The Philly  sample size of 675 isn’t as small as some other studies, but it pales in comparison to Dr. John Lott’s research, which looked at every single county in the United States.  Dr. Lott concluded that “shall issue” concealed carry permit regulations save lives.  See Dr. Lott’s Book, More Guns, Less Crime.

Unfortunately, the ScienceDaily.com press release trumpeting this research was echoed in the Philadelphia Daily News.  We can expect to see this “study” touted on all the usual anti-gun rights websites and raised to the level of holy writ by Left wing politicians.

See my Categories, “Media Bias,” and “Junk Science” for other examples of the Mainstream Media’s ready acceptance of any “study” that purports to bolster attacks against the fundamental rights of American Citizens to armed self-defense against crime, tyranny, and genocide.

Def Mech

Today, my particular bone of contention with the Left-wing media involves Mother Goose and Grim, which I submit is wasting ink agonizing over the restoration of a Second Amendment right to American Citizens in some of our national parks. This historic event is to occur early next year, after Congress passed an amendment affirming a Bush Administration rule change making possible this restoration of a lost right to self-defense.

In the simple arithmetic of the cartoon strip and probably many Liberal minds, allowing concealed carry permit holders to protect themselves and others equals exposing the parks to a hail of gunfire from trigger happy rednecks bent on killing Bambi, Thumper and each other. Don’t even mention hundreds of innocent bystanders! (Bambi and Thumper are registered trademarks of the Disney Corporation.)

We heard this same doomsday rhetoric before the passage of every “shall-issue” concealed carry law in the country. “Blood in the Streets! Fender bender shootouts! The end of civilization as we know it!”

The “expected” slaughter hasn’t happened. CCW permit holders are extremely law-abiding. Law enforcement officials in state after state have admitted as much.

The following statements are from two Texas police officials quoted by H. Sterling Burnett in Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers: Law-abiding Public Benefactors, Brief Analysis No. 324 from the National Center for Policy Analysis, Dallas, TX, June 2, 2,000, Page 2.

John B. Holmes, Harris Country District Attorney, said of his former opposition to concealed carry, “Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris Country, and indeed statewide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless.” Glenn White, President of the Dallas Police Association, stated in support of concealed carry, “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen… I’m a convert.”

If someone intends to commit crimes using a firearm, how likely is he or she to go to the trouble of getting a permit? As one young gang banger opined years ago on Denver talk radio, “If you’re going to smoke somebody, you don’t need no paperwork.” Criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law. (Someone, somewhere, please engrave this phrase in stone over the door to a library or courthouse!)

BTW, concealed carry has nothing to do with hunting in national parks, contrary to the 09-02-09 Mother Goose… cartoon in The Denver Post. Concealed carry is primarily a defense against two-legged human predators. Open carry of defensive handguns might be a sensible option against bear or mountain lion attacks, but such a display of “evil” guns would no doubt shock many Liberal tourists out of their Ho Chi Minh sandals.

For what it’s worth, to ease the angst-ridden minds of Liberals anticipating the destruction of parks by gunfire and the catastrophic pollution of all nearby water by lead residue, there are still laws prohibiting the brandishing and discharge of these “oh-so-deadly” concealed weapons. In other words, if you are going to display or fire a gun in a national park, you would want to have a legally defensible reason.

If the laws against display and discharge don’t deter would-be evil doers, how exactly would a policy against government sanctioned concealed carry be any more efficient in preventing crime? The simple answer is, it wouldn’t! (See my posts under the Category, “Gun Law Failures.”)

Furthermore, concealed carry in national parks applies only to those states that allow concealed carry in state parks. In those jurisdictions that still restrict the Second Amendment rights of their citizens in state parks, those rights are also denied in national parks within the boundaries of the infringing state. (We’ll have to fix that problem later.)

The action of Congress and the signature of President Obama on the CCW amendment simply restored a portion of the rights previously lost by American Citizens to armed self-defense against, crime, tyranny, and genocide. The forest streams will not run red with the blood of innocents, if our national experience with concealed carry is any indication.

Take heart, Liberals! Hoplophobia can be treated. You don’t need to live in fear.

Def Mech

The US Justice Department’s Project Safe Neighborhoods Program supported the project.  CU Professor Mark Pogrebin led the team of CU and CSU researchers, who surveyed prisoners in 2003, 2004.

We should keep in mind that 73 individuals constitute an extremely small sample size, totaling about four percent of the subjects of the landmark prison study done by Professors Wright and Rossi.  (See my post under the Category: “Research.”)

The Colorado study group may have been an available sample rather than a random sample, but we will have to wait for the book in July to look at their selection process.

Given these potential limitations, we can consider the self-reports of the prisoners to be representative to some degree of the Colorado population of convicted felons who have used firearms in the commission of a crime.  (We should keep in mind that it is illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm.)

It will be instructive to find out if the book goes into other crimes committed by the research subjects.  The book does apparently touch on the role of drugs, especially Meth, in increasing violent criminal behavior.  (It is also illegal for drug addicts to possess firearms.)

According to the article, the Colorado findings suggest that “gun-control laws would have had little effect on the study subjects’ criminal behavior.”  The impressive CDC Study and the even more massive NAS Study, which indicate that there is no substantial scientific evidence that gun control laws prevent crime, support this conclusion.  (See my posts under the Category: “Research.”)

Another interesting finding of the study in question is that some criminals would be deterred by liberal concealed carry laws.  Wright and Rossi found that criminals are risk averse and, in effect, do a kind of risk/benefit analysis when selecting victims.

Florida Scientist Gary Kleck found up to 2 million defensive uses of firearms every year in the United States.  Economist John Lott postulates that “shall issue” concealed carry laws save lives and reduce crime.  (See David Kopel’s review of John Lott’s book, More Guns, Less Crime, here.)

An interesting artifact of the Colorado Study is that “most inmates said that concealed weapons…” or “the perception” of concealed weapons in the hands of potential victims would lead to more violent behavior on the part of the criminals.  There are two possible problems with giving credence to this idea.

The first problem is that the criminals in the study group could have been motivated by bravado, attempting to convince the researchers (and themselves) that they were not intimidated by the idea of relatively widespread, spontaneous, armed opposition to their felonious acts.  The second, and more insidious possibility, is that the convicts knew that their responses might find their way into public policy debates on concealed weapons permits.  What better way for a career criminal to improve “business conditions” than to provide responses to researchers that might actually disarm potential victims?

Most criminals do not attack police officers in order to take their weapons.  Few criminals attempt armed robberies at gun stores or gun shows.  I personally give more weight to the much larger Wright and Rossi Study and the evidence of crime deterrence suggested by Dr. Kleck and Dr. Lott.

One convict’s remark that he would shoot people he thought were carrying concealed guns should make it abundantly clear that CCW permit holders’ names must be kept private to protect them and society as a whole.  Another implication of this individual’s attitude is that we should incarcerate dangerous felons for as long as possible to keep them from committing future criminal acts.

According to the Post article, this small Colorado study seems to agree with much of the research supporting the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of American Citizens to self-defense against crime.  Defense against tyranny and genocide appear to be beyond the scope of the study.  It will be interesting to check out the book.

Def Mech

(No credible causal relationship between gun ownership and violence)

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was created by Abraham Lincoln to “examine, experiment, and report” on “science and art” when asked to do so by any government department. A panel of NAS scientists began formal hearings on “Improving Research Information and Data on Firearms” during the summer of 2001. The study was funded in part by the virulently anti-gun Joyce Foundation and the anti-gun David and Lucille Packard Foundation.  (President Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation.)

David Kopel, Colorado author and expert on Second Amendment issues, and co-author Glenn Reynolds criticized the study at its inception for the anti-gun bias of most of its members and the bias of its funding sources. Surprisingly, given the prejudiced atmosphere of the NAS study, the results, like those of the CDC Study, do not support the premise that gun ownership promotes crime or increases the overall risk of suicide.

The panel reviewed 253 scientific journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some of its own research. The committee found that they could not determine if there was a cause and effect relationship between guns and violence. The below quotation comes from the panel’s Executive Summary, which was published in 2004.

“In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide.”

The NAS panel predictably recommended more research. The committee also concluded that there is no definitive information regarding defensive uses of firearms or the positive or negative effects on crime of concealed carry laws. James Q. Wilson, the only relatively neutral member of the panel, according to Kopel and Reynolds, issued a minority report in which he argued that John R. Lott’s extensive research does establish that “shall issue” concealed carry laws reduce homicide rates.

Like the CDC Study, the Swiss-based Small Arms Survey, and the Kates and Mauser Study of international gun ownership and crime, the NAS exhaustive review of the literature in the gun control field does not find a credible cause and effect relationship between honest gun owners and violence. You would think that if there were causation, nearly 400 scientific studies, books, and government reports would have found one example.

The committee also looked at possible methods of government intervention into the “problem” of guns, crime, and suicide. Restricting access to guns? Needs more research. (Keep in mind that Prohibition didn’t work. It fostered the rise of criminal gangs, corrupted police, and promoted general lawlessness.) Prevention programs? Don’t seem to work and seem to increase children’s interest in guns. (What does this say about sexual education programs?) Criminal justice system solutions, such as policing, sentencing, and Project Exile? Need more research. Keep in mind that murders occur in prison.

If restricting access to firearms has had an effect on U.S. gun crime, the anti-gun NAS panel was apparently not able to find it in almost 400 sources. If firearms cause crime, or if gun control laws work, why did this massive review of research fail to find credible evidence? The variables are complex, but if the proof were there, would not one study out of almost 400 have discovered it? Will the NAS continue to review literature in the gun control field until they find even a single study that gives them the results they seek?

Def Mech

The CBS hit piece on Americans’ right to self-defense from crime, tyranny and genocide apparently followed an NBC attack on 04-10-09.  We can expect an increasingly shrill crescendo of anti-Second Amendment rhetoric until at least after the anniversary of the Columbine killings.  There may be anti-NRA demonstrations at the Phoenix convention in May.

Why do I say that the CBS piece was biased?  Let’s look first at the timing of the piece to fit in with the annual, anti-gun rights, spring barrage.  The annual Columbine mourning and the upcoming annual NRA Convention provide ample targets for this sort of propaganda.

Next, let’s look at the structure of the segment.  It was a typical “advocacy journalism” set up.  The story opened with the implication that guns cause mass murders and that people buying guns is not a good thing.  The producers bring on a “straw man,” in this case the head of a Virginia gun rights organization.  Then, the presentation closes with a sound bite from anti-gun California Senator, Diane Feinstein, intimately associated with the first ban on semi-automatic firearms during the Clinton Administration.

You will notice that the pro gun-control side of the argument got the first and last slots in the segment.  It was designed this way, so viewers will tend to remember the anti-gun message.  The pro-gun rights “straw man” was “rebutted” by the closing arguments.

The “straw man” did mention that just one legally-armed student might have aborted the Virginia Tech Killings, which occurred in a “gun free criminal safe free fire zone.”  However, that statement was effectively drowned in the much more extensive coverage given to the anti-gun side of the argument.

Keep in mind that the producers controlled every minute aspect of this “news” report.  They just “happened,” to photograph some Nazi swastika flags at the gun show during the interview with the “straw man.”  These flags are normally displayed in conjunction with displays offering collections of war trophy Nazi memorabilia.  The casual observer of the “news” story probably wouldn’t know this, nor even consciously be aware that he or she was being led to associate the flags with the “straw man.”  Get it!  “Gun shows and gun rights are tied to Nazism!”  Excellent job of unconscious psychological persuasion!  Pavlov, not to mention Lenin, would be proud.

Let’s look at the advocates for the various sides in this “news” story.  There was one pro-individual rights advocate interviewed.  There were five pro-gun control viewpoints presented, including interviews with a wounded Virginia Tech student, the relative of a person killed in the Virginia Tech Massacre, an anti-gun law enforcement representative, and Diane Feinstein.  Illinois anti-gun Senator Dick Durbin got in his two cents for “sensible gun laws” in a sound bite.  Five to one aren’t bad odds  in a “news” story?

You will note that there were no persons interviewed or quoted who had employed firearms for self-defense, even though Dr. Gary Kleck estimates that up to 2.5 million defensive uses of guns occur every year.  You wouldn’t know it from this report.

Language is also telling.  The report misidentified semi-automatic, or self-loading firearms, as “assault weapons.”  ”Assaults” are bad things, right?  By pejorative labeling of commonly owned guns, the producers can shape the perceptions of viewers in the desired direction.

Real “assault weapons” are capable of fully automatic fire.  The guns shown in the news story are not.  You have to pull the trigger every time to fire a round from a self-loading firearm.  With a full-auto weapon, you pull the trigger and the gun will fire multiple rounds.  Advocates for more gun control typically deliberately blur this distinction.

In the segment, advocates for individual rights were called “The Gun Lobby,” which has a “stranglehold” on Congress.  Private sales of firearms at gun shows without background checks are referred to as “The Gun Show Loophole.”  (Ooh! Doesn’t that make you want to close that pesky “loophole,” register all gun sales, and force those nasty “gun lobby stranglers” back under the rocks from which they crawled?)

Never fear!  Even though the police are currently “outgunned” by drug dealers and gang bangers armed with their “gun of choice,” the “assault weapon,” Diane Feinstein will pick the time and place to push her gun control legislation and save us all from ourselves.

It’s extremely interesting to me that criminals and gangs didn’t seem to have a lot of interest in semi-automatic rifles, until the news media began hyping the idea that self-loading firearms were “guns of choice.”  I suppose the media had to point out to the gangsters what guns they should be using.

According to the CBS report, a recent poll indicated that “only” 49% of Americans currently favor stricter gun control laws.  After a few weeks of this kind of “news” reporting, the numbers will probably rise.

Now, I don’t object to the fact that CBS and “60 Minutes” producers have opinions on the issue of gun control.  I would just like them to express their opinions as opinions, and stop calling them “news.”  I would also like Mainstream Media pundits to clean up their language on the debate and stop trying to shape public opinion against gun owners.  Silly me!  That’s what advocacy journalism does! They have to make the world a ” better place”, a place like Chicago, or Oakland.  (See my posts under the Category: “Gun Law Failures.”)

Def Mech

Professors Wright and Rossi initially believed that strict gun control deterred crime. The results of their research led them to the conclusion that armed citizens have a beneficial effect in reducing criminal behavior and that harsh laws, such as handgun bans could result in criminals using sawed off rifles and shotguns with more deadly results. 88% of the criminals surveyed by Wright and Rossi agreed with the statement that, “A criminal who wants a handgun is going to get one.”

A 1986 review of the professors’ work, Armed and Considered Dangerous, by Raymond G. Kessler of the Department of Criminal Justice of Memphis State University, concluded, “Although Armed and Considered Dangerous is not free of methodological problems, it is the best policy-oriented study of criminals and their guns available. Gun control proposals that seemed relatively straight-forward a few years ago must now be reconsidered.”

Wright and Rossi reported that:
81% of interviewees agreed that a “smart criminal” will try to determine if a potential victim is armed.
74% indicated that burglars avoided occupied dwellings, because of fear of being shot.
57% said that most criminals feared armed citizens more than the police.
40% of the felons said that they had been deterred from committing a particular crime, because they believed that the potential victim was armed.
57% of the felons who had used guns themselves said that they had encountered potential victims who were armed.
34% of the criminal respondents said that they had been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed citizen.

Based on this government-funded research by Wright and Rossi, it would appear that armed citizens do have a deterrent effect on crime.

Wright, James D., Rossi, Peter H., Daly, Kathleen, Under the Gun, Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1983.

Wright, James D., Rossi, Peter H., The Armed Criminal in America, U.S. Department of Justice, 1985.

Wright, James D., Rossi, Peter H., Armed and Considered Dangerous, a Survey of Felons and their Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1986.

The Colorado State Legislature has scheduled a hearing on a bill to increase protection for Colorado business owners in the event that they are required to defend themselves with armed force from an attack at their place of business.  This bill mirrors the protection given homeowners in the so-called “Make My Day Law” previously enacted by the Colorado Legislature. 

The bill, SB 09-008, “Concerning the use of deadly physical force against a person who makes an unlawful entry into a place of business,” is scheduled to be heard Wednesday afternoon in Senate Committee Room 356 before the State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee.  It is the third agenda item in hearings which start at 1:30 PM.

If you are a Colorado business owner who has had to engage in armed self-defense, please comment and consider coming down to testify in favor of this bill.  Given Democrat control of both houses, this will not be an easy fight. 

Double check the dates and times on the Senate Calendar on the Colorado State Government Website.  This is only one day after the Inauguration of “The Chosen One,” and it is any-one’s guess if the Democrats will be ready for business after partying late into the night before the scheduled hearing.

The primary benefit of this bill, in my opinion, is that it bars lawsuits by criminals or their relatives in the event that a criminal is wounded or killed during the commission of a crime at the business location.  People on the other side of the individual rights debate worry that business owners will, in effect, lurk behind their counters with drawn guns, waiting to shoot customers who make sudden moves or who appear to be out of the ordinary.

Anti-gunners made essentially the same arguments when the Legislature was considering the home defense bill pejoratively named “The Make My Day Law,” after the Clint Eastwood portrayal of the shootist police officer, “Dirty Harry.”  The supposed bloodbath projected over the home defense law never occurred, just as “shall issue” concealed carry did not result in daily shootouts over fender benders.

I would argue that most business owners don’t want to shoot their customers.  It tends to be bad for business!

The business self-defense law doesn’t make it legal to shoot without cause, it simply makes it less likely that a business owner will be sued for protecting him or her self.  Keep in mind that I am not an attorney, just a person who believes in the fundamental individual right of every American Citizen to armed self-defense against, crime, tyranny, and genocide.

If you come down to the Capitol: visitors’ entrance on the ground (basement) level on the Southeast corner; there are metal detectors that you will have to pass in order to enter into the people’s house; dress up-no cammo; no concealed carry allowed in the people’s house; I would not carry a fixed bladed knife-pocket knives only with blades (much) shorter than 3.5 inches; sign in to testify in the committee room; be polite and concise; come early-you have to get through the metal detectors.  If you get there around 12:30, look for volunteers from the Firearms Coalition of Colorado wearing blue lobbyist badges in the cafeteria in the basement.

Def Mech

I tell the would-be “under the radar” folks that “They” know who you are.  If you have ever purchased a gun from a dealer, that yellow sheet is almost undoubtedly still on file somewhere.

If you have ever attended a gun show and parked in the parking lot, I believe there is a strong possibility that a federal agent or a police intelligence officer has recorded your license number as a gun show patron.  There was an incident a few years ago in Colorado where vendors at a show noticed an officer taking an exceptional interest in the license plates in a gun show parking lot.

Ever send an E-Mail or talk to someone on the phone about guns?  Ever hear of Echelon and Carnivore?  These are code names for massive electronic surveillance operations that target electronic communications.  Sophisticated computers scan messages and conversations for key words and phrases.  “Guns,” “ammunition,” “hunting,” “shooting,” and “bullets,” would be good guesses on targeted words.

Go to a shooting range or gun club?  Park in the parking lot?  Patronize one of the big box stores that sell guns, ammunition and hunting supplies?  Do you know the background of everyone in your gun club or collectors’ association?  Ever subscribe to a hunting or shooting magazine?

I’m not trying to make you paranoid.  I’m telling you that the chances of you flying “under the radar” are not good, unless you never used a credit card to buy ammunition, never bought cammo through a catalog, or never associated with anyone in “the Gun Culture.”

How do you know that your visit to this Blog hasn’t triggered a trace on your browser?  Are you accessing the net from a library, or from your very own computer in your very own home?  Privacy?  No such thing in the electronic age!

Did you EVER belong to the NRA, GOA, JPFO, RMGO, FCC, or other pro-Second Amendment Organization?  Ever attend a CCRKBA/SAF gun rights conference?  (If those initials don’t mean anything to you, I strongly recommend that you find out about gun rights groups, before “They” pay you an unfriendly visit or send you a letter “requesting” your immediate presence at “Headquarters.”)

OK!  So “They” know who you are.  How do you keep “Them” from coming after you?

You join one or more of the above organizations and support them with your money and your time.  You write letters to newspapers.  You E-mail, write, and call your elected officials and inform them of your opinions on your individual right to armed self-defense against crime and tyranny.  You keep visiting Blogs and Websites that deal with Second Amendment issues.  You talk to your friends about the need for armed citizens and the beneficial effects of guns in a free society.

You save Conservative Talk Radio from the “Fairness Doctrine” and resist any attempt at additional “Campaign Finance Reform.”  You protect the First Amendment with all the zeal that you bring to protect the Second.  Work to keep the UN out of US affairs.

You read the studies from the CDC, the NAS, the Small Arms Survey, and Kates and Mauser, so you can talk intelligently about the scientific basis for the desirability of civilian gun ownership.  You get out and campaign, or campaign more, and give money, or give more money to candidates who will support your natural, fundamental right to self-defense.  You vote for electable candidates who will support your rights better than their opponents.  You will not throw away your vote on a third party candidate with no chance to win.

You go to the range and practice to increase your skill and gain enjoyment from a worthwhile sport.  You live your life one day at a time, realizing that freedom isn’t free and that history hasn’t stopped.  If you hunt, you enjoy the outdoors and the other benefits of being with friends.  You realize that no human being lives forever, but that you can make a positive difference by supporting individual rights.

You never EVER give up on America and its promise of freedom.  If even ten percent of 80 million gun owners in America stand up as one and say not “NO,” but “HELL NO!” to gun control, we will keep our legacy as a sovereign people and will regain some of the rights that we have already lost.

If you try to hide in a hole, or plan to head to the mountains, or move to another state, in the face of nanny state oppression, believe me, “They” will find you.  “They” have ways of dealing mit people like you.  If you don’t work harder than ever to retain your fundamental, natural right to armed self-defense, you will lose it.  You will also contribute to the demise of the greatest experiment in self-government ever attempted on this tiny, spinning ball of mud and water.

The friend of the tyrant is merely his last victim.  Hiding is not an option.  Speak up or lose out!

Def Mech

I seriously doubt that any number of guns slipped out of their holsters and gun safes, somehow managed to load and cock themselves, and then, for reasons of their own, sought out and killed human beings.  As far as I can tell, guns are inanimate objects.  They do not reproduce on their own.  They do not exhibit goal-directed behavior.  In fact, they do not behave at all.  I personally have been close to numerous loaded guns and have never seen one demonstrate aggression, let alone deadly intent.

On the other hand, research done by Democrat Professor Gary Kleck indicates that guns are used in America up to 2.5 million times every year for self-defense.  I suppose that if we must condemn guns for murder, we must commend them for coming to the defense of their owners and others.

If guns are somehow animate and capable of murder, must we then grant them habeas corpus?  Are police illegally holding sentient beings without bail, without trial, without hope of eventual release?  Most of these guns are probably being crushed and burned without any pretext at due process.  Where is the ACLU?  Where are the trial lawyers?

Where is the common sense on the other side of the gun debate?

Def Mech