Gun control advocates attack American Hero Chris Kyle

What could possibly justify these vicious comments?  Will gun control advocates keep this movie from "the Oscar spotlight"?  From Fox Nation:

. . . The Washington-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has given critics of the upcoming movie a Facebook outlet to rant about the subject of the movie, sniper Chris Kyle, killed after the leaving the military and while he was at a gun range with a vet suffering from PTSD. 

“Good Riddance,” wrote one. “What goes around comes around,” sneered another. 

Kyle is an American hero, a sniper so effective in Iraq that terrorists put a bounty on his head. But the movie is a liberal’s nightmare and the anti-gun coalition’s supporters have been eager to condemn it and keep it out of the Oscar spotlight. . . .

Chris Kyle's widow has her reaction to the new movie here. 

Read More

Bloomberg's gun control groups explain their strategy: focus on the states

Gun control advocates are going for a state by state approach, following along what homosexual rights groups have done.  The left wing Salon had this interview with Bloomberg's Shannon Watts:

. . . If you look at what we’ve done in the states alone — in 2013, we helped close the background check loophole in several states (Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New York) … and then we built on that this year. We got six different states, red and blue, to pass laws that would keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. And those were signed by [governors] from both parties … And then we went to Washington State where our moms were a huge part of the success of getting I-594 passed with 60 percent of the vote … And this is something we can take to two-dozen other states … to get [similar] initiatives passed there … We passed a critical gun-violence restraining bill in California, which is a prototype that we can take to other states … 

We have had huge success with our corporate campaigns. We decided that this was very much a cultural issue, so we took this issue to companies and said, You need to have policies around guns just like you do [for] attire, outside food, smoking, etc. And just in the last year we’ve gotten Target, Chipotle, Starbucks, Sonic, Jack in the Box, Chili’s — we’ve gotten all these major retailers and restaurants to say, We don’t want open-carry in our stores (in fact, some of them have said they don’t want any guns in their stores). 

If you look at how the acceptance of gay marriage came to be in this country, it was just like this; this is pretty much the playbook. You bypass Congress, you go straight to companies, you go straight to the state legislatures, you build a huge amount of momentum, you educate voters about this issue, and when they go out to the polls in 2016, hopefully you get a Congress in place that’s going to do the right thing. Maybe they’ll do the right thing before that, but we’re not going to rest on our laurels. . . .

The errors in this are quite numerous.  None of the states that they point to are "red" states.  An analysis of the 594 initiative is available here.  An analysis of the California restraining order is available here.

The claims in the second paragraph about the success in their corporate campaign are simply false (see here, here, and here.

Read More

New "American State Legislators for Gun Violence Prevention" has 200 legislators out of 7383

A new group of state legislators, named the "American State Legislators for Gun Violence Prevention," has been formed to push for gun control.  Reuters has a fairly positive news story on the group, but the article mentions a couple of points.  One thing left out of the Reuters story is some perspective: that the 200 unnamed legislators amount to just 2.7% of the 7,383 state legislators.

-- they will not mention who their members are.
-- they have "not released information on its preliminary donors" [Any guesses? Bloomberg?]

The organization is billed as bipartisan, but at the news conference they had announcing the group's formation: "The only Republican lawmaker was state Representative Barbara Bollier from Kansas."

Read More

Unfortunately, last week's attack on the Canadian Parliament seems to have doomed some simple long needed reform of gun control

The Huffington Post is quite happy about this:

The Conservative government appears to be quietly shelving its controversial “Common Sense” gun bill in light of Wednesday’s shooting.  

Government House Leader Peter Van Loan’s office was silent Friday about the future of Bill C-42. Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney’s office refused to comment, directing inquiries to Van Loan. The Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act was scheduled to be debated for the first time on the day of the shootings, with three days set aside for discussion. It no longer figures on the government’s stated agenda. 

But NDP Public Safety critic Randall Garrison told The Huffington Post Canada on Friday that he understands why the government might want to shelve this bill for the time being. 

“I think it’s obvious that the climate where firearms were used to murder a member of the Canadian Forces and to bring an attack into the House of Commons means that the climate for a discussion on a bill that would loosen, in any way, restrictions over the licensing of firearms is unlikely to be something the government wants to do right now,” he said. . . .

Unfortunately, these restrictions are the exact opposite of what they should be doing. 

Read More

CNN interviews me on "Why blacks should have more guns"

CNN's John Blake has a new article on how race and guns.  Bob Cottrol is also interviewed for the piece.  Here is part of the discussion where he discusses my work:

Some gun rights advocates say contemporary black communities could learn from that tradition of self-defense.

Restrictive gun control laws often victimize black people more than any other group because they suffer disproportionately from violent crime, says John R. Lott Jr., author of "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws." 

A black person is 6.5 times more likely to become a murder victim than someone who is white; and 92% of black murder victims are killed by members of their own race, Lott says. 

"Given the anger about police in many black communities, it might make more sense to let the law-abiding citizens in those communities have a greater chance to defend themselves," says Lott, founder and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, a group that examines the links between gun control and crime. 

There are some who say that gun laws actually discriminate against poor blacks by making it more difficult for them to buy guns for protection, he says. He says states do this by raising the costs of concealed gun permits, training and other fees that price out poor minorities. 

And gun restrictions don't help black people living in violent neighborhoods, he says. Every time guns have been banned, Lott says, murder rates have increased. When the state of Massachusetts increased the costs of gun ownership, the number of registered gun owners in the state plummeted -- and the state's murder rate rose. Other academics say Lott's research is faulty. 

"The big problem," Lott says, "is that law-abiding good citizens, not criminals, obey the gun control laws." 

But are gun proponents like Lott really promoting safety or, as one scholar says, are they selling fear? 

Gallagher, the sociologist, says gun producers and the NRA create a perpetual state of fear so that people can buy their products. An NRA spokesman, Andrew Arulanandam, was repeatedly contacted but declined to answer questions submitted for this article. . . .

Read More

Pennsylvania state government moving to protect gun owners from local government regulations

From WTAE.com:

The House voted 143-54 for a bill that would discourage local governments from imposing illegal gun restrictions by giving anyone whose rights are violated by such laws the ability to sue and recover legal fees, as well as reimbursement for any lost income. 

That bill also would require the state police to submit mental health data within 90 days to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, run by the federal government. . . .

Read More

Even liberal media outlets are calling Gabby Giffords' gun control attack ads completely over the top

From Politico:

Gabby Giffords, irreproachable figure of sympathy, has fashioned an improbable new role for herself this election year: ruthless attack dog. 

The former Democratic congresswoman, whose recovery from a gunshot wound to the head captivated the country, has unleashed some of the nastiest ads of the campaign season, going after GOP candidates in Arizona and New Hampshire with attacks even some left-leaning commentators say go too far. And Republicans on the receiving end are largely helpless to hit back, knowing a fight with the much-admired survivor is not one they’re likely to win. 

Some of the toughest spots from Giffords’ newly formed pro-gun-control super PAC, Americans for Responsible Solutions, hammer Republican Martha McSally, a retired Air Force pilot who is running for the Arizona seat Giffords once held. One features a wrenching testimonial from a woman named Vicki who weeps and stumbles over her words as she recounts how her 19-year-old daughter was hunted down and murdered by an enraged ex-boyfriend. . . .

Giffords’ bare-knuckled approach isn’t entirely out of character. . . .

As Politico notes, even the liberal Arizona Republic’s had strong words condemning the ads in Arizona.

the Arizona Republic’s editorial page, which is typically liberal leaning, called the “Vicki” ad “base and vile.” The commercial, the newspaper said, put the murder “at McSally’s feet, as if she were responsible. A murder indictment implied. But, of course, McSally had nothing to do with” the death. . . .

Read More

Actor Liam Neeson lashes out against gun ownership

From the Independent (UK) newspaper:

. . . “I am totally for gun control in the US,” he says. “The population of America is roughly 300 million and there are 300 million guns in this country, which is terrifying. Every day we’re seeing some kid running rampant in a school. And do you know what the gun lobby’s response to Newtown was?” he asks, referring to the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, which left 20 children dead in December 2012. 

“The National Rifle Association’s official response was ‘If that teacher had been armed…’ It’s crazy. I’ll give Britain its dues, when they had the Dunblane massacre in Scotland, within 24 hours the gun laws were changed so you could not have a handgun.”  

Born in Ballymena, County Antrim, but a resident of New York, Neeson became a US citizen five years ago in the wake of the death of his wife, Natasha Richardson, in a freak skiing accident in 2009.  The actor cites the outpouring of goodwill from Americans as one of the main reasons for his decision. Part of the naturalisation process involves a test on US civics; Neeson, therefore, understands the Constitution as well as anyone. “It is the right to bear arms which is the problem. I think if the Founding Fathers knew what was happening they would be turning in their graves with embarrassment at how that law has been interpreted,” he says, in reference to the Second Amendment to the Constitution. . . .

Mr. Neeson is of course wrong about what the NRA proposed.  I have proposed allowing staff at school to be armed, but the NRA has wanted to have armed guards.

Read More

Fortune Magazine completely mangles story on gun sales "declining"

Fortune magazine's Laura Lorenzetti makes a lot of logical mistakes in her "news" article here.

It looks like Americans may be buying fewer guns this year. 

Smith & Wesson  SWHC , the 162-year-old gunmaker, lowered its guidance for the quarter and rest of the year, even as it reported better than expected sales in its fiscal fourth quarter that ended Apr. 30. Shares of Smith & Wesson’s stock had dropped nearly 9% by the close of trading Friday following the announcement. 

The company reported sales of $170 million in its fourth quarter, higher than the average analyst estimate of about $164 million, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Revenue was almost 5% less than the year-earlier quarter. . . . 

The once high-selling gun industry may be facing a comedown as incidents of gun violence have soared this year. There has been an average of almost one school shooting every week for the past year and a half, the Washington Post reported earlier this month. . . .

Does reporter Laura Lorenzetti have any idea how inaccurate the Bloomberg claim is that there was one school shooting every week for the last year and a half?  The claim that increased gun violence is responsible for a drop in sales makes many errors.  Does a sales drop for Smith & Wesson imply an overall drop in gun sales?  No.

So what do the NICS checks numbers show on gun sales (click on screenshot to enlarge it)?  NICS checks are not a perfect measure of gun sales, but it is hard to see how its biases have changed in a systematic way this past year.

With the exception of background checks in January and February, 2014's background checks exceed those in 2013 and they are well ahead of those in 2012 for all months.  Fortune incredibly fails to even mention the explosion of gun sales right after Newtown and President Obama's re-election.  Does anyone believe that January and February sales in 2013 were normal sales to make comparisons with?  Even if Smith & Wesson's sales might be down for the last quarter, sales for the entire industry during the April through June quarter look like they are still higher than 2013.  How the Fortune reporter can spin a discussion from one gun maker into a general commentary on the entire gun industry is pretty disappointing.

Read More

House of Representatives passed a budget amendment that would have only federal gun control regulations in DC

By a 241 to 181 vote, the House passed a budget amendment by Rep. Thomas Massie limiting DC gun control laws to those passed by the federal government.  From The Hill Newspaper:

. . . Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-Ky.) amendment to the fiscal 2015 Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill, which includes a $637 million federal payment for the District of Columbia, would prohibit funding to enforce its handgun ban and other gun laws. The amendment passed 241-181. 

Massie said the District's gun laws ran counter to the Supreme Court's ruling on the issue. 

"Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that struck down the D.C. handgun ban, as well as the unconstitutional gun lock provision, it's still difficult for D.C. residents to exercise their God-given rights to bear arms," Massie said.Massie said the District's gun laws ran counter to the Supreme Court's ruling on the issue. . . . .

Read More

The Rolling Stone Interview: Michael Bloomberg says he isn't afraid of the NRA, but should we be afraid of him?

Michael Bloomberg's interview with Rolling Stone magazine has already created its share of controversy but really just for his comments about Colorado recalling several Democrat state Senators for voting for gun control.

In Colorado, we got a law passed. The NRA went after two or three state Senators in a part of Colorado where I don't think there's roads. It's as far rural as you can get. And, yes, they lost recall elections. I'm sorry for that. We tried to help 'em. But the bottom line is, the law is on the books, and being enforced. You can get depressed about the progress, but on the other hand, you're saving a lot of lives.

But there are other bizarre claims that should be at least as controversial.  Bloomberg isn't asking people just to lock up their guns, he clearly doesn't want people to own guns.

And if you want to have a gun in your house, I think you're pretty stupid – particularly if you have kids – but I guess you have a right to do that. Someday, there is going to be a suit against parents who smoke in their houses or have guns in their houses by a kid. It's not that far-fetched. . . . 

guns are dangerous. The statistics are overwhelming. You're something like 22 times more likely to get killed in your home if you have a gun than if you don't. [Gestures at a staffer.] Let's say Amanda's trying to break in. "Excuse me, Amanda, I've gotta go get my gun to shoot you. Now, where did I put that combination to that lock? And the bullets were where? I don't know what the fuck…how do you turn the safety off?" Are you kidding me? The last thing you want to do when somebody breaks in and puts a gun toward you is try to go for a gun. That's really stupid. I don't know if you're going to get shot one way, but I guarantee you're going to get killed the other way.

About the one thing that is right here is that locking up guns, especially the way that Bloomberg wants them locked up, makes it very difficult to use defensively.  The claim about risks of guns in the home is based on completely bogus public health studies.  A brief discussion on the problems with this claim is provided in my book "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

In addition, requiring that people lock up guns or reduce gun ownership does two things: 1) more criminals are emboldened to break into people homes while the residents are in the dwelling and 2) they are more likely to be successful in committing a violent crime.

Whatever one thinks of the NRA, it is clear that Bloomberg's attack on them isn't very honest.

But the NRA takes no prisoners. Put yourself in the following scenario. You're a Senator or Congressman, a Democrat. I ask you to have background checks. You say, "Mike, I can't be with you on background checks, but my opponent, the Republican, is worse." What the NRA says is, "Babes, we don't care. We're going after you. We're going after your spouse and your children and your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren. Long after you're dead, we'll still be going after you." It's hard to think these guys aren't cuckoo and wouldn't probably do it, when they say that. A rational person would consider all of my views before they make a vote – maybe he won't be happy with my gun position, but I'm so good on the others I'll probably still get his vote. But for the NRA that's not an option.

First, we already have background checks and as far as I can tell the NRA isn't trying to get rid of them.  The issue is a bill last year that Bloomberg supported and that bill included what many believed involved registration and would have affected the private transfer of guns.

Worse, this notion that the NRA appears to be just a smear.  A tougher, objective questioner would have asked for a specific example to illustrate his claim, but Simon Vozick-Levinson wasn't interested in actually questioning him.

Read More

Liberal Radio Show host tries to get people killed, will yell shots fired when he sees someone openly carrying a gun

This is about as dangerous of a suggestion as I have heard.

Read More

Huffington Post on the claim that "there is absolutely no evidence" of net benefits of guns

From Mike Weisser at the Huffington Post:

The self-satisfied folks who really believe that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people,' simply refuse to accept the fact that if you pick up a gun, point it at someone else and pull the trigger, that the result is going to be very serious injuries or loss of life. There Is no other way, including running over someone with a car, that has such a devastating effect. The NRA gets around that problem by promoting, with an almost mystical reverence, the notion of using guns for self defense. John Lott's nonsense to the contrary, there is absolutely no evidence which proves that guns save more lives than they destroy. . . .

"Absolutely no evidence which [sic] proves guns save more lives than they destroy"?  Seriously?  There are four more refereed studies that have since showed that guns on net save lives, but this is a start (see the list available here).  Why is it that people want to ignore the academic work of so many other scholars?

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

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

With Drug Cartel Violence Rampant, Mexican government cracks down on citizens ("vigilantes") who are trying to protect themselves

With Mexico's extremely strict gun control laws failing to stop drug cartels from getting a hold of weapons, the Mexican government is using its resources to making sure that private citizens aren't able to defend themselves.  From the Washington Post:

The Mexican government is facing a crucial test over the coming days as it moves to rein in armed militia groups across the mountain towns of Michoacan, the volatile western state where avocado farmers and lime pickers have banded together to drive out drug cartel gangsters. 

While the “self-defense” movement has been celebrated in many corners of Mexico, it has also produced embarrassing images of teenage vigilantes running highway checkpoints and brandishing AK-47s and other weapons that are supposed to be illegal. 

The government of President Enrique Peña Nieto began demobilizing the militias this weekend and replacing them with a new force, the Rural Police, whose ranks will be drawn from the vigilantes themselves. 

But the government’s demobilization push has also created the potential for new clashes: between Mexican security forces and militiamen, but also among rival militias, including those that have boycotted the process and allege their former comrades are morphing into new, government-sanctioned criminal groups. . . . .  

“Everyone is afraid that the government will make a deal and the cartel will come back,” said Eriberto Sanchez, a portly 30-year-old militiaman standing at a roadside bunker of fraying sandbags, a mother-of-pearl-handled Colt .38 pistol tucked in his belt. “We don’t have an honest government.”

If Mexican police and soldiers try to forcibly disarm the militias, “a lot of blood will be spilled,” he said. . . .

Read More

The calm before the storm: polls moving in the right direction on guns, but the battle is about to get fierce

From Danny Franklin in the Washington Post has this piece of good news:

In 2000, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 51 percent of those surveyed believed having a gun in the house made it a more dangerous place to be, while only 35 percent believed it made a house safer. In a poll of 800 voters I conducted recently, opinions were almost perfectly reversed: Fifty-three percent now believe a gun makes a house safer and 35 percent more dangerous. . . .

He also argues:

The problem is that supporters of new gun restrictions have traditionally approached the issue of gun violence as a political problem to be answered by changing laws. Instead, we need to start looking at guns as a public health problem to be answered by changing minds and habits. . . .

I interpret this as confirming what I already knew: gun control advocates are planning a big push to control the facts used in the gun control debate.  With literally hundreds of millions of dollars coming from the likes of Bloomberg, Soros, the Obama administration, and others, this battle is far from over.

Read More

Note on Piers Morgan ending his show on CNN with a speech on guns

Below is the relevant text of Piers Morgan's comments.  Here a few comments.

1) Doesn't Piers recognize the irony that the Aurora movie theater and Newtown shootings both occurred where guns are banned?  That the movie theater shooting occurred in the one movie theater out of seven showing the Batman movie near where the killer lived?  That these attacks generally keep occurring where guns are banned?

2) Piers directly attacks the notion that more guns mean less crime.  But he never in all his shows dealt with the evidence that when guns are banned murder rates go up, except in one show where he and Christiane Amanpour were dishonest about the facts for the UK.

3) In classic Piers, he attacks his opponents in the most personal terms: "cowardly," "bullied," attacking his opponents as motivated by making profits for gun makers ("death and profits for the gun manufacturers").  What is gained by Piers constantly attacking his opponents this way?  He may never understand that is what many found objectionable.

With Piers continually repeating the same first two points over and over again, you would think that he would be embarrassed that he doesn't have a direct response to these two points.

This is the final episode of Piers Morgan Live. After 3yrs, 2months, 11 days and over 1000 shows, I am departing to spend more time with my cricket bat.  . . .
And I want to say something more about that before I bow out. . . .
As my brother, a British Army colonel, says, “You’d always want an American next to you in a trench when the going gets tough.”
But that’s where guns belong – on a military battlefield, in the hands of highly trained men and women fighting for democracy and freedom. Not in the hands of civilians. The scourge of gun violence is a disease that now infects every aspect of American life.
Each day, on average, 35 people in this country are murdered with guns, another 50 kill themselves with guns, and 200 more are shot but survive. That’s 100,000 people a year hit by gunfire in America.
Now, I assumed that after 70 people were shot in a movie theater, and then, just a few months later, 20 first-graders were murdered with an assault rifle in an elementary school, the absurd gun laws in this country would change. But nothing has happened. The gun lobby in America, led by the NRA, has bullied this nation’s politicians into cowardly, supine silence. Even when 20 young children are blown away in their classrooms.
This is a shameful situation that has made me very angry. So angry, in fact, that some people have criticized me for being too loud, opinionated, even rude when I have debated the issue of guns. But I make no apologies for that.
As Sir Winston Churchill said: “If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time – a tremendous whack.”
My point is simple: more guns doesn’t mean less crime as the NRA repeatedly says. It means more gun violence, death and profits for the gun manufacturers. And to those who claim my gun control campaigning has been “anti-American”, the reverse is true. I am so pro-American that I want more of you to stay alive. . . .

Read More