saturday near the Jewish Museum in Brussels city centre, Belga news agency said, quoting firefighters' emergency services.
"I am shocked by the murders committed at the Jewish museum, I am thinking of the victims I saw there and their families," Belgian Foreign Minister Didier Reynders said on Twitter. . . .

Read More

The coming massive health insurance bailout

There is a reason why the Obama administration has pushed back the second-year start of enrollment to Nov. 15, 2014, from Oct. 15.  From Fox News


But remember this news story from last October where CNN reported that the Obama Administration warned insurance companies not to discuss Obamacare problems.

DREW GRIFFIN: “Anderson, what's going on is behind the scenes attempt by the White House to at least keep insurers from publicly criticizing what is happening under this Affordable Care Act rollout. Basically if you speak out, if you are quoted, you're going to get a call from the White House, pressure to be quiet. Several sources tell me and my colleague Chris Frates that insurance executives are being told to keep quiet. Bob Laszewski who heads the Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consulting firm for big insurance and an outspoken critic of ObamaCare, says he is getting calls from these executives who want him to speak out, Anderson, for them about the problems because they feel defenseless against the White House P.R. team. Laszewski told me today, ‘The White House is exerting massive pressure on the industry, including the trade associations, to keep quiet.’ And sources telling us they feared White House retribution.” ANDERSON COOPER: “So, I mean, what specifically are, do they say that they're being told to keep quiet about?” GRIFFIN: “About the fact that clarifications were made to the Affordable Care Act after the law was passed and those clarifications are forcing the insurance industry to drop insurance plans that do not meet ObamaCare requirements. There's a lot of coverage now required in these plans. That was not part of many people's private health care plans. Those are the people, Anderson, who are being dropped and despite all the rhetoric, I should say, from the president, you simply cannot keep your current health care plan if it does not meet these requirements. Laszewski says the insurance industry is embarrassed about cancelling the plans but in an interview last week he told me the Administration was warned about this very scenario and ignored the advice.”

Meanwhile, you are already seeing huge increases in the cost of insurance premiums even before the problem discussed above goes into effect.

Read More

Six of the eight federal judges who have struck down state bans on homosexual marriage were Democrats

From Fox News:

. . . In Pennsylvania's case, the judge who threw out the ban was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush. Only one other judge -- of the eight who have ruled against gay marriage bans since the DOMA decision -- is Republican-appointed. The other is Bernard Friedman, a U.S. District Court judge in Michigan who struck down that state's gay marriage ban in March, though the decision is being appealed. Friedman was appointed by Ronald Reagan. Three of the judges -- in Oregon, Virginia and Utah -- were appointed by Obama in the last few years. Two were appointed by Clinton. One, in Idaho, was appointed by regional judges. Several of these cases are still being litigated. In 29 states, judges are being asked whether gays should have the right to marry. . . .

Read More

Piketty's book contained data errors that completely drove his results

UPDATE: Piketty is being accused of deliberately lying about his data to get the results that he wants.

Piketty altered U.K. data to show that wealth distribution there is worse off than it appears to be. 

Piketty says the share of income going to the top 10% never fell lower than 60%, and since the end of the 1970s has returned to 70%, a level not seen in 70 years.But the data Piketty himself cites shows the top 10% share of wealth is no greater than 50%, and may be as low as 42%. 

Giles writes: "This appears to be the result of swapping between data sources, not following the source notes, misinterpreting the more recent data and exaggerating increases in wealth inequality."  

Below is the chart. The right-most portion of Piketty's blue trend line showing the share of wealth owned by the top 10% of Britons ends up well above what's suggested by the data, in red, that Piketty himself cites.

Meanwhile, just one official data point for the top 1% share of wealth aligns with Piketty's blue line. But Giles said the source of that data said it was not suitable for the kind of calculation Piketty is trying to make. 

"Prof. Piketty ends his series taking at face value the level of the HMRC data, despite HMRC saying clearly the data is not suited for that purpose, nor is it consistent with the old Inland Revenue Series which Prof. Piketty uses for earlier years. This latter point is also clearly stated in the notes to the source data.". . .

ORIGINAL: The Financial Times has "found mistakes and unexplained entries in his spreadsheets, similar to those which last year undermined the work on public debt and growth of Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff."

The investigation undercuts this claim, indicating there is little evidence in Prof Piketty’s original sources to bear out the thesis that an increasing share of total wealth is held by the richest few. 

Prof Piketty, 43, provides detailed sourcing for his estimates of wealth inequality in Europe and the US over the past 200 years. In his spreadsheets, however, there are transcription errors from the original sources and incorrect formulas. It also appears that some of the data are cherry-picked or constructed without an original source.

For example, once the FT cleaned up and simplified the data, the European numbers do not show any tendency towards rising wealth inequality after 1970. An independent specialist in measuring inequality shared the FT’s concerns.  . . . 

Professor Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University said Prof Piketty’s “fundamental contribution” was the provision of data on the distribution of wealth. . . . .

Like many, Robert Shiller, a liberal economist at Yale, was not impressed with Piketty's solutions, but he was impressed with the data:

Thomas Piketty’s impressive and much-discussed book Capital in the Twenty-First Century has brought considerable attention to the problem of rising economic inequality. But it is not strong on solutions. As Piketty admits, his proposal – a progressive global tax on capital (or wealth) – “would require a very high and no doubt unrealistic level of international cooperation.” . . .

So what do Shiller and Stiglitz say now?  They put a lot of weight on that data and the comparisons that were made.  Now those same comparisons show the opposite of what they claimed do they reverse their positions?  Paul Krugman believed that the book “will be the most important economics book of the year – and maybe of the decade.”

Of course, there were lots of logical errors in Piketty's book, but these data errors mean that even ignoring those problems his data doesn't show the increase in inequality that he was claiming.

As someone who hasn't put so much weight on these types of discussions, I don't really care what the results show on this, but for those who do, I will be interested in knowing how they handle this.

Read More

With all the corruption and unnecessary deaths in the Veterans Administration hospitals, it is interesting to see who has touted it as the big success story

With even the Obama administration admitting that 27 veterans have died because of the waiting list scam, Democrats even having a hard time with the VA now.  But a few years ago, while these problems were festering, liberals were pointing to the VA as the example that we should all follow.  As to the Obama administration's explanation On Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” NBC News chief Pentagon reporter Jim Miklaszewski claimed, “You have a VA that is overwhelmed and under-resourced,” John Merline points out that was incorrect. 

Paul Krugman in 2011 wrote of the VA’s “huge success story”:

Multiple surveys have found the VHA providing better care than most Americans receive, even as the agency has held cost increases well below those facing Medicare and private insurers…the VHA is an integrated system, which provides health care as well as paying for it. So it’s free from the perverse incentives created when doctors and hospitals profit from expensive tests and procedures, whether or not those procedures actually make medical sense. . . . Yes, this is ‘socialized medicine’… But it works, and suggests what it will take to solve the troubles of US health care more broadly. . . .

Nicholas Kristof of the Times wrote in 2009:

Take the hospital system run by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the largest integrated health system in the United States. It is fully government run, much more “socialized medicine” than is Canadian health care with its private doctors and hospitals. And the system for veterans is by all accounts one of the best-performing and most cost-effectiveelements in the American medical establishment. . . .

Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton wrote in the pages of the Times:

Remarkably, Americans of all political stripes have long reserved for our veterans the purest form of socialized medicine, the vast health system operated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (generally known as the V.A. health system). If socialized medicine is as bad as so many on this side of the Atlantic claim, why have both political parties ruling this land deemed socialized medicine the best health system for military veterans? Or do they just not care about them?  . . .

Ironically, President Obama now explains that the current problems are nothing surprising, with the VA’s issues go back years:

[A]ll of us, whether here in Washington or all across the country, have to stay focused on the larger mission, which is upholding our sacred trust to all of our veterans, bringing the VA system into the 21st century, which is not an easy task….  caring for our veterans is not an issue that popped up in recent weeks. Some of the problems with respect to how veterans are able to access the benefits that they've earned, that's not a new issue.  . . .

Click to make the screen shot from the website from when Obama was president-elect larger.

Read More

Congressionally Redistricting in Democratically Controlled Maryland

Computers sure are making it a lot easier to do fancier Gerrymandering.  From a data archive by Lewis, DeVine, Pritcher, and Martis at UCLA.  

Read More

Front door sign banning guns apparently didn't stop three armed robbers from taking their guns into this restaurant

The problem isn't just that the criminals ignored the crime, the problem is that it probably created an incentive for them to pick that place to rob.  Knowing that the victims are defenseless makes it more attractive for criminals to pick that as their target.  From ABC TV Channel 11 in Durham, North Carolina:

Police are searching for three suspects involved in an armed robbery at Durham's newly-opened barbecue restaurant, The Pit, at 321 W. Geer Street. 

Authorities said just before 9 p.m. Sunday, three men wearing hoodies entered the restaurant through the back doors with pistols, and forced several staff members to lie on the floor. 

The bandits assaulted two employees during the crime, but they were not seriously injured. 

"They're doing great," restaurant owner Greg Hatem said. "One of them actually went to the hospital and was released. They took a good look at him, he's fine." 

Hatem also said there were a few patrons in the dining room while the robbery was happening in the kitchen area. Workers were able to ask them to leave, and got them out safely through the front door. . . .

NCGunBlog is the source of the picture of the restaurant's front door. 

Thanks to Tony Troglio for providing this information.

Read More

North Carolina homeowner shots one of four intruders who broke into his home (at least one intruder was armed)

Yet another crime where multiple intruders broke into a home.  From Time Warner Cable News in Charlotte, North Carolina:

Authorities got the call Tuesday morning around 8:40 a.m. from Sam Hall Road. They say the unidentified homeowner heard a noise from his back window.
"And he heard the noise cutting the screen on the window. He got up and got his gun," said Sheriff Brindell Wilkins.
The homeowner spotted Rodney Hanks, 20, wearing a hood and holding a gun and a knife. Hanks was shot once in the face. Three other suspects were with Hanks but ran away. . . .

Read More

Politico poll shows "mounting danger for Democrats"

The distribution of these voters across states is pretty important, but if this survey is remotely accurate, Democrats are in for a very rough election year.  I guess that we will soon see if the Democrats start freaking out.

Read More

On Washington DC's WMAL: Chipotle asked its customers to stop bringing guns to its restaurants, but has anything actually changed?

My interview with Larry O'Connor about Chipotle's decision to no longer "welcome" guns in its stores (WMAL from 5:37 to 5:45 PM on May 20th audio available here).

Read More

So what caused crime rates to go up in 2012 in Chicago?: An extended discussion on the Dennis Miller Radio Show

The main event: Dennis was nice enough to have both the police officer and myself to discuss the issue more fully on Friday, May 16th from 12:33 to 1:00 PM, audio here.  The second half the interview was on the general issue of why more guns mean less crime.

The background

The first round: On Wednesday, May 14th, an individual who identified himself as a cop from Chicago called into the Dennis Miller Show during the first hour and indicated that he strongly disagreed with one of the points that John Lott had raised on Dennis' show on Wednesday, May 7th, 2:06 to 2:30 PM, audio here.

Some facts: John Lott has written up some discussions on the changes in Chicago's crime rate here (most importantly) and here.  There is also a useful article on the city producing fraudulent crime statistics available here.

Read More

My newest piece at National Review Online: "A Reply to The Atlantic on the Death Penalty"

My newest piece at National Review Online's The Corner replying to a piece by Andrew Cohen at the Atlantic starts this way:

Death-penalty opponents are engaging in a lot of hyperbole. As an example, in the Atlantic this past Thursday, Andrew Cohen went after what I have written on the death penalty at National Review Online and in my book Freedomnomics, pushing the claim that “no reliable study by credible researchers has ever found any deterrent effect” from the death penalty. He also gets into the issue of race and quotes John H. Blume, a professor at Cornell Law School and death-penalty opponent, as asserting: “Every credible study has found a statistically significant race of victim effect” on who gets sentenced with the death penalty.

As for the first claim, Cohen relies on a deceased economist who died before he could evaluate my claim and the April 2012 report from the National Research Council (NRC). But even that report, which was edited by two strong death-penalty opponents, contradicts the assertion that “no reliable study by credible researchers has ever found any deterrent effect.” Instead, the report concludes that there are approximately equal numbers of papers showing deterrence as showing no clear effect. 

Unfortunately, the NRC report itself is rather biased as it excludes more than half the academic research done. It counts only ten studies (nine were peer-reviewed) that look at all 50 states and what happens when states adopt the death penalty. By my count, 20 peer-reviewed studies and four non-peer-reviewed ones were of the type that the NRC considered — following the 50 states over time to see how murder rates change when states use the death penalty. Without offering any explanation, the NRC just ignored the bulk of the research that showed the death penalty deterred murders. 

Politicians, such as those in the Obama administration, simply can’t keep politics out of the National Research Council studies, and they bias reports through whom the government puts on these panels. The Obama administration knows the views of the people they put on the panels. 

If indeed they had surveyed all these peer-reviewed studies, they would have found that by more than 2-to-1, these studies found that the death penalty deters murders. . . .

Read More

"Conservative Filmmaker D’Souza Pleads Guilty to Election-Law Charges"

As I noted at the end of April, the evidence against Dinesh is very strong.  I thought that if he went to trial he would very likely be found guilty.  I don't approve of these campaign finance laws, but I am not surprised that he plead guilty to these violations.  From the WSJ:

. . . Mr. D’Souza could face 10 to 16 months in prison and a fine of $250,000 under the terms of his plea deal.  He could also lose the right to vote. U.S. District Judge Richard M.  Berman, who will determine his punishment, set the sentencing for September.
Mr. D’Souza was indicted in Manhattan federal court in January for allegedly breaking federal election laws and giving false statements to the Federal Election Commission. He was accused of illegally funneling $20,000 to Wendy Long, the Republican candidate who unsuccessfully challenged Democratic incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand, New York’s junior senator.
Prosecutors said Tuesday that Mr. D’Souza had misled Ms. Long about the contributions, and that she would have testified against him if the case had gone to trial. Ms. Long wasn’t immediately available for comment.
Mr. D’Souza’s attorney, Benjamin Brafman, had argued previously that Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara’s office had engaged in “selective” prosecution by targeting a Republican, a criticism also echoed by retiring Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz.
Prosecutors pushed back against the claim. Law Blog noted earlier that Mr. Bharara’s office has won corruption convictions against nearly a dozen Democratic lawmakers in New York since President Barack Obama nominated him to the post in 2009. . . .

Read More