NSA, Patriot Act, and FISA, gifts that keep on giving

I had an earlier post on this where I said that the severity of the charges against Edward Snowden are motivated by embarrassment of the Congress and the Administration over the amount of approved spying on our citizens more than because of any actual espionage.  Wile James Woolsley, CIA director under Clinton, wants him hanged, I still think the government's main issue is embarrassment, not espionage.  Even George Bush and Dick Cheney say that they never envisioned something as vast as gathering metadata on every single American with a phone.

Obamacare

Obamacare's website flopped, at least initially, although it is showing signs of health in the last month of 2013.  The GOP and the right, who mostly oppose the concept of the ACA (Affordable Care Act) or Obamacare, are salivating over the midterm elections next year.  While I would like to see the GOP majority in the House sustained and the Democratic majority in the Senate eliminated, I am concerned that the continued focus on Obamacare may result in the opposite result.

Duck Dynasty

Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty has been under fire for a few days over comments he made about gays and adulterers.  I have also seen one report that accuses him of questionable comments about race.  As of this morning, he was still indefinitely suspended from his show on A&E, a Disney network.

Regardless of one's stance with respect to gay rights or adultery, we also have a constitution that guarantees free speech.  Mr. Robertson's views are not my own but they do coincide with a lot of fundamentalist Christians in this country.  While those people and views should not be allowed to make public policy with respect to gays, etc, they are and should be allowed to express those views.

I am not defending Mr. Robertson's views, only his right to express them.  With respect to his indefinite suspension, that is a business and contract matter that can be settled by the courts.  While I am surprised about the degree and volume of venom from the left, the suspension itself remains a business matter and will work itself out, one way or another.

Gay Marriage

Okay, I have taken the coward's way out on this blog and stayed away from this subject.  After all, it did not affect me directly and I could wait until the country makes up its mind.  That is cowardly.  My position, although not on this blog, has always been that gays being married did not diminish me as a person.  Bigotry and murder, however, diminish me if I don't speak up.  For that reason, I am taking a stand.

Edward Snowden and the NSA

The Edward Snowden debacle for the Whitehouse actually began just before my summer travels but the data was really sketchy.  At the time, although I appreciate the public enlightenment, I believed that Snowden should have been charged with violating his security clearance.  My view on that has not changed and I am still greatful for the public enlightenment.

The current administration, however, has charged him with violating the 1917 espionage act.  While that is not out of line for an extreme case, this administration is one of the most arrogant and restrictive since, and possibly including, Nixon!  The only reason that the Snowden charges rise to espionage is because the administration, the Senate, and Congress are embarrassed.  Our Senators (for example Diane Feinstein) and our Congressmen (for example John Boehner) are also embarrassed because they actually approved the legislation authorizing the current over-reach by the NSA.

Back from Summer Vacation

Hello!

I took the summer off from blogging as we did a little traveling to see kids and grand-kids.  There have been a lot of interesting developments since my last post.  Many are fading from public consciousness, many have had enough public and political commentary that my small voice is unlikely to add anything new.  There are some developments that I hope to address in the next few posts, however, for which my posts might offer a fresh view.

I am interested in the Snowden leaks and the government's position.  I think the rollout of Obamacare and the Republican response both deserve some time.  I am heartened by Richard Berry's overwhelming victory in the Albuquerque Mayoral race and the (finally) start of construction of the new Paseo interchange.  Albeit the latter will make us miserable for a few months but is the right direction for our city.  I will play 'fantasy football' with the 2014 elections as I still believe Susana Martinez could beat Tom Udall in the 2014 Senatorial contest although it would be far more risky for her than beating off Gary King for NM governor.

Anyway, for my (few) followers, I hope to add some more entertaining posts in the following days.

Guy Dilno

Jay Carney Being Replaced by Baghdad Bob (Satire)

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney will take another position in the Obama administration to make room for the new White House press secretary, Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, known in the US as Baghdad Bob.  Mr. al-Sahhaf was the famous Iraqi government spokesman who released wildly inaccurate accounts of Iraqi Army exploits against the US during the 2003 invasion of that country.

The White House's statement on the matter is that Mr. al-Sahhaf's background and experience will allow him to better deal with the many undisciplined reporters and their irresponsible questions about the White House scandals than Mr. Carney who was always troubled by issues of truth.

Douglas Shulman's Meeting with Obama on 6 June, 2011

In an earlier post, I speculated that Douglas Shulman, the former Commissioner of the IRS, might have briefed the President on the Inspector General's Audit of the IRS's improper targeting of right wing non-profit applications during a meeting on June 6, 2011.  While I noted that this was just speculation, it was a reasonable question.  That meeting appears to not have dealt with any IRS targeting issues.  See below.

What Did The President Know about the IRS Scandal and When Did He Know IT?

Updated on 24 May, 2013:  A later post shows that the meeting referred to below does not appear to involve discussions of IRS targeting with the President or any briefing on the Inspector General's audit.  While Shulman should have been aware of it in June of 2011 (Lois Lerner was), the meeting attendee list is too broad for such a briefing.  Read the later post for a full discussion.  

Is the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups a bureaucratic SNAFU or was the White House Involved?  While all of the President's critics, including me, might like to believe this, it appears that White House involvement was at most limited to cover-up activities.  Whether or not the President was involved will be determined but I am inclined to believe he was not.  Or, I should say I believed this until today.  While it has been reported that Douglas Shulman, former IRS commissioner, visited the White House 118 times over 2 years, most of the visits look quite innocent.  Since the IRS will be extensively involved in the Affordable Health Care Act (ACA), there were many, many meetings with White House health care representatives, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) members, and Economic Council members.  There was one meeting with Rahm Emanuel's brother but he is an MD and so-called bioethicist and not likely a conduit for political messages.   Shulman also met with the President on 4 occasions.  Only one of these is not so easily explained.  According to the White House Visitor's Logs, Shulman met with the President in the Situation Room on 6 June, 2011.  This is only a question in my mind because Lois Lerner, that upstanding IRS lawyer who took the fifth yesterday, earlier reported that she learned of the now-infamous tea party targeting in June of 2011.  So, what was discussed at this meeting.  I am not saying that the President knew then but we could use an explanation.

The Obama Administration's Persecution of a Free Press

Update, 21 May, 2013:  The full text of James Rosen's article also included a statement to the effect that his story came from "...sources inside North Korea".  I have been unable to locate a full text of the article so I am getting this third hand.  I will admit that adding that statement makes the leak more interesting to the DOJ but still believe that this Whitehouse has engaged in activities to deliberately hide operational data from the press by classifying it.  We still need a better explanation from the DOJ and the Whitehouse over this serious breach of Rosen's First Amendment rights. 

In a post last week,  I discussed the IRS scandal, Benghazi, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) seizures of AP Phone records.  Today I read of DOJ activities with respect to James Rosen, a Fox News reporter in a Guardian article.  The DOJ apparently not only looked at his phone records, they got a warrant to view his private emails and have listed him as an unindicted co-conspirator in the leak of  the information  that North Korea would probably respond to sanctions with more nuclear tests.  Now this story which could have been surmised by anyone who has followed the news with respect to North Korea for a few years is the result of the government classifying the obvious.

Candidates to Oppose Tom Udall in 2014

In an earlier post (Tom Udall), I noted that Tom Udall supported the Feinstein-sponsored legislation to limit magazine capacity and also pressured the IRS in a letter to restrict organizations, like the various tea parties, from obtaining 501C(4) status.  I suggested then that we need to get rid of him as New Mexico's senior Senator.  Today I will examine the possible contenders for his senatorial seat.  The leading contenders appear to be Republicans John Sanchez, Jon Barela, and Richard Berry but Susana Martinez could conceivably run and win.

Benghazi e-mails Released, No Conspiracy but Stupid

It took nearly nine months for the White House to release the trail of E-Mails about the talking points furnished to Susan Rice (See ABC News Link here).  While this may not be the entire story, it pretty much clears up the notion that there was a conspiracy in the Whitehouse to confuse the issue.  Instead, if you read through the entire set of e-mails you tend to see a bumbling group of hangers-on that cannot get anything done right.  Clearly, this is the gang that couldn't shoot straight.  

How much of this is Obama and how much is so-called career professionals?   Certainly there were career (so-called) professionals like Victoria Nuland (27 years at State?) who (now) famously objected to the potential political potential of the original version.  The first person in line to substantly alter the talking points, however, was an Obama political appointee, the CIA General Counsel Steven W.  Preston.  His apparent objections centered on the DOJ/FBI requests to not discuss "internally or externally" the possible bad guys for fear it would hurt any future prosecution.  Well intentioned or not, this is paralysis by analysis.  Did the FBI ever get to Benghazi anyway?

So why did it take nine months to release this?  Maybe the Obama administration was just embarrassed.  Considering what we pay all of these folks, the resulting talking points were less than worthless.  I remarked today to a friend that they might well have said, "Consulate attacked, still looking for clues.”  Or, even better, “Consulate attacked, still looking for clues in the DOJ garage because the light is better there.”

Does this tell the whole story?  Well, was there any political pressure on the CIA prior to coming up with the first set of talking points or are they as incompetent as they seemed after 9/11?  Incompetence or conspiracy?

IRS Targeting, Apparent Cover-up, Seized Reporters' Phone Records, not Since Watergate

Well, it looks like something happened in getting out the Benghazi message and the truth was covered up by persons still unknown.  The President gave a press conference calling the inquiry a sideshow.  We learn that the IRS has been targeting the President's political opposition (supported  by Tom Udall).  Most chilling of all, we find that the Justice Department has ordered the seizure of reporters' phone records and the phone records of The Associated Press.  We have not seen this level of arrogance in the Whitehouse since Richard Nixon.  The President's loyal following is claiming that these stories don't have legs, i.e. the stories won't last into next year.  The former Secretary of State in Congressional testimony famously asked, "...what possible difference does it make now?"  This seems to be the general tone in Mr. Obama's own party.  It matters!  We should look to the articles of impeachment in Nixon's case for an example:

1. Obstruction of Justice
2. Abuse of Power
3. Contempt of Congress

Tom Udall's involvement in IRS targeting of Tea Party groups

So the IRS is targeting Tea Party Groups.  Is this the sign of a conspiracy by President Obama and the Democrats to Evoke the Ghost of Nixon or an innocent action by a few misguided IRS investigators?  As the 8-ball would say, signs point to yes.  It turns out that several Senators, including our beloved Tom Udall (not) sent a letter to the IRS(See it here) commissioner in Cincinnati to vet these awful Tea Party types.  The fact that the letter was signed by Udall and some of the most liberal of the Democratic Senate says everything.  Udall does not represent the majority of New Mexicans.  He has traded on the name reputation of his father, Stewart Udall, a reasoned and respected Arizona Politician.  This attempt to stifle Political opposition makes him an enemy of all New Mexicans, Liberals and Conservatives alike.  This letter is the equivalent of a letter to the IRS praising the efforts of the Nixon Whitehouse to audit his so-called enemies.

Promote Immigration Reform Now

In an earlier post (Immigration Reform, It Is Time), I made the case that we need immigration reform now.  Shortly after that, a bi-partisan panel advanced a new immigration reform bill.  There is huge resistance to this bill in some quarters with the majority of the news reporting GOP resistance to the bill.  Most of the objections center on border security although a new complaint about cost has been advanced.  It is possible that some in the GOP as well as the administration believe that undocumented aliens equate to undocumented Democrats.  This is just not the case.  Neither is border security a legitimate argument against immigration reform.  In fact, the system is sufficiently broken that it actually encourages illegal immigration because legitimate work visas do not reflect the demand for foreign workers.  I say support immigration reform now.

Illegal Trafficking of Firearms to Mexico

Figures don't lie but liars figure could be the subject of this post.  I became alarmed reading a report in a Mexican newspaper that as many as 2,000 guns per day were crossing the US border.  Then there are many news reports suggesting  250,000 firearms illegally crossing to Mexico each year.  There are oft-repeated claims that the United States is responsible for 90% of the guns seized in Mexico and by implication 90% of all the guns used by Mexican drug cartels.  The truth is that none of these claims are true.

Although I poke holes in a lot of the data floating around in the media, I conclude (and I am an NRA member) at the end of this article that expanded background checks should be implemented to discourage straw purchasers of firearms transferring guns to illegal exporters.  I am still opposed to magazine restrictions and restrictions on so-called assault weapons.

Background Checks on Firearm Sales

Recently a background check amendment failed in the US Senate.  While opposed by the NRA, increased background checks might be a tool that could be used against the practice of using legitimate straw buyers to purchase firearms for smuggling into Mexico and other countries.  Currently the practice of straw buying is against the law but difficult to prosecute unless a gun is caught at the border or in Mexico within a year of the purchase.  Requiring that all non-family transfers be run through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS Check) might put a new tool in the hands of law enforcement to prosecute and discourage the illegal practice of straw buying.

Gun Control and New Mexico Senators

I am a guns rights person, a second amendment person, and am generally opposed to any additional gun control.  Since political opportunists Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer attempted to use the tragedy at Sandy Hook elementary to push yet another assault on law abiding gun owners, I have sent emails to both US Senators and Michelle Lujan Griffin opposing action on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.  Yesterday the Senate voted on increased background checks, the assault weapons ban, and a high capacity magazine ban.  Both of our Senators voted for the magazine bans and for expanded background checks.  Don't forget in 2014!

If you think magazine limitations are a great idea, read this article.  It is biased towards gun rights but makes the case for larger capacity magazines - especially for women.

Senator Heinrich has six more years before reelection but Senator Udall is up for reelection in 2014.  It is not too soon to get behind a primary challenge to Udall if you can find a Democrat in this state who has the courage to buck the liberal establishment in that party or to start looking and working for a rational Republican opponent.  Same thing for Martin Heinrich but we will have to wait 6 years.

America, Freedom of Speech, Terrorism, Domestic or Foreign

While I, like most of America, deplore the bombings at the Boston Marathon and the sending of ricin-laden letters to The President and Senator Wicker of Mississippi, the flood of news articles on the bombings and the ricin-laden letters, inadvertently shed a little light on our nation’s tradition of freedom of speech.   Several articles on the pressure cooker bombs made reference to The Anarchist’s Cookbook, a 1971 publication as having directions for the making pressure cooker bombs.  While I have not read the book so I cannot confirm that it is a source of information on producing ricin, the FBI (here) noted that a copy of The Anarchist’s Cookbook tabbed to a page that included, “How to Prepare Ricin” was found in the search of the room of Roger Bergendorff, later convicted of manufacturing ricin.  This piqued my interest as I recall reading news reports of the book in the early 1970’s and was surprised that it had survived the years if that information was included.

Sequestration Does Not Mean the Sky is Falling - take 2

I had an early version of this post that did not properly consider all of the data available.  Suffice it to say that the sequester is complicated.  My conclusions are the same.  The National debt stands at $16 trillion.  The interest on this is approaching $800 billion.  The current annual debt is about $1.2 trillion.  If we do not cut spending, we soon will be borrowing just to pay the interest.   The sequester is a very small step toward a long journey.  Is this a problem this year?  No, we can get through this.  Is it a problem in 10 years, almost certainly.  Change needs to be made on the spending side as well as on the revenue side.  Sooner is better than later.  Neither the President nor the Congress gets this.

Sequestration Does Not Mean the Sky is Falling

After digging deeper into the sequester, I found several issues in my earlier post that may have been inaccurate.  Mostly I was looking at an obsolete OMB report on the sequester that had $109 billion in sequestration funds for 2013.  The American Taxpayer Relief Act reduced the 2013 effects of sequester by $24 billion leading to the much reported $85 billion.  Regardless, I am still trying to square the DOD discretionary funding with the caps in the budget control act.  Because of this, I took down the earlier post and will update it and republish soon.  There is no point in having incorrect data out there.  The effects of trimming $85 billion from a $3,200 billion budget is still negligible but the details of these posts should be accurate.

There are actually three OMB (Office of Management and Budget) documents that clarify or muddy this issue.

The first one is undated and was published sometime in 2011, I think.  It is the least clear:

The next one, published last September, outlines a different scenario and suggests only a modest impact to the budget.  http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/sequestration/sequestration_update_august2012.pdf

The final one was published by OMB last Friday:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf

All of these OMB memos and reports are even more obtuse than the law enacting the sequester itself.  The OMB reports, especially the first one , give a deeper insight to the budget process.  View the law at:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ25/pdf/PLAW-112publ25.pdf.

The defense budget for 2013 is still at:  http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY13_Green_Book.pdf

Albuquerque Police Shootings Update

In spite of earlier reports, Judge Shannon Bacon, as part of the trial of APD officer officer Brett Lampiris-Tremba, ruled that he had violated the 4th amendment rights of the victim, Kenneth Ellis III.  According to this account in the ABQ Journal on 27 April, 2013, Ellis did have a gun but was holding it to his own head and not threatening anyone else.  If this testimony stands, while it does not directly contradict my earlier post that he was armed, it certainly raises some question on whether the officer should have fired upon the shooting victim   We will have to follow this trial carefully, but this information does open up the question of whether the officer was justified in shooting Mr. Ellis.  The civil trial, not a criminal proceeding, is an issue for the city.  

I reserve judgement but certainly this sheds more light on the fatal shooting of Kenneth Ellis III.

Albuquerque Police Shootings and the Department of Justice - Updated

Updated broken links in chart.  Added some commentary 9/24/2014.

The Department of Justice has instituted a study of the Albuquerque Police Department's actions and methods in response to the police shootings over the last few years.  In spite of what you may think after listening to the anti-police sentiment, the events as reported by the news media overwhelmingly suggest that the actions taken by the police were justified.  In all of the instances in 2010 and 2011, as reported by the news media, the police shooting victims were either armed or struggled with the police officers for their guns.  The overwhelming conclusion is that it is very dangerous to confront a police officer with a weapon.

The issue that the DOJ is investigating is that the Albuquerque Police Department has shot, and in many instances killed, several suspects over the last few years.  Some Albuquerque citizens have alleged that some of the shootings were improper.

In spite of the negative opinions of some Albuquerque citizens, the DOJ will discover the same as I did when I went over the reports of police shootings from January, 2010 through the end of 2011.  They will find that almost all of  the incidents involved either suspects with weapons or suspects grappling with officers for their weapons.  Some of the suspects' families allege otherwise but grand juries, composed of citizens of Albuquerque, have cleared the officers involved.

Murder, Murder Rates, Cause and Effect Questions

We have many people asking for more gun control, others like me saying that there is no justification, and a generally declining murder rate.  If gun control was a necessity, wouldn't the homicide rate increase as the number of guns increased?  This is not the case.  While a causative link between higher gun ownership and declining murder trends cannot be proven, there is correlation between trained gun owners and the decreasing murder rate since 1992.  I set out to look at the data again.  Has there been a higher arrest rate for homicides over the same time period?  Have we put more police on the street during the same period?  The answer is no to both questions.  Stumped, I began to search the literature for any data-driven analysis that would explain the results.  The apparent answer is surprising. 

Self-Defense, Gun Control, and Perceived Racism

Over the weekend, Anita McNeil, wife of John McNeil, died of breast cancer.  While this horrible disease strikes many, the death of Mrs. McNeil is especially tragic.

You see, John McNeil was convicted of second degree murder in Georgia after a self-defense shooting at his home.  He shot an armed man who was charging his door and had threatened his son.  He fired a warning shot into the ground but the man kept charging.  Mr. McNeil shot and killed him.  This was in December of 2005.  In April of 2006, a Castle Doctrine law was enacted in Georgia that would have made the shooting a clear case of self-defense.  Mr. McNeil was free for 270 days, cleared by police detectives when a district attorney decided to charge him with second degree murder.  

Would Bugs Bunny be a better Secretary of Defense than Chuck Hagel?

I have been opposed to Chuck Hagel holding any public office since he voted against the surge in Iraq.  I felt at that time that he was posturing for a Presidential run and the vote did not reflect his convictions.  Now, with all of the publicity about his (maybe) confirmation as Secretary of Defense, I believe that Hagel truly thought that we were getting mired into Iraq as we did in Vietnam.  He was wrong then and wrong now.  History can debate the merits of the Iraq war.  While it appears now that we went into Iraq based on faulty intelligence, Mr. Hagel and his left leaning allies sought to deny support for the forces that were in place in Iraq.  That makes him incompetent for this post.  Disagreeing politically is one thing but acting to undermine the armed forces of this country is another.

Immigration Reform - It IsTime

Earlier this week, eight Senators evenly split on party lines advanced a new immigration bill that will enact significant reforms in our immigration system.  This is wonderful news except for some of the details.

The bill supports amnesty, of sorts, for undocumented aliens already living and working in the US but does not offer a unique path to citizenship.  Rather they must "...go to the back of the line..." to get access to a green card and/or citizenship.  The logic advanced by the bill's sponsors is that by coming to this country illegally they violated our laws and are not as worthy as someone who is outside the US waiting for a visa.  This argument is wrong.  The undocumented aliens in this country, by and large, are law-abiding members of society that have been contributing value to our economy, our country, and our society.  While they did come here illegally (or overstayed their visas), they have been contributing members of society and should be recognized as such.

Gun Control and Politics

In my last post, I outlined how the murder rate has been dropping in this country at the same time that the number of states that are issuing Concealed Carry permits has been increasing.  While it is impossible to say that there is a causative affect, the numbers certainly track.  Unfortunately I hit a wall attempting to track the number of Concealed Carry permits on a year-by-year basis.  The NRA lists "over 8 million" (NRA Article ) and another site actually shows nearly 8.6 million permits (Reference).  I have only found limited data on the growth in permits over the years.  It is probably out there on a state-by-state basis but it is tedious to dig it out of the published data.

A lot of debate ensued when a few states enacted shall-issue laws for concealed carry permits.  Much of that debate was in the late 90's.  John Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime was published in 1998.  Several liberal analysts have attacked that work and Dr. Lott but their methods have since been discredited.  So, the gun control zealots would have everyone believe that guns are making the country less safe.  At the same time, and as noted in my earlier post, the violent crime rates have been steadily dropping since 1992.  I am not writing about a small drop;  the murder rate and number of murders is down nearly 50%!  The overall violent crime rate is also down nearly 50%.  All of that data is available at the FBI UCR (Uniform Crime Reporting) website (Total Crime Data 1992-2011).  To get the number of firearms deaths by year, you have to go to the FBI UCR site and extract the statistics pretty much on a year-by-year basis.  I did that for the earlier post.

If you accept the premise that the number of new firearms is increasing annually, you can also make an argument that more guns equals less crime.  Here the data is a little murkier.  Since 1998 when the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) was established by the FBI, the number of annual checks for firearms purchases has been increasing.  The FBI publishes data on their website for the number of checks since 1998 (Reference Here).  They also list the number of denials.  For the 160 million background checks since 1998, there were just under 1 million denials (See Denials).  Since each background check can account for more than one gun, it is not possible to exactly correlate the number of firearms sold annually.  Also, the total number of background checks includes about 38.5 million permit checks which, presumably, do not correlate directly to a gun sale (See Itemized Totals).  If we take out the permit checks, about 75% of the background checks amounted to the sale of a firearm.  Since some checks were for the purchase of more than one gun, a one-to-one correspondence has some error.  Using these data and another estimate of 300 million firearms in the US (  ), we can estimate that 120 million firearms have been introduced into the US since 1998 and there were approximately 180 million guns prior to the NICS system.

Looking at the data, at first glance, the murder rate is rolling off as the estimated number of firearms increases but it does not look to be correlated.

When we plot the murder rate against the number of firearms, however, there does seem to be some trending although the correlation is not strong.  See below:

Since the FBI data also shows about 25% of the checks are due to permit checks, if we assume that that trend has been the same since 1998, we can plot cumulative permits and murder rate as well as Murder Rate versus cumulative permits.  While there are a lot of assumptions here, at least it is an attempt to look at trending.  See the following two graphs and you will see that number of permit checks correlates better to murder rate than total number of guns.

So, do more guns equate to less crime?  Look at the trends.  Certainly violent crime is dropping even as the number of firearms is increasing.  Certainly the violent crime rate is decreasing as more Americans avail themselves of the right to carry a concealed firearm.  Is there a causative link?  None of these data proves that nor is any of this a rigorous statistical study.  On the other hand, this is many times the data being advanced by the gun control folks who have nothing but a bad feeling about guns.  They have feelings, there is data out there that tends to refute their argument.

Right now the New Mexico delegation is leaning towards increased background checks and magazine restrictions.  Background checks help keep guns out of the hands of bad people and it is hard to argue against the premise.  If it can be made fairly simple for a person to transfer his firearm to a legitimate buyer and the cost of increasing the checks is not unreasonable, it is hard to argue against this.

Magazine restrictions, however,are another knee-jerk reaction or another attempt to gradually chip away at gun rights.  I see no data that supports the idea of magazine restrictions except that some small number of mass shootings have occurred with large capacity magazines.  If you look at the total number of mass shootings compared to the total number of firearms deaths, there is no reasonable argument for a restriction. There is a better argument for expanding firearms ownership to more people than there is for a magazine capacity ban.

It is time to contact our two Senators, one of whom (Udall) is up for re-election in 2014.  Ms. Lujan-Grisham who is fully invested in the Obama/Biden proposals is up for re-election in 2014.  Keep track of her votes on this issue.  I certainly will.

A rational look at the fallacy of gun control

Take a deep breath, everyone, and let's examine the current arguments being advanced for another assault rifle ban and restrictions on magazine size.  Is there really any rational argument for these restrictions?  I say no and provide the following analyses to support that position.

I am an NRA member and I have sometimes become annoyed with their frequent requests for money to fight whatever scourge is threatening our rights at a particular time.  That being said, they provide an invaluable opposition to gun control.  I bring this up because they are being pilloried by the gun control advocates for doing exactly what I expect them to do.  The current battle over Assault-style weapons bans and magazine capacity has nothing to do with assault weapons and everything to do with a gun grab.  Seriously, the gun control advocates are really attempting to piecemeal-ban all firearms.  I never took this idea too seriously but, given the rarity of death by assault rifle, does anything else make sense? 

Given the roughly 300 million firearms in the US, even banning all guns would have little effect on the homicide rate unless the government decided to confiscate all privately-owned firearms.  That would lead to at least widespread civil disobedience.  Only the most rabid anti-gun persons are advocating such a thing but to achieve their goal of a gun-free US, they would need to do that.  In reality, the gun control advocates are attempting to stir up enough sympathy and public opinion to force whatever restrictions they can get onto all of us.  If the pro-gun side puts up an argument, a left-leaning reporter will find someone to examine his work and describe it as discredited as was done with John Lott’s work

For some reason, the left has decided that gun control is their mantra.  There are some on the right that share that vision but mostly they have staked out the other side of the argument.  Here the NRA is a single-issue organization and non-partisan.  Harry Reid, a Democrat, has an A-rating from the NRA and actually delivered a modification to Obamacare to disallow doctors from sharing certain medical records with the government for gun control.

I notice a few things in most of the pro-gun control and pro-gun articles I read.  Everyone is quoting ‘facts’ or statistics to support their position.  In most cases, the statistics are quite dated.  When someone throws out 12,000 to 14,000 deaths from firearms per year in the US, as was done recently by Piers Morgan, they are either quoting older data or the total homicide figure for a recent year.  The total numbers of homicides, the murder rate, and the number of firearms-related homicides have been dropping since 1992.  Today our murder rate is half of what it was in 1992!

Since the murder rate is decreasing, albeit not steadily, and the number of firearms is generally increasing, is there any correlation?  Even suggesting such a thing will get me damned in liberal circles but let’s look at a phenomenon that has been sweeping the country since around 1989.  That is, since 1989, the number of states that have gone from either not issuing concealed carry permits to either issuing permits on a shall-issue or unrestricted basis has been steadily climbing.  While a lot of people on the anti-gun side don’t like to admit it, there is a pretty sharp drop in murder rate and violent crime since the rise of shall-issue concealed weapon permitting.  Using the adoption of concealed carry law changes (Data on Shall-Issue Concealed Weapon Permitting.) vs. the FBI Uniform Crime Data, it sure looks like there could be a relationship. 

If we plot the Murder rate against the number of right-to-carry states, we find a pretty good linear trend.  See below:

Okay, so figures don’t lie but liars figure.  I can see the gun control advocates reaching for their pens right now.  There is nothing to show that there is a causative relationship between the number of shall-issue concealed carry states and the murder rate but gee, it sure looks convincing.  Since we know that roughly 2/3 of the homicides are firearms related, this measure (number of shall-issue states) is at least related.  Also, if you look at the statistics, about 70% of firearms homicides are committed with handguns, not rifles (<4% in 2011).  That kind of rules out the assault rifle ban as being a contributor but when you look at the next figure you will see that a good amount of the drop in homicides did occur during the assault rifle ban.  Because of the low percentage of homicides by rifle, however, I reject that as illogical.  I also don’t believe that the ruling Presidential party or President has any effect on criminal good will but you can see that as well on the following graph.

So, do more guns mean less crime?  I know what I would say.  The number of permits to carry now number in the millions.  Most of the permits require classroom instruction that outlines the restrictions on lawful discharge.  That instruction alone may have something to do with the trends.  The people getting the permits are well-screened and well-informed.  The number of permit holders committing unjustified homicides is very low at 485 since 2007(according to the anti-gun Violence Policy Institute) compared to a total number of firearms deaths of 46,074 for the same period.

 

My own conclusion is that better education for legal firearms owners and more legal availability of firearms for qualified individuals does deter crime.

More Gun Control, Really?

The Newtown shootings have brought out the hysterical anti-gun lobby again.  In fact, their response to the tragedy came even before the facts of the shooting had been released.  Everyone mourns the loss of life in the Newtown school shootings.  Few things could be less tragic.  Still, the demands of people for additional gun control are no more rational now than they were before Newtown.

I waited to publish anything on this subject for two reasons.  At first, it seemed inappropriate because of the mourning of the victims although that did not stop the anti-gun lobby.  Then I examined what I had written and concluded that I had no new ideas on opposing gun control.  The piece I wrote sounded like hundreds of others.  I am writing now because perhaps I see a different dynamic than has been published elsewhere and because many people are not examining the arguments for gun control in sufficient depth as far as how it would affect the average citizen.

First, rather than diminish the gun control zealots as illogical, fuzzy-brained fools, let me say that most of them are well intentioned, not unintelligent, and truly believe in what they are saying.  The bulk of the gun control argument, however, is confined to sound bites that mostly is accurate.  The anti-gun activists are truly convinced that fewer guns would result in less crime.  Truly, if there were zero guns in the United States, there could be no gun violence.  The fact that it would be impossible to get to the point that there were zero guns in the US does not diminish their faith in restricting the rights of others. 

What the activists seem unable to comprehend is that none of the communities in the United States that have extreme gun control have any lower firearms-related crime rates than similar cities with less restrictions.  I would also note that Illinois, which currently bans concealed carry, is under federal court order to change their laws because of a citizen’s lawsuit ( see http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-11/news/chi-us-appeals-court-strikes-down-states-concealedcarry-ban-20121211_1_court-strikes-appeals-court-david-sigale).  It was alleged and affirmed that the Illinois law unnecessarily put citizens at risk because they could not defend themselves.  Anti-gunners take note!

Let’s look at how the Newtown disaster could have been prevented.  Banning the rifle used would not have stopped the tragedy as the shooter was already in violation of the existing gun possession laws in Connecticut and would still have had two illegally possessed handguns were the rifle unavailable.  More logically, there should have been armored and alarmed doors and windows.  Also, an armed presence in the school, either police or specially-permitted administrators, should also have been in place and would have prevented the attack.  In terms of efficacy, armored schools with some form of armed presence would deter the kind of tragedy that transpired in Newtown.

The NRA has advocated placing armed police in all schools as a federal initiative.  While I agree with the idea, I disagree that it should be a federally-mandated measure.  Let the local authorities decide this for themselves.

Since the gun control activists are advocating the same old laws that expired a few years ago, let’s examine the impact of those laws on citizens of New Mexico.  Given an assault rifle ban, the value of existing assault rifles would rise.  Also, once the law is in place, a design can be altered to get a similar firearm into legal status.  Finally, and perhaps of most importance to New Mexicans, the Brady Bill permitting and waiting periods would significantly inconvenience firearms purchasers.  In New Mexico, no permit is required to own any legal firearm.  There is also no waiting period.  You take your money to the gun store, find what you want, pass the federal background check, and walk out with your gun.  

It should also be noted that in New Mexico, possession of a loaded firearm in your vehicle is perfectly legal; your vehicle is considered an extension of your home.  Restrictive federal laws would most likely restrict New Mexicans based upon policies in the northeast and west coast.

If the true goal is less gun violence, we will need to first make the country safer.  We can improve things with a greater police presence.  With greater police presence, people would feel safer.  As they felt safer, we would see less need to arm ourselves.  It is a long-term trend.  More police would require additional tax revenues.  This is not likely to happen throughout the US for any number of reasons.