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

Washington D.C., where the Holocaust Museum Shooting took place, is a legally mandated “gun free” zone for ordinary, common citizens.  (Think of it as a criminal-safe, free-fire zone, although, this time, there were armed security guards.)

Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is against the law. Brandishing a weapon is illegal.  Murder or attempted murder, battery, or even a verbal offer of violence is illegal.  Von Brunn broke numerous laws in his intended rampage, which thankfully was ended by people with guns.  Criminals, by definition, don’t obey laws.  That statement should be engraved somewhere on a library.

There are roughly 80,000,000 law-abiding gun owners in this country.  We must not allow ourselves to become hostage to acts of violence perpetrated by deranged individuals. 

For those firearms enthusiasts who slowly shoot paper targets, collect antiques or “curios and relics,” and those hunters who use lever action, bolt action, or pump firearms, be advised that this crime was committed with an “old” rifle.  Do not ever be deluded into the notion that the “Progressive” Left only wants to take away handguns and “black” rifles.  If they can ban an AR-15, I believe that they can and will, ban your target rifle, hunting rifle, or Winchester ’73.

Look at the interconnecting web of restrictive regulations being spun by the Homeland Security Report on “right-wing extremists,” H.R. 2159, and H.R. 2401.  The Homeland Security Report broad brushes veterans, abortion opponents, Evangelical Christians, and “single issue” advocates (read Second Amendment supporters) as potential terrorists.

H.R. 2159 allows the Attorney General to declare you to be a terrorist based on “a preponderance of the evidence” and may deny you the right to confront your accuser based on “national security interests.”  Once on a watch list, you have no legal right to possess a gun or get on a plane.

McCarthy’s bill, H.R. 2401, the “No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009,” would include “persons who may be prevented from boarding an aircraft in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System…”

The Page 1B, 05-31-2009  Denver Post article,”Name’s not the same?  That just won’t fly,” “Mistaken ID’s of flyers on watch lists happen daily,” outlines some of the problems with the current aircraft boarding program.  What happens if you happen to have the same name as a “terrorist” on the “No Fly List?” “No Fly, no buy?”  

What happens if an errant bug falls into a printer at our Big Brother’s Ministry of Information or whatever it was that they called “Spy on You Central” in Terry Gilliam’s prophetic, dystopian movie, Brazil.   It could be, “No Fly, no buy!”  No legal right to own a gun, ever! 

(Dystopia is a variation on utopia, meaning a utopian vision that didn’t work out.  See 1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World, It Can’t Happen Here, Soylent Green, Minority Report, and Logan’s Run, for a few warnings about dystopian societies that may be closer to our present reality than we would like to think.)

By the way, isn’t it strange that shortly after the Homeland Security Report came out, we have multiple shooting incidents that seem to reinforce the conclusions of the report?  Abortion clinic shooting.  Anti-Semitic shooting.  Hmmm!  Von Brunn: name sounds Nazi-like, doesn’t it?  (See my post, “Look for more shootings after church killing and more calls for gun control,” 03-12-09, under the Category “Spree Killings.”)

In any case, all law-abiding gun owners must stand together in resisting further attempts by the Left to restrict our fundamental right to self-defense against crime, tyranny, and genocide.  Failure to do so will result in our demotion from citizens to subjects.  Remember!  The British Olympic Pistol Team trains in Switzerland, because it would be illegal for them to practice on their native soil.

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

The report goes on to describe smuggling from other countries and desertions from the Mexican Army as other sources of firearms used in the epidemic bloodbath south of the border.  In spite of their draconian anti-gun laws, gang violence continues to tear the country apart.  (See my posts on Mexico under the Category, “Foreign Gun Laws.”)

Don’t look for the well-funded and ideologically-driven Left to abandon the Mexican situation as a springboard for more U.S. gun control.  In spite of the fact that we have about 22,000 gun laws in this country, Tom Diaz, of the Violence Policy Center, describes the U.S. “gun market” as “wide open.”

Def Mech

Def Mech