Reflecting on Malcom X's Younger Years

To contact us Click HERE
The Kelley reading on Malcolm X's teen years and the environment in which he lived during this time shed light on the factions both between and within ethnic groups. I found this fascinating because it stood in contrast to other readings and course material that focused more on the color lines between racial groups (i.e. Black and White, Asian and White, Latino and White). Instead, Kelley's reading addressed the tumultuous relationship between the Black middle class and the lower class and the resentment each group felt for the other during the time period of World War II.

This tension between the socio-economic classes within the Black community makes sense to me, since each group seemed to be trying to achieve different goals. While the lower class fought to try to assimilate into "American" culture by applying the "Protestant work ethic" celebrated in America, much of the lower class rebelled against this way of life and chased less than legitimate pursuits. In my opinion, it is this sort of dynamic (e.g. tension within a downtrodden group) that made it so difficult to overcome the unjust societal makeup of the time.

A Consumer's Republic - Reflection

To contact us Click HERE
Lizabeth Cohen's "A Consumer's Republic" was in my opinion the most intriguing reading of the year. She literally focuses on one aspect of American Culture (consumerism), and analyzes how it has helped shape American history. She touches on topics from the government's role in regulating the market over time to how racial inequality was perpetuated by consumer trends.

One of the constants throughout history in relation to consumers has been the discrepancy between the purchaser consumer and the citizen consumer. Purchaser consumers were not beneficial to the market, as they simply bought things impulsively. Citizen consumers, however, Cohen argues were essential in history. They had the tendency to be much more lobbyist, and look out for the rights of consumers in general. I think the difference between these two types of consumers shows where the power is in terms of American capitalism and the free market. There are much more purchaser consumers than citizen consumers, and except for when the government needed an economic boost, purchaser consumers are really hurting their own cause. If 75-80% of consumers were citizen-consumers, then those would be the people who would be able to regulate trends in the free market. However, as it stands, (and it probably won't change anytime soon) corporations and the private sector in general has all of the power when it comes to marketing and consumer practices.

Overall, Cohen's writing was a very persuasive argument. She had a plethora of sources from which she compiled her information, and it was very effective. If people underestimated the power of consumerism, after reading this book, perhaps they will think twice before the next time they go shopping. It is truly amazing how an everyday, sometimes mindless task could have such a profound effect on the entire construct of the United States.

Gary Okihio's Impounded Reflection

To contact us Click HERE
Prior to this reading and our discussion in class I had no idea about the treatment of Japanese Americans before their internment. Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941 by Japan. The subsequent events following that bombing divided the United States from some of its own citizens. The government became suspicious of spies being within the United States borders and focused primarily on those with Japanese descent. The article quoted an approximate 120,000 Japanese-Americans that were sent to internment camps until the war with Japan was finished.
The blatant discrimination and racism that this act shows is simply unconscionable. National security is definitely an important issue that the U.S. government has to deal with, but this takes it a bit too far. Benjamin Franklin said that he who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. Japanese Americans fell into this category except they had this sacrifice delegated to them by the government. Our country was founded upon the ideal of freedom, and therefor I think that this ideal should be afforded to all individuals regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, etc. This action was certainly a mistake and I hope that the government has learned a lesson from it. To be American is to be free, and if we take that away from an entire group of Americans, what is it to be American?

"Amos 'n' Andy" Response

To contact us Click HERE
Amos 'n' Andy was a radio comedy in the 1920's to 1950's in America. It exploited the racial stereotypes of African Americas in America in a disgusting manner. The main characters were purposely drawn as stereotypically to African Americans as possible. They had overly full lips and were made to seem extremely lazy. These are two things that are huge stereotypes of Blacks in America today and seemingly have been very big racial stereotypes of that race for sometime.



The creators Gosden and Correll were two people who were very familiar with the minstral traditions of early times. I found this very interesting that they were familiar with minstral traditions and chose to make their show using the stereotypes of African Americans. The minstral shows were also based in theory on the "happy go lucky darky on the plantation"- a seeming stereotype of the timeperiod of the minstral shows.

Amos 'n' Andy had some absolutely ridiculous aspects however there were some interesting things. The things I found most interesting were the creators prior knowledge of the minstral traditions as well as the fact that they blatantly displayed African Americans in a racist manner even in a time where African American civil rights were starting to gain steam in an American culture.

A Consumer's Republic

To contact us Click HERE
I found the subject of "A Consumer's Republic" to be very interesting, as the book made many valid points that are often forgotten today.  I liked that she used many examples throughout her writing to illustrate her various points, including many from the Depression and World War II.  She shows how being a citizen in the United States of America in the post-war era has been drastically redefined by consumerism.  I also enjoyed the arguments she made and examples she gave about women and minorities during this time period, and how the effect they had on consumerism was later redeemed through Civil Rights movements of the 50s and 60s.
After reading this thought-provoking book, I feel much more educated about the United States twentieth century economic history.  Although I thought the book to be very interesting, I also found it difficult to follow at times because of the many long, winding sentences that are a part of her writing style.  I found myself having to re-read sections quite often in order to fully understand her argument.  However, I would definitely recommend this book to others, as it does a great job of depicting and analyzing consumerism.

ObamaCare: The Neutron Bomb That Will Decimate Employment

To contact us Click HERE
ObamaCare will act as a neutron bomb on employment in the U.S. for two basic reasons.
Longtime readers know I have repeatedly explained why healthcare, i.e. sickcare, will bankrupt the nation. Here are two of the dozens of entries I've written on sickcare:
America's Hidden 8% VAT: Sickcare (May 10, 2012)
Can Chronic Ill-Health Bring Down Great Nations? Yes It Can, Yes It Will (November 23, 2011)

I have also explained why ObamaCare's "fixes" are simulacra reforms that don't even address the systemic costs arising from the cartel-fiefdom structure of sickcare:
Why "Healthcare Reform" Is Not Reform, Part I (December 28, 2009)
Why "Healthcare Reform" Is Not Reform, Part II (December 29, 2009)
More

WHY IS THIS MONTH-OLD CLIP OF AN EX-SECRET SERVICE AGENT SUDDENLY GOING VIRAL?

To contact us Click HERE
Dan Bongino lost his race for the U.S. Senate last Fall and the former Secret Service agent was finally closing up shop on his campaign offices when his phone started ringing like crazy. Television and radio shows were calling to ask Dan if he was free… free to talk about this brief speech he gave on January 19th at a Guns Across America rally in Annapolis Maryland.

We started seeing the clip popping up on various pro-Second Amendment websites and wondered why the six minute speech had suddenly started attracting so much attention.

TheBlaze spoke with Dan Bongino on Friday night. He told us that the video had only generated about five or six views before this week.
More 

13,753 Gov’t Requests for Google E-Mail Data in 2012, Most Without a Warrant

To contact us Click HERE
American government agencies – state, local, and federal -- made a record 13,753 requests to read emails or gather other information sent through Google’s Gmail and other services in 2012, more than half without warrants, according to statistics released by Google.

The total number of users about whom government agencies wanted information also set a record at 31,072, up from 23,300 in 2011, the first year Google began reporting the data. The discrepancy comes because government agencies request information on multiple users or accounts at the same time.

Most of these 13,753 requests, 6,542 of 8,438 in the latter half of 2012 alone, were done without a search warrant, Google data show. Google did not make available any detailed data prior to June 2012, nor did it make available which requests came from the federal government and which came from state or local law enforcement agencies, when asked by CNSNews.com.
More  

Obama Dispatches 100 US Troops To Niger To "Support Predator Drone Base"

To contact us Click HERE
As we speculated from the very beginning [9], and as was reaffirmed in "Is Nigeria, And Its Light Sweet Crude, About To Be Drawn Into The Mali "Liberation" Campaign [10]?", the "French" (with complete and fully-comped US support) Mali campaign is slowly but surely migrating to its intended target: Nigeria, and rather its holdings of light sweet crude. And while the US presence in this latest resource land grab, this time in Africa, was so far rather stealthy, it appears the time for foreplay is over and moments ago Obama told congress has has dispatched 40 more American troops to Niger this week, bringing the total U.S. military presence in the west African country to 100. Let's hear it for the full retroactive transparency demanded by the War Powers Resolution.

More

IRETON’S PROPOSED TAX IS ONLY $18.9 MILLION PER YEAR (A CORRECTION … AND MORE)!

To contact us Click HERE
Recent posts misstated the amount as 19 million dollars. The statement issued by his executive assistant, John Pick (available here: http://sbynews.blogspot.com/2013/02/iretons-new-19-million-tax-part-2.html), indicates that the “Storm Water Utility” would extract a total of $76.6 Million from Salisbury property owners during a 4 year period – you do the math. Even that slightly lower amount is about equal to the sum that the City has extracted in recent years with its general tax on real estate. So, the new tax is similar in amount extracted to doubling the general tax rate, which itself may have to be increased due to the shrinking value of the “tax base”. By the way, did Ireton mention any of that during his recent dog and pony show at Holloway Hall?

Now, property owners may wonder whether the new “stormwater utility” tax can be imposed unless the City’s tax rate cap, which is stated in the City Charter, is raised. Apparently, it can be because it is designed as a “fee” for a new “enterprise fund” for stormwater management. It’s like a pay to play charge to have stormwater handled by the City’s storm drain system, similar to water and sewer charges. And some homeowners seem to think that they will be exempt because of the homeowner provisions of the tax code – but that’s not so.

Speaking of sewer and water charges, they will soon go up hugely in order to fund the repair of the wastewater treatment plant and other infrastructure of those systems. His proposed capital improvement plan calls for $21 Million funded by sewer and water charges (much more than the so-called surplus that he crows about). Property owners may soon find that the actual cost of ownership of city property (taxes plus “fees”) has doubled or tripled since Ireton was elected 4 years ago.

Are your surprised that he didn’t level with the voters about these matters in his recent “state of the city” speech, in which he proclaimed that the City is in good shape because of his “accomplishments? Do you want more of this duplicity. 

To contact us Click HERE

Teenager Who Performed At Obama’s Inauguration CeremonyIs The Latest Victim Of Chicago Gun Violence

By Adam Peck on Jan 30, 2013 at 10:20 am
Hadiya Pendleton, 15 years old, was killedin Chicago on Tuesday.

Less than two weeks ago, HadiyaPendleton was leading her classmates in the King College Prep School MarchingBand down Pennsylvania Avenue on the afternoon of President Obama’s secondinauguration. It would be an opportunity of a lifetime for any 15 year old, butfor Pendleton, it was her last. On Tuesday, she was gunned down in a park a fewblocks from school on the South Side of Chicago, less than a mile from thefirst family’s home.According to the Chicago Tribune, Pendleton and anotherclassmate, a 16 year old boy, were both caught in the middle of a gang war. Theboy was still in serious condition on Tuesday evening, but Pendleton did notsurvive:Friends of the slain girl said King was dismissed early todaybecause of exams, and students went to the park on Oakenwald–something theydon’t usually do.Friends said the girl was a majorette and a volleyball player, afriendly and sweet presence at King, one of the top 10 CPS selective enrollmentschools. Pendleton performed with otherKing College students at President Barack Obama’s inaugural events.In the last year, Chicago has endured a surge of gun-relatedmurders, more than quadruple thenumber of homicides in New York City and58 percent more than the number of U.S. soldiers shotand killed in Afghanistan. During the recent debate over gun control, MayorRahm Emmanuel has sought to place his city at the front of the push for reform,instructing the city’s pension funds to divest fromany gun manufacturer and supporting more gun buyback programs.

To contact us Click HERE

Look at Rihanna - you can’t tell the difference now between pop and porn

Mama is a #RollingStone baby.... Again!!
How could you be so #hood , but you so phuckin #pop

I worry that I come from the last generation to even recognise the sexualisation of mainstream culture

When she’s not touching herself up publicly, Rihanna likes to pose for pictures smoking fags while wearing thigh-high leather boots and see-through fishnet vests. Doesn’t it trouble her? Photo: REXBy Bryony Gordon7:57PM GMT 21 Nov 2012255 CommentsMy eyes! My poor burning corneas! There I am, perusing some celebrity tittle-tattle of a lunch break, when I am confronted with a picture of professional pop strumpet Rihanna, caressing her breasts and her crotch. On stage.Rihanna, in case you prefer the more elevated strains of, say, Rachmaninoff, is so famous that she has just chartered a Boeing 777 so she can promote her new album around the world. So vast is her popularity that she seems to release a new single every other week – and she even appeared at the Paralympic closing ceremony. When she’s not touching herself up publicly, she likes to pose for pictures smoking fags while wearing thigh-high leather boots and see-through fishnet vests emblazoned with cannabis leaves. Stay classy!Rihanna is every teenage girl’s favourite pop star. As Suzi Quatro said this week, “It’s not that the women in today’s pop and rock world are being treated like sex objects; it’s that they are choosing to do it to themselves. Now they seem to be nearly nude, and I think that the videos are borderline pornography.” Quatro, who was no stranger to leather herself, has been backed up by Kiki Dee, whose lack of clothes on the cover of her 1995 album Almost Naked now seems quaint. “I watch the music channels occasionally,” said Dee, “and those kind of performances leave me cold. That whole gyrating sexual bit I find dull.”As dull and routine as doing the dishes, these days. When I was a wee lass the world got its collective knickers in a twist when Madonna posed without any in her Sex book. The Pope would stage an intervention every time she frolicked in front of a crucifix. Today the sight of Rihanna being tied up, while the words “SLUT” and “WHORE” are flashed up on the screen, would barely be cause for His Holiness to reach for the smelling salts. But never mind him. Why doesn’t it trouble her?I worry that I come from the last generation of people who even recognise the sexualisation of mainstream culture. Do we get to a stage where people of Rihanna’s age (24) and under think it is just the done thing to thrust their hips and lick their lips in public? Do we become enraged by the news that thousands of children on social networking sites are at risk of being abused by paedophiles, while failing to address the fact that Grammy-winning pop stars are making like porn stars on TV in our living rooms? You know it’s a funny, mixed-up old world when Suzi Quatro has to come over all Mary Whitehouse, really you do.

Related Articles

• Leona Lewis: music videos now verge on porn 02 Dec 2012
• Suzi Quatro: 'today's music videos are like soft porn' 20 Nov 2012
• Rihanna, 777 tour, HMV Forum, review 20 Nov 2012
• Today’s pop stars fire up Quatro 20 Nov 2012
• Parents' fear over Facebook advertising despite Cameron pledge 06 Jun 2012
• Dame Joan Bakewell: teen magazines fuel sexualisation of girls 06 Mar 2012

-------In his new biography of Jesus Christ (presumably it will sit on shop shelves next to tomes by Katie Price and Jeremy Clarkson) Pope Benedict XVI claims that nativity donkeys and cattle are a myth, and that we should be cautious about popular claims that angels sang to the shepherds to proclaim the birth of Christ. They spoke the words instead, apparently, this simple misunderstanding leading to the craze for carol singing. But back to the asses. “There is no mention of animals in the Gospels,” writes the Pope, thus breaking the hearts of children across the country who have been cast as donkeys in their school play. Bah humbug! Just who in God’s name does he think he is?-------According to research, Facebook makes us less able to fib. We are so keen to upload photos and post status updates that nobody bothers to lie any more because it is far easier to be caught out. Yet when I trawl through my friend “feed”, and see how desperate some Facebook acquaintances are to detail every cough and spit of their existence (“eating chocolate!!!”, “I have an ulcer!”), I do wonder if honesty is always the best policy.

To contact us Click HERE

Missouri Bill Would Require All First Graders To TakeNRA-Sponsored Gun Class

By Annie-Rose Strasser on Jan 30, 2013 at 11:50 am
Students in Missouri have no sexual education requirement, so there’s agood chance they don’t know how to properly protect themselves from STIs orunintended pregnancy. Soon, though, they may be able to protect themselves fromguns.Missouri state Senate is considering a bill that would require allfirst graders in the state to take a gun safety training course. Using a grantprovided by the National Rifle Association, it would put a “National RifleAssociation’s Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program” instructor in every first gradeclassroom.The irony that there’s no requirement for students to learn abouttheir bodies — but that there is one for deadly weapons — seems lost on thelegislators proposing the measure, one of whom lamented, “I hate mandates as much as anyone,but some concerns and conditions rise to the level of needing amandate”:pushing for its passage:Sen. Dan Brown, R-Rolla, told the Senate General Laws CommitteeTuesday that his bill was an effort toteach young children what to do if they come across an unsecured weapon.[...]“I hate mandates as much as anyone, but someconcerns and conditions rise to the level of needing a mandate,” Brown said.Senators watched a brief segment of the training video during thehearing. The segment featured a cartoon eagle telling children to step awayfrom an unsecured gun and immediately report it to an adult.The measure would also require teachers to spend eight hours in atraining course for how to respond to an armed assailant in the school. But theNRA will not foot the bill for the cost of substitute teachers on those days —despite the organizations stated focus onprotecting the classroom.And if the legislature is truly worried about protecting theirstudents, sex education is a good place to start. Missouri’s young peoplesuffer some of the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases in the country. Many of the schoolsrun abstinence-only education, which is proven ineffective and likely to lead to more STIs andunintended pregnancies. It may not be as terrifying to a parent to imaginetheir child pregnant instead of shot, but it’s a much more likely possibility:In Missouri, 51 out of every 1,000 women have an unintended pregnancy,while there are 12.3 gun deaths per 100,00 people.

To contact us Click HERE

January 31, 2013

Closing Arguments Given in Shaken-Baby Murder Case

By COREY KILGANNON

After three weeks of disturbing testimony in the trial of a man accused of fatally shaking his 2-month-old daughter in 2007, the defendant’s lawyer stood before the jury and began his summation with an oddly sentimental recollection about his own childhood.The lawyer, Cedric Ashley, told jurors on Thursday that his favorite childhood book was “The Little Engine That Could,” and then proceeded to use that steam engine as a metaphor to defend Li Hangbin, who according to the prosecutor in the case, Leigh Bishop, murdered his daughter Annie.Mr. Ashley told jurors that Ms. Bishop was driving the “Prosecution Express” with Mr. Li, 28, as the “sole passenger.”Mr. Li, he said, “needs protection as they try to drive him to the City of Guilt — not over the mountain of reasonable doubt, but through the dark tunnel” where “the light of justice cannot shine.”Ms. Bishop began her summation by flipping Mr. Ashley’s device, telling the jury, “We’re not here to read a bedtime story.”“We’re here because Annie Li will never read a bedtime story. She’ll never read ‘The Little Engine That Could.’ We’re here because Hangbin Li killed Annie Li.”And so the proceeding in State Supreme Court, in Queens, became a showdown between two lawyers specializing in so-called shaken-baby cases, dueling it out in a closely watched trial. Each skimmed from days of tedious medical testimony — including hospital records, autopsy reports and varying doctors’ opinions — to sway the jury in two separate directions.Ms. Bishop used the testimony to try to prove that Mr. Li, a Chinese immigrant who was raising Annie with his companion, Li Ying, 27, was guilty of second-degree murder, among other charges.On Oct. 22, 2007, Annie fell gravely ill and went into cardiac arrest. She was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where she died five days later, after having sustained what Ms. Bishop called traumatic brain injury.With his “Little Engine” motif, Mr. Ashley seized upon the storybook train’s mantra and told jurors that Ms. Bishop’s mantra throughout the trial “was not ‘I think I can,’ but ‘I wish we could.’ ”Throughout his summation, Mr. Ashley kept repeating the “I wish” line, mimicking a steam engine as he tried to shoot down Ms. Bishop’s explanation that Annie died from “shaking and blunt force trauma.”Mr. Ashley told jurors that for a just verdict, “you can’t take the express through the tunnel.” He added, “You got to take the local over the mountain of reasonable doubt, to get to the City of Guilt.”He called the jury “12 train inspectors,” and said the only way to save Mr. Li from conviction was to scrutinize the evidence.The problem, he maintained, was that the proper experts and evidence necessary to rightfully convict Mr. Li were “not on board” and that Ms. Bishop built her case on the testimony of “rock star” experts flown in like hired guns, and that their testimony was crafty and deceptive.He urged the jurors to “hold your hand high and say, ‘Stop this train.’ ”Even after dismissing Mr. Ashley’s train story, Ms. Bishop took the jury on a narrative ride of her own, starting from the time Annie was alone with Mr. Li on Oct. 22, through her death five days later, and afterward as the medical evidence overwhelmingly showed, she said, that Annie had symptoms consistent with traumatic brain injury.She was “viciously and brutally extinguished at the hands of her own father,” Ms. Bishop said. She told jurors that Mr. Li first told doctors at the hospital that the baby suffered a bump, but then after a CT scan revealed serious injuries, he later revised his description as a “heavy bump.”“Does a loving father really need 36 hours and a CT scan to prompt his memory?” Ms. Bishop said.Children, she said, “don’t just wind up in a pediatric care unit, dying from a bump on the head.”Ms. Bishop called Mr. Li a man who “chose his own well-being — he chose himself — over his daughter,” and she reminded jurors that Mr. Li held Annie as she died. “He stared down at his little girl as she leaves our world, and even that could not pierce the defendant’s desire to protect himself,” she said.Mr. Li watched both summations intently, a court official at his elbow translating the proceedings into his ear. If convicted, Mr. Li would face a maximum sentence of 25 years to life.Mr. Ashley maintains that Annie, whose health was already fragile because of a genetic condition, was bumped against a night table during a chaotic revival process after her heart attack. All of these factors contributed to her falling unconscious and eventually dying, Mr. Ashley said.Ms. Bishop mocked this as “a perfect storm for a number of rare medical conditions” and “a preposterous chain of events.”Three weeks ago, Ms. Bishop opened her case by asking the jury, “What happened to baby Annie Li?” Just before Justice Richard L. Buchter charged the jury on Thursday, Ms. Bishop said one final thing to the jurors.“What happened to Annie Li?” she said. “Hangbin Li killed her. Find him guilty.”Jeffrey E. Singer contributed reporting.

To contact us Click HERE

NRA's 'enemy list' includes Temptations

 Our View | Wednesday, October 22, 2003I am the world's leading expert in temptology. As such, I know just about every trivial thing there is to know about Motown's storied singing group, The Temptations.

I know they recorded once as The Pirates. I know they were the first Motown act to win a Grammy. I know bass singer Melvin Franklin's nickname was Blue.

But the one thing I didn't know was how they wound up on an enemy's list posted by the National Rifle Association.

We have Bob Herbert to thank for alerting us to said list. The New York Times columnist recently disclosed the fact that, if you dig around the NRA's Web site (www.nra.org), you'll find a compilation of "anti-gun" journalists, officials, groups and celebrities - an old-fashioned, honest-to-Nixon enemy's list.

Among the other names: Oprah Winfrey, Patrick Stewart, Bruce Springsteen, Spike Lee, Paul Newman, Michael Eisner, Lakers forward Rick Fox and singer Moon Zappa. Under the apparent theory that one doesn't stop being an enemy just because one stops breathing, the list also includes Ann Landers, former Atlanta Mayor Maynard Jackson and the cartoonist Herblock.

I'm sure this all raises for you the same searing question it raised for me:

Why didn't Leonard Pitts make the list!? I'm anti-gun, too! What, they hate Molly Ivins more than me?

Actually, my exclusion is probably my own fault. I don't write about guns that often. Worse, my opinion doesn't translate easily to a bumper sticker. If you've got a moment, I'll lay it out for you.

I believe the right to keep and bear arms is a fiction. Legal experts I respect - including Departments of Justice previous to the current one - have all held that the Second Amendment confers no right of individual gun ownership.

But - and here's the tricky part - I also believe the perception of such a right is so deeply ingrained in the American psyche that the legal niceties are largely immaterial. As a practical matter, the right exists.

I'm reminded of the First Amendment attorney who told me that as a strictly legal issue, it can be argued that the Constitution grants you no right to read this newspaper. Yes, freedom of speech allows the newspaper to print what it wants, but where is it written that you have

a right to have access to it?

Nevertheless, the perception of such a right is so much a part of the American character that if government tried to deny it, newspaper readers would take to the streets in protest. It's the same with the gun owners except, of course, that they'd be better armed.

So I hate guns. But I also accept that they're not going anywhere.

The question is: what can we do within that reality?

Unfortunately, extremists on both sides of the issue have robbed us of the ability to do much. We are in dying need of mandatory registration and training to govern those who choose to own guns and sensible laws to prevent their use by those who have no business with them. At a minimum, we need to be able to discuss the issue rationally. But we'll never have that ability so long as gun control advocates tar responsible gun owners as "gun nuts" and cling to the fantasy that guns can be erased from these shores.

We'll also never have it so long as gun owners' interests are represented by an organization that sets new standards for crazy.

The NRA, by the way, says The Tempts earned their way onto its list by lending their name to an anti-gun newspaper ad in 1999.

Wow. The nerve.

Still, you'll forgive me if I don't run out to burn the rare, factory-sealed Temptations live album that cost me $60 bucks. And if I say that I see in this predilection for listing enemies a sweaty, shifty-eyed, hunker in the bunker mentality that recalls Nixon at his worst.

In the face of such asininity, of paranoia beyond parody, I have just one thing to say to the NRA:

There are two "ts" in Pitts.

To contact us Click HERE

January 31, 2013

Focus on Mental Health Laws to Curb Violence Is Unfair, Some Say

By ERICA GOODE and JACK HEALY

In their fervor to take action against gun violence after the shooting in Newtown, Conn., a growing number of state and national politicians are promoting a focus on mental illness as a way to help prevent further killings.Legislation to revise existing mental health laws is under consideration in at least a half-dozen states, including Colorado, Oregon and Ohio. A New York bill requiring mental health practitioners to warn the authorities about potentially dangerous patients was signed into law on Jan. 15. In Washington, President Obama has ordered “a national dialogue” on mental health, and a variety of bills addressing mental health issues are percolating on Capitol Hill.But critics say that this focus unfairly singles out people with serious mental illness, who studies indicate are involved in only about 4 percent of violent crimes and are 11 or more times as likely than the general population to be the victims of violent crime.And many proposals — they include strengthening mental health services, lowering the threshold for involuntary commitment and increasing requirements for reporting worrisome patients to the authorities — are rushed in execution and unlikely to repair a broken mental health system, some experts say.“Good intentions without thought make for bad laws, and I think we have a risk of that,” said J. Reid Meloy, a forensic psychologist and clinical professor at the University of California, San Diego, who has studied rampage killers.Moreover, the push for additional mental health laws is often driven by political expediency, some critics say. Mental health proposals draw support from both Democrats and Republicans, in part because, unlike bans on semiautomatic weapons or high-capacity magazines — like the one proposed in the Senate last week — they do not involve confrontation with gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association.“The N.R.A. is far more formidable as a political foe than the advocacy groups for the mentally ill,” said Dr. Jeffrey A. Lieberman, chairman of psychiatry at Columbia University and president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association.Indeed, the N.R.A. itself, in response to the massacre in Newtown, argued that mental illness, and not the guns themselves, was at the root of recent shooting sprees. The group called for a national registry of people with mental illness — an alternative that legal experts agree would raise at least as many constitutional alarms as the banning of gun ownership.For mental health groups, the proposals under consideration are tantalizing: By increasing services for those with mental illness, they raise the possibility of restoring some of the billions of dollars cut from mental health programs in recent years as budgets tightened in the financial downturn. The measures also hold out hope for improvement of a mental health system that many experts say is fragmented and drastically inadequate. And some proposals — those to revise commitment laws, for example — have the support of some mental health organizations.But some mental health and legal experts say that politicians’ efforts might be better spent making the process of involuntary psychiatric commitment — and the criteria for restricting firearms access once someone has been forcibly committed — consistent from state to state. And some proposals have caused concern, raising questions about doctor-patient confidentiality, the rights of people with psychiatric disabilities and the integrity of clinical judgment.Especially troublesome to some mental health advocates are provisions like New York’s, which expand the duty of practitioners to report worrisome patients — a model likely to be emulated by other states. New York’s law, part of a comprehensive package to address gun violence, requires reporting to the local authorities any patient “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.” Law enforcement officials would then be authorized to confiscate any firearm owned by such a patient.John Monahan, a psychologist and professor of law at the University of Virginia, said that such laws are often superfluous.Although many mental health practitioners mistakenly believe that federal laws like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act forbid them to disclose information about patients, such statutes already include exceptions that permit clinicians to give information to the authorities when a patient presents a threat to others, Dr. Monahan said.Most states also have laws requiring mental health professionals to notify the authorities and any intended victim when a patient makes a direct threat.New York’s provision, Dr. Monahan said, differs from virtually every other state’s laws in allowing guns to be taken not only from those committed against their will but also from patients who enter treatment voluntarily.“The devil is in the details,” he said of New York’s new law. “The two fears are that people will be deterred from seeking treatment that they need or that, once they are in treatment, they will clam up and not talk about violence.”Most mental health experts agree that the link between mental illness and violence is not imaginary. Studies suggest that people with an untreated severe mental illness are more likely to be violent, especially when drug or alcohol abuse is involved. And many rampage killers have some type of serious mental disorder: James E. Holmes, accused of opening fire in a movie theater in Colorado in July, was seeing a psychiatrist who became alarmed about his behavior; Jared L. Loughner, who killed 6 people and injured 13 others in Arizona, including former Representative Gabrielle Giffords, was severely mentally ill.But such killings account for only a tiny fraction of gun homicides in the United States, mental health experts point out. Besides the research indicating that little violent crime can be linked to perpetrators who are mentally ill, studies show that those crimes are far more likely to involve battery — punching another person, for example — than weapons, which account for only 2 percent of violent crimes committed by the mentally ill.Because of this, some criminal justice experts say it makes more sense to pass laws addressing behavior, rather than a diagnosis of mental illness. In Indiana, for example, firearms can be confiscated from people deemed a potential threat, whether or not they have a mental illness.Proposals in a number of states seek to redefine the threshold for involuntary commitment to psychiatric treatment. But in doing so, they have reignited a longstanding debate about the role of forced treatment.In Ohio, lawmakers are expected to consider a proposal to increase access to outpatient commitment instead of hospitalization, while also doing away with language requiring people with mental illness to show a “grave and imminent risk to substantial rights” of themselves or others before they can be committed.In Colorado, where legislators are undertaking a broad overhaul of the state’s mental health system proposed by Gov. John W. Hickenlooper, a Democrat, the proposal also includes changing the criteria for involuntary commitment.Under the state’s current laws, caregivers can place patients on 72-hour mental health holds only if they are believed to pose an “imminent danger” to themselves or others. The governor’s plan would allow caregivers to commit people if they believe there is a “substantial probability” of harm. Virginia and some other states already have standards based on “substantial probability.”But some mental health advocates are wary about lowering the threshold. “The evidence that we have tells us that that’s not an appropriate solution, it’s not an effective solution to this problem,” said Jennifer Mathis, deputy legal director at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, an advocacy group for people with psychiatric disabilities.But Cheryl Miller — whose 21-year-old son, Kyle, was shot by the police last June after he pointed a toy gun at them — believes that a revised law might have saved her child.Two weeks before Kyle was killed she took him to an emergency mental health clinic to get him hospitalized. But the staff refused to commit him.“I said, ‘I don’t want to take him home; he needs to go to the hospital,’ ” Ms. Miller said. “They didn’t think so. It goes back to, was he an imminent danger to himself? And it was ‘No.’ ”

Cardinal Mahony Stripped of Public Church Duties

To contact us Click HERE

Cardinal Mahony Stripped of Public Church DutiesLos Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez  on Thursday announceddramatic actions in response to the priest abuse scandal, saying that CardinalRoger Mahony would be stripped of public duties in the church and that SantaBarbara Bishop Thomas J. Curry has stepped down.Gomez said in a statement that Mahony — who led the L.A.archdiocese from 1985 to 2011 — “will no longer have any administrative orpublic duties.”Gomez also announced the church has released a trove ofconfidential church files detailing how the Los Angeles archdiocese dealt withpriests accused of molestation.Gomez wrote in a letter to parishioners that the files would bedisturbing to read.“I find these files to be brutal and painful reading. The behaviordescribed in these files is terribly sad and evil. There is no excuse, noexplaining away what happened to these children. The priests involved had theduty to be their spiritual fathers and they failed,” he wrote. “We need toacknowledge that terrible failure today.”Gomez’s statement came a week after the release of internalCatholic church records. The records showed 15 years before the clergy sexabuse scandal came to light, Mahony and Curry discussed ways to conceal themolestation of children from law enforcement. Those records represent just afraction of the files the church released Thursday. The Times is now reviewingthose files.The records released last week offer the strongest evidence yet ofa concerted effort by officials in the nation’s largest Catholic diocese toshield abusers from police. The newly released records, which the archdiocesefought for years to keep secret, reveal in church leaders’ own words a desireto keep authorities from discovering that children were being molested.The records contain memos written in 1986 and 1987 by Mahony andCurry, then the archdiocese’s chief advisor on sex abuse cases. In theconfidential letters, Curry proposed strategies to prevent police frominvestigating three priests who had admitted to church officials that they hadabused young boys.Curry suggested to Mahony that they prevent the priests fromseeing therapists who might alert authorities and that they give the priestsout-of-state assignments to avoid criminal investigators. Mahony, who retiredin 2011, has apologized repeatedly for errors in handling abuse allegations.Gomez’s letter detailed changes in the status of Curry and Mahonyin the church.“Effective immediately, I have informed Cardinal Mahony that hewill no longer have any administrative or public duties. Auxiliary BishopThomas Curry has also publicly apologized for his decisions while serving asVicar for Clergy. I have accepted his request to be relieved of hisresponsibility as the Regional Bishop of Santa Barbara,” Gomez wrote in aletter.The records were released hours after a judge signed an orderrequiring the church to do so.In a written order, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge EmilieH. Elias gave the church a Feb. 22 deadline to turn over about 30,000 pages ofinternal memos, psychiatric reports, Vatican correspondence and otherdocuments.“Let’s just get it done,” Elias said in court Thursday.Her order brought to a close five and a half years of legalwrangling and delays and set the stage for a raft of new and almost certainlyembarrassing revelations about the church’s handling of pedophile priests.The files Elias ordered released are the final piece of a landmark2007 settlement between the archdiocese and about 500 people who said clergyabused them. As part of that $660-million settlement, the archdiocese agreed tohand over the personnel files of accused abusers. Victims said the files wouldprovide accountability for church leaders who let pedophiles remain in theministry; law enforcement officials said the records would be importantinvestigative tools.But the release was delayed for years by appeals and thepainstaking process of reading and redacting 89 files, some hundreds of pageslong. A private mediator in 2011 ordered the church to black out the names ofvictims and archdiocese employees not accused of abuse, saying he wanted toavoid “guilt by association.”Earlier this month, at the urging of the Los Angeles Times and theAssociated Press, Elias ordered the names restored, saying the public had aright to know what Mahony and others in charge did about abuse. The churchcomplained about the cost of restoring the redactions and suggested to thejudge earlier this week that generic cover sheets for the files listing topofficials and their dates of service should suffice.After criticism from attorneys for the victims and the media, thechurch abandoned that plan and its lawyers said in court Thursday “anybody in asupervisory role” would be named in the documents. Elias’ order specified thatthe names of the archbishop, the vicar who handled clergy abuse, bishops andthe heads of Catholic treatment centers for pedophiles be included.Here is Gomez’s full letter:My brothers and sisters in Christ,This week we are releasing the files of priests who sexuallyabused children while they were serving in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.These files document abuses that happened decades ago. But thatdoes not make them less serious.I find these files to be brutal and painful reading. The behaviordescribed in these files is terribly sad and evil. There is no excuse, noexplaining away what happened to these children. The priests involved had theduty to be their spiritual fathers and they failed.We need to acknowledge that terrible failure today. We need topray for everyone who has ever been hurt by members of the Church. And we needto continue to support the long and painful process of healing their wounds andrestoring the trust that was broken.I cannot undo the failings of the past that we find in thesepages. Reading these files, reflecting on the wounds that were caused, has beenthe saddest experience I’ve had since becoming your Archbishop in 2011.My predecessor, retired Cardinal Roger Mahony, has expressed hissorrow for his failure to fully protect young people entrusted to his care.Effective immediately, I have informed Cardinal Mahony that he will no longerhave any administrative or public duties. Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Curry hasalso publicly apologized for his decisions while serving as Vicar for Clergy. Ihave accepted his request to be relieved of his responsibility as the RegionalBishop of Santa Barbara.To every victim of child sexual abuse by a member of our Church: Iwant to help you in your healing. I am profoundly sorry for these sins againstyou.To every Catholic in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, I want you toknow: We will continue, as we have for many years now, to immediately reportevery credible allegation of abuse to law enforcement authorities and to removethose credibly accused from ministry. We will continue to work, every day, tomake sure that our children are safe and loved and cared for in our parishes,schools and in every ministry in the Archdiocese.In the weeks ahead, I will address all of these matters in greaterdetail. Today is a time for prayer and reflection and deep compassion for thevictims of child sexual abuse.I entrust all of us and our children and families to the tendercare and protection of our Blessed Mother Mary, Our Lady of Guadalupe and OurLady of the Angels.Sincerely yours in Christ,–  Harriet Ryan, Hector Becerra, Ashley Powers and VictoriaKim

The Ultimate Guide To The Gun Safety Debate

To contact us Click HERE

TheUltimate Guide To The Gun Safety DebateBy Zack Beauchamp on Jan 31, 2013 at3:20 pmSince the shooting inNewtown, Connecticut, the debate over gun violence in the Untied States hasbegun in earnest. Some common talking points can and should be easily dismissed— the idea that regulating access to guns is always unconstitutional or makes tyrannymore likely, to take two examples. But notevery argument against expanded gun regulation is ridiculous. There are some,based on the evidence about and history of gun use in the United States, thatare worth taking more seriously. You’re likely to hear them a lot over thecourse of the coming debate. Here’s a list of some of the more commonly made,more serious arguments against gun regulation — and why they fail toeffectively make the case against new laws:“Assault weapon” is a meangingless term. || The last assault weapons ban failed. || Assault weapons don’t kill many people. || Deaths went down after the ban expired.|| How can background checks stop killings?
Are background checks unfair? || High-capacitymagazines don’t assist in mass killings.
People need high-capacity magazines to defend themselves. || The ban on high-capacity magazines failed.
More guns, less crime. || Why do gun-regulating cities have more crime?THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN1. “The law’s ban on some so-called assault weapons isnonsensical. All such weaponry terminology means is that they aresemi-automatic weapons (which most guns are) with some military-style externalfeatures.”These so-called “externalfeatures” not only themselves allow for faster rates of fire and other morelethal uses of the guns, but also serve as effective proxy definitions for thesort of weapons best suited to kill people as efficiently as possible. Thedefinition of “assault weapon” in the new federal ban proposed by SenatorDianne Feinstein (D-CA) with respect to semi-automatic rifles and pistols isfocused on two kinds of each. The rifles are civilian equivalents of “assaultrifles,” the main class of rifle used by modern militaries. “Civilian” versionsare distinguished only by their inability to fire either automatically or inbursts without a conversion kit. The pistols have features that make themliable to be converted to full automatic versions (that is, into submachineguns) or otherwise enhance their lethality (e.g., allow for faster rate offire).The Feinstein law picks outthose sorts of weapons in two ways. First, it bans specific guns (like theAR-15s used by James Holmes in Aurora and Adam Lanza in Newtown) that areparticularly deadly. Many of these guns are civilian equivalents of militaryassault rifles, because — as assault rifle expert C.J. Chivers puts it — these guns were “conjured toform solely for the task of allowing men to more efficiently kill other men”because they are “smaller, lighter in weight, more tactically versatile andrequire a lighter per-man effective ammunition load than the infantry riflesthat preceded them.” The Feinstein provisions, unlike in the 1994 federal ban,specify that “altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weaponthereof” are also banned, so taking out a single screw and callingthe weapon something different would not allow manufacturers to skirt the ban.The second provision defines generic features — like barrel shrouds that allow for faster fire or (for pistols)magazines outside the pistol grip — and bans any gun that has more than one ofthem and a detachable magazine (the old ban allowed a maximum of two features,making it easier to skirt).These aren’t merelycosmetic features: they’re the ones that mark guns optimized for effectiveperformance in combat-style situations. They also mark guns easily convertibleto full automatic fire, like the TEC-9 submachine guns once favored in gangkillings. One such kit is fully legal, despite the 1934 National Firearms Actbanning the possession of automatic weapons without a permit. The kit producedby the company Slide Fire product allows you to turn your AR or AK seriesassault rifle into a rapid-fire machine without technicallyrunning afoul of the federal definition of “machine gun.”The notion that assaultrifles are similar in caliber to hunting rifles, and hence no more dangerous,doesn’t stand up to scrutiny for similar reasons. As the California AttorneyGeneral’s office explains, “Caliber has no bearing on a weapon’sstatus as a series weapon and should be disregarded when making anidentification. For example, upper receiver conversion kits are available toconvert almost any AR series weapon into .45 ACP, .40 S&W, 7.62 X 39 mm, 9mm, 10 mm, or .223 caliber.”2. “The last assault-weapons ban didn’t work.“There is evidence that the1994 federal ban saved lives despite a series of loopholes closed in theFeinstein bill and several state bans. Though there isn’t reliable data on the number ofpeople killed by assault weapons in the United States, there is strong evidence from the Mexican borderthat both California’s assault weapons ban the federal assault weapon ban lowered the homicide rate. The clearest comesin a 2012 academic paper that treated the expiration of the federal assaultweapon ban in 2004 as a natural experiment — California still had its assaultweapon ban, but Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona didn’t have equivalents. Theauthors tracked homicides and weapon seizures in the Mexican provincesbordering the states, finding disproportionately lower homicide rates inprovinces near California. This difference remained when other potential causes(like police presence) were accounted for, suggesting the federal andCalifornia bans had successful kept assault weapons out of the hands of cartelsand other criminals. The expiration of the federal law, on this paper’s model,has gotten roughly 239 people killed on the Mexican border peryear since 2004. This is consistent with another paper that found “the expiration of the AWB isresponsible for at least 16.4 percent of the increase in the homicide rate inMexico between 2004 and 2008.”The 1994 ban, according toa Department of Justice review, also appears to have caused the percentage ofcrimes involving assault weapons in some major US cities to drop from 72percent to 17 percent.While it’s true that thesame review couldn’t find support for the idea thatthe Assault Weapons Ban reduced crime in 2004, the authors concluded that theresimply hadn’t been enough time or data to come to a strongconclusion. The more recent Mexican studies may have filled thisgap.3. “So-called ‘assault weapons’ are nowhere near the root ofthe American violence problem.”The reality is that even aminor percentage decline in fatalities could means hundreds of fewer peoplekilled per year. Estimates about the percentage of crimes involving assault weaponsrange from two to eight percent. But if the Feinstein law could make a dent inthat number, that’s still a big deal. Consider one estimate, based on federal gun trace data, that the originalfederal assault weapons ban reduced the national percentage of gun crimesinvolving assault weapons from about five percent to about two percent.Assuming that, because assault weapons are rarer and deadlier and hence morelikely to be responsible for homicides, this translated to a one percentdecline in the homicide rate. That’s 110 fewer murders per year given theroughly 11,000 Americans killed by gun homicide every year. We can debatewhether would-be murderers would simply use other types of guns, and whetherthey’d be as deadly, but the point is that even a small percentage drop in gunhomicides nationwide would be a huge victory.4. “Violent crime has decreased 17 percent since the assaultweapons ban expired..”This one is just an abuseof statistics — just because violence is declining doesn’t mean it couldn’t bedeclining faster. It’s true that violent crime as a whole, including gunhomicides, has declined over the course of the past decade. This suggests thatgun laws aren’t the only factors that determine the crime rate — see KevinDrum’s fantastic series on lead and crime for aclear explanation of the other causes that might’ve mattered.Moreover, when you comparedifferent states with different gun laws at the same time, you find states withtighter gun regulations (including assault weapon bans) have significantly lower rates of firearm death.This suggests that, independent of whatever good fortune the United States hasseen the past decade, better gun laws could significantly accelerate decline inlives lost to gunfire.UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS AND DEALER INSPECTIONS
1. “How is this supposed to prevent mass murder?”First, some mass shootersdo have criminal or worrisome mental health records, like James Holmes and Seung-Hui Cho. Both Holmes and Cho bought their weapons legally. Choeven passed a background check despite being ruled “an imminent danger tohimself because of mental illness” because of Virginia’s lax standards aboutwhat counts as a red flag for purposes of a background check.Second, there’s anotherkind of mass murder — the 11,000 gun homicides per year — that improving ourbackground check and inspection system could unequivocally help prevent. Onepercent of gun dealers sell half of the guns used in crimes nationally,which other evidence indicates have been deterred in the pastby stepped-up ATF enforcement. Domestic violence perpetrators, people withsubstance abuse problems, and individuals convicted of other violent crimes are all more likely to commit firearm crimes,yet they can freely purchase a weapon in a private sale at, say, a gun show, noquestions asked. In a finding that should surprise no one, 80 percent offirearms used in crimes appear to have been purchased privately. State and city-levelcomparisons indicate that “states which do notregulate private gun sales, adopt permit-to-purchase licensing systems, or havegun owner accountability measures, like mandatory reporting of gun thefts,export significantly more guns used by criminals to other states that haveconstrained the supply of guns for criminals by adopting strict gun salesregulations.”It’s hard to estimate aspecific number of lives that would be saved by requiring background checks onall sales, requiring all states and federal organizations to input criminal anddrug records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (they don’t have to, currently), and giving the ATFmore power to trace and sting “bad apple” gun dealers and traffickers, but thismountain of evidence suggests that the effect of such measures could besubstantial.2. “Although better enforcement of existing restrictions ongun ownership sounds unobjectionable, it would unjustly deny millions of peoplethe right to armed self-defense.”Background checks arehardly onerous and likely won’t “unjustly” disqualify that many people. A checkusually process very quickly at the point-of-sale and even abnormally long waittimes top out around five days. It’s hardly anexcessive burden for someone seeking a deadly weapon they’ll then be able toown for life.But does current federallaw unfairly bar certain groups of people from acquiring guns? Currently, only one percent of sales are blocked bybackground checks, the vast majority of which because the purchaser hascommitted or been indicted for a felony, is a fugitive from justice, or is aperpetrator of domestic violence. Presumably, both the percentage and absolutenumber of people denied would go up if the background check system wereimproved, but the breakdown suggest that only a minute number of (for example)harmless, recreational drug users would have their access to guns restrictedbecause they failed a drug test.Moreover, it’s criticallyimportant that felons be restricted from accessing firearms. The NewYork Times surveyed felons and people convicted of“domestic violence misdemeanors” who (as a consequence of state-level,NRA-backed legislation loosening restoration standards) regained their gunrights. It found that 13 percent went on to commit crimes, half of which werefelonies. As the Times notes, there’s also evidence that denying handguns to peoplearrested for or convicted of felonies reduces their likelihood to commit futurecrimes by 20 to 30 percent.It is almost certainly truethat universal background checks and a more complete database of disqualifiedpersons will lead to less people being able to buy guns legally. Some fractionof them likely wouldn’t commit crimes — your average pot smoker isn’t theviolent type. But the misguided excesses of the war on drugs shouldn’t obscurethe fact that, right now, domestic abusers, violent felons, gang members, anddrug addicts can buy guns with impunity. The evidence is very clear that members of these groupsare more likely to commit gun crimes and that improved background checks can limit their ability to do so, saving lives inthe process. A minor limitation on a tiny percentage of Americans’ ability tobuy guns seems like a trade-off that’s easily worth making in light ofAmerica’s gun homicide rate.HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES1. “High-capacity magazines…require less frequent reloading,but are more likely to jam, and at any rate changing magazines is not difficulteven for the untrained.”There are plenty of largecapacity magazines that aren’t more likely to jam that could majorly amplifythe death toll in a mass shooting. While it’s true that 100-round magazines are more likely tojam, most high-capacity magazines aren’t nearly that large, and hence can usemechanisms that don’t appreciably increase the risk of jamming. The modern USArmy M-16, for example, has a 30-round magazine, as does a standard AK-47 (agun famous for jamming rarely). And as magazinetechnology improves, larger magazine sizes become more practicable: as JoshSugarmann, executive director and founder of the Violence Policy Center, toldThinkProgress, evidence “from gun magazines and industry publications[suggests] the trend is towards higher capacity magazines.”The Feinstein law, then,bans magazines that hold more than ten bullets for a reason.Suppose a shooter had the same assault weapon, but had four magazines or clipsthat could hold thirty rather than ten bullets. That shooter would have 80 morebullets, or three times the number, than he would have without thehigh-capacity magazine ban. Since magazine size doesn’t make much of adifference for how many magazines an individual shooter could carry on theirperson, limiting access to high-capacity magazines could result in a shootercarrying significantly fewer bullets — and hence being able to fire at significantlyfewer people.2. “Magazine size is more likely to matter for peopledefending against aggressors.”Not only is this assertiondubious on its face, but it’s bad justification for making policy given howrare defensive gun use is. Presumably someone who’s attacking a school or afamily would have more people to shoot, and hence require more bullets than thepeople trying to stop just him. But debating the nuances of this very specifichypothetical situation misses the point broader point that it doesn’t makesense to fixate on these extraordinarily uncommon cases.The often-cited number thatguns are used defensively 2.5 million times a year in the United States is mathematically impossible (more on thatlater). A survey of criminals who had been shot in a Washington, DC jailindicated that, far from being injured by their victims, they had almostall been hit by other criminals. These data suggest, when combined with other evidence,that defensive gun use is quite rare: “to believe fully the claims of millionsof self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abidingcitizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergencydepartments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminalsare afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shotwent to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.”There are at least twoother reasons to believe that defensive gun use is rare. First, people verycommonly label criminal and/or aggressive behavior as “defensive” whenasked in surveys, for somewhat obvious reasons. Second, many crimes, like most sexual assaults, simply aren’t likely tobe deterred or stopped by guns.Defending one’s family issurely a legitimate use for a gun, but the fact that a high-capacity magazine*might* be useful in some subset of these already-exceptional cases isn’t agood reason to permit their widespread ownership if keeping them legal alsocomes with real, identifiable costs in human lives.3. “In the latest incarnation of Mrs. Feinstein’s ban, wewould see the return of an ammunition limit that had no proven impact on crimewhile it was in effect from 1994-2004.”It very likely the banreduced the supply of high capacity magazines to criminals and a decent chanceit prevented unnecessary deaths. While it’s hard to separate the effects offederal and state high-capacity magazine bans on crime from assault weapons bans(they’re generally enacted at the same time), there is excellent evidence thatthe federal ban on high-capacity magazines ended up restricting access to them. TheWashington Post tracked police seizures of high-capacitymagazines in Virginia during and after the federal assault weapons ban was ineffect. The Post‘s reporters found a steady decline in number ofmagazines recovered from 1994-2004 (when the law was in effect), but saw thetrend halt and then reverse after the ban expired, indicating more criminalswere getting high-capacity magazines. One gun expert who was “skeptical” thatthe federal ban worked said the Post’s evidence changed his mind;its data was “about as clear an example as we could ask for of evidence thatthe ban was working.”There is also some old, very tentative evidence that “thatvictims killed with guns having large-capacity magazines tend to have morebullet wounds than victims killed with other firearms, and that mass murderswith assault weapons tend to involve more victims than those with otherfirearms.” While this evidence is, again, rudimentary, it suggests that arenewed, effective ban on high-capacity magazines might very well save morelives.THE SCIENCE ON GUNS1. “More guns, less crime.”The best evidence we havesays the opposite.The “guns reduce crime”argument gets made in two ways, often together: 1) the presence of more gunsdeters crime and 2) concealed carry laws allow citizens to stop crime wherethey encounter it. The two main sources cited for these claims are John Lott’s MoreGuns, Less Crime, and a series of papers written by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertzsuggesting that Americans used guns defensively 2.5 million times per year.The overwhelming consensusamong scholars is that Lott, Kleck, and Gertz are wrong. In a blockbusterarticle after the Newtown shooting, Salon‘s Alex Seitz-Wald reviewed this research in great detail,finding a series of glaring methodological flaws and a wealth of evidencesuggesting more guns led, in fact, to more gun death. It’s really worth reading Seitz-Wald’s piece in full, but to summarize afew salient points: Lott has been unable to produce the survey data supportinghis major claim about guns and concealed carry reducing crime, while independent reviews of the evidence havecome to opposite conclusions. Kleck and Gertz fail toaccount for the fact that people often falsely self-report as using gunsdefensively when they’re actually intimidating people ala George Zimmerman and the Kleck-Gertz numbers mathematically require assuming “burglary victims usetheir guns in self-defense more than 100 percent of the time,” among other problems.Suffice to say, more gunsare not the answer to gun violence.2. “If gun control works, Chicago ought to be safe.”This argument is mistakenas a matter of both statistics and law. While a simple glance at rough homicide rates suggests very littledifference in crime rates between cities with strict gun laws and thosewithout, the relevant research strongly suggests that ease of acquiring gunslegally increases the local gun homicide rate. A 2001 paper by Mark Duggan estimatedcounty-by-county gun ownership,finding that counties with higher rates of gun ownership had higher gunhomicide rates. A second paper, which used a different measure of gunownership, came to a similar conclusion. Both papersfound that only gun homicide rates — and a county’s other homicide or broadercrime rates — is affected by gun ownership, suggesting that easy access to gunsincreases gun homicide by getting more guns to more people.A third, more recent paper goes further, finding that gun ownershipincreased gun homicides even when you control for levels of urbanization andpoverty. That is, cities with more guns, all other things being equal, willhave more homicide deaths, as will poorer areas. This points to the basicstatistical error in the “what about Chicago?” argument — the question isn’twhether gun regulation is the only or principal determinant of gun homiciderates, it’s whether there’d be more or less gun death in Chicago if Chicago andnearby counties did a better job restricting access to guns. Given that stateswith tighter gun laws also have less guns (and less gun deaths), it seems the same would holdtrue (again, if you hold other variables like poverty and overall crime rateconstant) on the city-to-city level. Moreover, studies of cities with strongbackground check and illegal sales enforcement provisions have found clear evidence that imposingthese measures lowered the number of guns being diverted to criminals.There’s another, well-knownproblem with this conceit — lax federal and state laws make it easy to purchaseguns from nearby, underregulated counties or states and bring them into cities.In Chicago, for example, gun sellers will simply set up shop just outside the city limits and sell totraffickers who bring the weapons into the city. That’s one of the keyarguments for the sort of federal action being considered today, especiallyuniversal background checks at nearby gun shows to prevent this sort oftrafficking. A uniform federal standard would make it much harder for criminalsto take advantage of state and local variation.