Titled: Gun law had little effect on crime

Police say there's little evidence gun use is up in crimes or that permit holders have prevented violence.
 
Opponents warned of vigilantes run amok, more accidental shootings and road rage escalating to gunfire.

Backers of Michigan's expanded concealed-weapons law talked of thwarted attacks by thugs, reduced crime and personal safety.

Three years of experience in Jackson County and statewide indicate the biggest impact of the July 2001 shall-issue law is peace of mind for some 110,000 people packing heat.

See I told ya. The article claims that there was no positive effect on crime either. However, if you check out the stats you will see that there has been a pretty steady drop in the violent crime rate as CPLs have been widely available in Michigan. I am not saying there is a definite correlation but the numbers are available. You can judge for yourself.

 

Titled: Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies

While it is an article of faith among gun-control proponents that government restrictions on firearms reduces violence and crime, two new U.S. studies could find no evidence to support such a conclusion.

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control.

Another non surprise.

 

Titled: The False Hope of Gun-Free Zones

Few people remember the school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi that took place in October 1997. Fewer people remember how it ended.

This episode came to a close when Pearl High School Assistant Principal Joel Myrick sprinted a quarter mile to retrieve a personal handgun from his car and confronted the shooter who was unwilling to continue the attack against an armed victim.

Myrick parked so far away from the school to keep from violating federal gun free zone statutes. By the time the shooting spree ended, two students lay dead and seven others were wounded. Myrick's heroic defense of the children at his school was sparsely reported, going mostly unnoticed by the establishment media who were unwilling to report that he used a gun to end the mayhem and murder.

They were also unwilling to ask the hard question - how many children died while Myrick sprinted to his car?

Why doesn't anyone in the media ever ask such questions? It's a great question especially when you consider this.

Past instances of mass shootings, and common sense, teach us that when a victim resists with a firearm the violence ends quickly. Arguments claiming armed intervention by citizens leads to higher death tolls do not stand up to scrutiny. Death tolls are demonstrably higher when victims are unable to fight back as compared to cases where an armed victim resists.

It's time to ask how many more people must needlessly die before gun control activists and legislators realize that disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them easy prey to criminals.

I didn't cut and paste the text covering recent events involving the use of firearms in defense. I recommend you follow the link and read the whole thing. One more teaser.

A similar scenario unfolds in nearly every massacre committed with a firearm across the United States. Most take place in what gun-rights activists call victims-zones; areas deemed too dangerous, either by government or a private business, to allow legal firearms.

What gun-control advocates fail to grasp is criminals, by definition, do not follow the law and therefore any attempt to keep them from carrying a gun into a given establishment will fail, often with tragic results.

The goal of legislators nationwide shouldn't be to keep armed law-abiding citizens from bearing arms in restaurants, bars, schools and so forth. It should be to keep criminals with guns from entering such locations.

Posting signs designating an area as "gun free" does not keep criminals from entering with a gun; they invite criminals who know nobody can stop them.

How true. Not ten minutes after I read that article I came across this short editorial from the Review Journal.

EDITORIAL: Gun ban

The only major American city that prohibits private citizens from owning guns is Washington, D.C. -- and we all know our nation's capital has a reputation for being a pastoral, crime-free paradise.

And now the deep thinkers in San Francisco hope to follow suit.

On Tuesday, The Associated Press reports, five of the city's 11 city supervisors submitted a measure to the Department of Elections that would prohibit the ownership, "sale, manufacturing or distribution of handguns, and the transfer of gun licenses."

If voters approve the plan in November, residents would have 90 days to turn in their guns. Good luck.

There are some exceptions to the proposal. Law enforcement officers, members of the military and security guards "actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment" would be free to keep their weapons.

Oh, yes, and so would one more favored class: violent and petty criminals.

Yea. What he said.

 

Titled: Accidental Firearm-related Fatalities Drop to All-time Low

A report from the National Safety Council shows that accidental firearm-related fatalities continue to decline and are at the lowest level in the history of record keeping. Statistics in the council’s “Injury Facts 2004” reveal a 54 percent decrease over a 10-year period ending in 2003.

Last year, 101,537 U.S. residents died in accidents of all types. Less than one percent, 700, involved firearms. The most common deadly accidents involved motor vehicles, falls and poisonings, claiming 72 percent of all accidental deaths.

“The continuing decline is good news that’s attributable to a number of factors, but certainly the overarching theme is increased awareness of gun safety and responsibility,” said Doug Painter, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearm industry.

The numbers of fatilities have decreased as the number of CPLs and States that allow them have gone up. I, for one, am not surprised.

 

Some tweaking of the Michigan CPL law.

Introduced by Rep. Gene DeRossett on June 9, 2004, to require concealed weapon licensing board to issue or deny a concealed pistol license (CPL) renewal within 30 days after the application is properly submitted, and if they do not do so, to extend the original license for 180 days or until the renewal is issued or denied, whichever comes first. Also, to waive the fingerprint requirements for CPL renewals, and not charge fees for fingerprints required for a CPL. Referred to the House Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Committee on June 9, 2004. Reported in the House on November 10, 2004, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass. Substitute offered in the House on December 2, 2004. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on December 2, 2004. Amendment offered by Rep. Gene DeRossett on December 2, 2004. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on December 2, 2004.

In short the bill requires the CPL board to grant or deny an application within 30 days. It also drops the requirement for a second set of fingerprints during a renewal, which in turn will lower the cost of an application. The latter change will decrease the cost of the CPL by $15.00.

There is a $105 fee both for the original application and for the renewal; this fee includes the cost of fingerprinting. The fee is disbursed as follows: $26 to the county clerk, $15 to the county sheriff, and $64 to the state police. The state police use its disbursement to process fingerprints and reimburse the Federal Bureau of Investigation for its costs. (The FBI charges a $24 fee to conduct a comprehensive national background check.) If fingerprints are taken by the local police agency, the applicant must pay an additional $15 fee. Some people contend that having a set of fingerprints taken for renewal applications is unnecessary because a set has already been taken for the initial license and the applicant's identity can now be established by photo identification. The renewal fee could be reduced if fingerprinting was not required.

Makes sense to me.

 

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of theSecond Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Find out the answer from the Unabridged Second Amendment via the Second Amendment Sisters. I am not even sure why someone has to go through all this trouble to prove we do, in fact, have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms but there it is.

 

Recently I bought my first firearm. Before I purchased I had no idea of what to buy so of course I Googled "purchase my first hand gun." There were thousands of sites to choose from and I must of went through about twenty of them. Anyway to make a long story short, based on all my research I settled on a revolver for my first gun. I did so because it seemed safer for a newbie, its ease of use and the reliability factor.

This is what I purchased. A Taurus Model 66 .357 Magnum

 

Sure it may not be as cool looking as some of the semi-automatics out there but I absolutely love my revolver. My only issue with this particular firearm is that it is way too big to conceal. It is however an awesome target shooting pistol. I'm hooked. 

This post was inspired by another blogging revolver enthusiast. Check out her site. It is a great site for 2nd Amendment and self-protection information. 

 

Titled Rethinking Libertarian Minimalism

That's the proposition I put forward earlier this week on my blog, Miscellaneous Objections, as part of a broader discussion of the future of libertarianism, and it has drawn a number of interesting -- and often heated -- responses.

Questions of foreign policy have always been difficult for those of us who espouse a philosophy of limited government domestically, and they have only grown more difficult, though at the same time more critical, since September 11, 2001.

Unfortunately, instead of reassessing their minimalist instincts when it comes to intervention abroad, many in the institutional centers of the libertarian movement -- principally at the Cato Institute and, to a lesser extent, at Reason magazine -- have remained mired in a pre-9/11 mindset.

Here, I would like to address some of the key arguments people are making against both the need for a coherent (or at least vaguely cohesive) libertarian foreign policy and the premise that one doesn't exist already.

Right after the 2000 election I made up my mind that I would never vote Republican straight ticket again. From that point forward I was going to split my ticket among conservative/libertarian Republicans, like those from the Republican Liberty Caucus or for the Libertarian candidate.

Unfortunately 9/11 happened and that did change everything (for me). After 9/11 many in the Libertarian Party made it clear, to me anyway, that hawkish Libertarians were not welcome. I tried to stick with them for a while anyway by continuing to receive several different email newsletters from several Libertarian Think Tanks or advocate groups. However, I have cancelled or don't read most of those anymore because the anti war rhetoric coming out of the Libertarian camp sounds so much like that coming from the far left.

I still agree with 85% of what Libertarians believe but until they take national security seriously I am going to vote Republican Liberty Caucus or for the most conservative candidate Republican or Democrat.

 

Apparently not everyone shares my enthusiasm for CCW permits. While I was looking for information concerning crime stats in Michigan since the Shall Carry law was enacted. I ran across this.

May police limit carrying concealed handguns?  No

Michigan - State law forces police chiefs and state sheriffs to give concealed carry permits (CCW) to anyone who can buy a handgun, allowing them to carry loaded, concealed handguns in public (known as “shall issue”). State law allows residents of some other states to carry concealed weapons in this state without informing local police.

Emphasis mine. I wonder if they know this. Our Michigan State Constitution Reads:

Article 1, Section 6 Bearing of arms: "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."

Sounds like another law, which forces government officials to allow anyone who can purchase a firearm to own one. The horror of it all.

 

Titled: Primitive party animals

Since the 1976 presidential election, the Democrats have not received more than 50 percent of the popular vote. Most organisms, except for very primitive ones, usually modify their behavior after repeated failure in order to survive.

Much has been written about why the Democrats continue to fail in the polls. But as an economist, I have been particularly struck by how they have failed to learn sound economics, despite all the empirical economic and political evidence of what works and what doesn't.

Let's start with taxes. There is overwhelming evidence our present maximum tax rates on both labor and capital are so high they reduce economic growth, job creation and the general level of wellbeing for Americans.

Despite this, Democrat candidates from Walter Mondale to John Kerry keep proposing higher marginal tax rates on labor and capital. (Note: President Clinton was the exception. He said he would reduce tax rates but then turned around and increased them.) Higher tax rates are not only an economic loser but are also a political loser.

This article is meant to explain why Democrats keep losing elections. It's pretty interesting and I believe the lesson applies to both parties. I have never understood how politicians can have so little knowledge of free market economics. I have no formal education at all but I do understand the basic concepts of supply and demand. I have never seen proof of any politician Republican or Democrat having this basic understanding. I guess Ronald Reagan came pretty close with "trickle down" economics but I was pretty young at the time and don't really remember the specifics.