Want To Do Something About Global Warming? Get A Gun.

April 10, 2024

mikethegunguy Blogs , , , , Leave a comment

I knew it would happen sooner or later. Since global warming is being blamed for just about everything that has taken place in the last few years, it was just a matter of time until it would become the deus ex machina for explaining crime. And since we’re talking about global warming, the news can’t be very good. In fact, Matthew Ranson, the young scholar who has produced this research, is confident that by the end of this century, the general increase in temperatures will produce an additional 22,000 murders and millions of other additional violent crimes. He bases this prediction on what he refers to as the “causal relationship between weather and crime,” data for which he has studied covering the last thirty years.

warmingAccording to Ransom, there is a correlation between higher temperature and more crime due to what he calls the “social interactions” that produce crime, many of which tend to increase as temperatures become warmer. These interactions include such things as more people being outside when weather gets warm, and a greater degree of intolerance towards various social stress-points when hot weather leads to feelings of physical discomfort which then leads to more aggression which results in more crime.

Using crime data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, Ransom is able to neatly correlate crime rates with mean annual temperatures throughout the United States. He identifies 4 temperature zones basically running East-West from the northern border where the mean annual temperature is less than 55 degrees, to the extreme southern part of the country where the mean is above 75 degrees, and two other belts of 55-64 and 65-74 degrees in between. Turns out that the rates for such common crimes as burglary, larceny and assault were all roughly 20% higher in the warmest as opposed to the coolest parts of the country, and that in all four zones the monthly rate for these crimes increased substantially during the warmest months of the year. Using the change in crime rates relative to increases in temperature, Ransom is able to predict what would happen to crime trends if mean temperatures move upwards over the next 85 years.

I’m not going to get into a detailed analysis of Ransom’s statistical methods which are quite impressive and take into account some of the discrepancies and inaccuracies of the information which often escapes discussion when scholars use crime data from the UCR. But I do find it interesting that Ransom would base this entire paper on an assumption about the causality of crime which, it seems to me, discounts or ignores other factors that need to be addressed. It just so happens that in many locations where he finds correlations between higher crime rates and higher temperatures, one could also make many other correlations, in particular having to do with demographics and socio-economic circumstances of the populations that live in those zones. Despite Ransom’s assertion that criminals operate most frequently at times and places where they can escape detection following commission of the crime, summer months also yield much greater periods of daylight which, in turn, is often correlated with higher rates of crime.

Ransom uses data covering the last 30 years to make predictions about a period ahead of us that’s three times as long. But I would have felt a little more accepting of his method had he acknowledged the fact that during the period covered by his data it appears that mean temperatures increased and yet serious crime in every category underwent a significant decline. On the other hand, it will be interesting to see how the pro-gun partisans in the gun debate react to Ransom’s work. Because most of the noise supporting the 2nd Amendment comes from groups that just as vociferously deny the threat of global warming at all. But if Ransom is correct and global warming will result in millions of additional serious crimes, shouldn’t the NRA align itself with the global warming crowd and use their argument to promote the right of law-abiding citizens to carry guns and protect themselves against crime?

 

He’s At It Again: Rand Paul Protects Gun Owners From Nothing

April 9, 2024

mikethegunguy Blogs , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

In February I wrote a post about Rand Paul’s effort to block the nomination of Vivek Murthy to be Surgeon General because of Murthy’s comments about guns. Paul’s early efforts to inject himself into the 2016 Presidential race is being run on a shoestring, all the more reason why he needs to pander to groups like the NRA. But now Paul has taken several more steps to the Right and is sending out fundraising appeals for a lobbying organization - The National Association of Gun Rights - which calls itself the “conservative alternative” to the NRA.

paulThis time around Paul is taking aim at an old enemy, the United Nations Small Arms Treaty and its outgrowth, a UN-sponsored project known as the International Small Arms Control Standards, a.k.a. ISACS. The task of the ISACS is to create the actual methods and mechanisms to be used by treaty signatories on a voluntary basis to monitor and control illicit manufacture and shipments of small arms. Despite the howling and yowling about the treaty by pro-gun groups, including the NRA, virtually all of the standards being developed to identify and track illicit movements of small arms are already in place for anyone who wants to bring guns into, or ship guns out of, the United States.

But even if the U.N. Small Arms Treaty never gets passed by a two-thirds Senate vote, the U.N. (and of course Obama) are already “plotting” the next step, namely the imposition of the following “radical anti-gun initiatives” on every nation that signs the treaty including: (1). National “screening’ for everyone who wants to own a gun; (2). licenses required for all sales of guns and ammunition; (3). restrictions on the number and amount of guns and ammunition that anyone could own; (4). bans on magazines with capacities of more than ten rounds; (5). bans on concealed-carry licenses for self defense.

According to Senator Paul, this treaty and the Control Standards being implemented behind it amount to a complete loss of national sovereignty and an end to gun ownership in the United States. Incidentally, the Senator not only knows what the treaty and the standards document contain, he also knows that the United Nations is “plotting” to put it all into effect. The only person I know who sees more plots going on around him than Rand Paul is Glenn Beck. In the case of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty and ISACS, however, it’s simply not true.

There is not a single word in either the treaty or the standards that have been drafted to date that mandates or even talks about anything having to do with legal, private ownership of small arms. The whole point of the U.N.’s small arms effort is to help countries, particularly in underdeveloped areas, control the shipment of small arms because so much of the anti-government violence and instability in these countries is fueled by underground or black-market supplies of ammunition and guns. Many third-world governments (e.g., Somalia) simply do not have the resources to either monitor their own borders or maintain stability because it’s so easy to transport and distribute small arms. Recall that our troops paid a heavy price because even we couldn’t control shipments of illicit small arms into Afghanistan and Iraq.

I have no objection to Rand Paul seeking aid and comfort from political allies like the NRA or the NAGR. I donate money to the candidates of my choice, so why should I be upset when a politician whom I don’t particularly respect hits up people who might be aligned with his point of view? But going after the gun vote is one thing, inventing reasons for my support out of whole cloth is something else. There is not a grain of truth to what Rand Paul is saying about the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, and he’s insulting me and every other NRA member by sending out a fundraising appeal loaded with statements that are just wide of the mark.

 

 

The NRA Has Found a New Physician Friend

April 7, 2024

mikethegunguy Blogs , , , , , , , Leave a comment

eagleRecently the medical news service Medscape published a video editorial about gun safety by Art Caplan, who runs the Division of Ethics at NYU’s Langone School of Medicine. The editorial content was hardly unique or different from similar statements that have been made by virtually every major medical society, namely, that the existence of several hundred million guns constitutes a health risk that cannot simply be ignored because of a 2nd-Amendment right to own a gun.

Caplan’s editorial has just been challenged on Medscape by Dr. Gregory Hood, an internist from Kentucky, who’s a rising star in the medical establishment, having just been named Governor of the Kentucky Chapter of the American College of Physicians. Incidentally, the ACP stated that “physicians need to be able to have frank discussions with their patients and parents of patients about firearm safety issues and risks to help them safeguard their families from accidents,” in a letter sent to the U.S. Senate during the debate over a new gun law following Sandy Hook.

While there appears to be a consensus among Dr. Hood’s colleagues about medical risks from guns, he evidently doesn’t share their concern. This is particularly true given the fact that ” there will always be the inevitable threat of acts of violence and terrorism, whether by guns, fists, or other measures,” against which, according to Doctor Hood, “we must acknowledge the inherent right of law-abiding citizens to take reasonable precautions against such threats.” The issue isn’t hundreds of published, peer-reviewed articles that show a link between access to guns, safely stored or not, and medical risk. The real problem is allowing the good, law-abiding citizen the right to protect himself from terrorism with a gun.

What really seems to bother Dr. Hood is his belief, probably true, that most physicians have little first-hand knowledge about firearms and therefore risk violating best practices by counseling patients about an issue for which they cannot be considered to have much objective knowledge. But that’s not a problem because medical professionals can always turn for guidance to the real experts on gun safety, namely the NRA. According to Dr. Hood, the NRA’s Eddie Eagle program has “instructed” more than 25 million children in gun safety since 1988, and the program’s signature phrase, “STOP. Don’t Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult” shouldn’t be bandied about by well-meaning researchers like Art Caplan and various medical professionals who aren’t skilled in the ways and means of guns.

If it were the case that Dr. Hood was just a flack for the NRA I could forgive his flight into fantasy about the NRA’s commitment to gun safety and let it go at that. But Gregory Hood has an impeccable educational background, he’s obviously trusted and respected by patients and peers, his voice and opinions carry some weight inside and outside his profession. So I’m going to take his comments very seriously and reply to them in a direct and serious way.

The fact is that the NRA has absolutely no idea whether a single child has ever been “instructed” in gun safety either in school or at home. Hood’s figure of 25 million children comes from the NRA, it has never been validated by an independent source, and it is based on the number of Eddie Eagle pamphlets that the NRA claims it has mailed out over the last twenty-five years. That’s not instructing anyone in anything, and Hood should be embarrassed for pretending that this “program” does anything more than promote the NRA.

I really wish that guys like Greg Hood would stop hiding behind their cloak of professional integrity and admit, once and for all, that their primary interest is in protecting the access of their patients to guns. I have no quarrel with that position, incidentally, because if you haven’t figured it out by now, I’m a gun owner myself. But if we are ever going to have a serious and honest debate about whether guns are a public health risk then everyone has to come clean. At this point Dr. Hood needs to be a little more candid about the reasons for his concerns about guns.

It’s Time To Figure Out Why Shootings Like Fort Hood Really Occur

April 5, 2024

mikethegunguy Blogs , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Every time there’s a mass shooting we get the usual calls from the pro-gun and anti-gun groups about what we need to do to keep Americans from killing one another. The pro-gun folks say that everyone should be walking around with a gun, the anti-gun groups say that we need tighter controls. I don’t notice that either side can produce a shred of evidence to support their position, by the way, but that doesn’t stop them from always repeating their bromides every time a terrible shooting incident takes place.

I have a different view of the situation. First, shootings like the one that took place at Fort Hood have the potential to be much worse if the shooter was a better shot. At the end of his rampage Spc. Lopez was confronted by an armed MP whose presence may have made him decide to end his own life before more damage could be done. But the reason that only three people were killed and 16 were shot but evidently will live is because Lopez wasn’t really such an expert with the Smith & Wesson pistol that he brought onto the base. The fact is that a 45-caliber weapon is very lethal; the Army should know, it used a 45-caliber pistol as its basic service handgun for more than 60 years. “One shot, one kill” is the way that soldiers trained with that gun. The toll at Fort Hood could have been much worse whether everyone was walking around with a gun or not.

hoodWe also learn, however, that by the time Lopez purchased the gun on March 1st, he had already come under medical attention at the base, was being treated for depression and while he was stocking up on a sleeping pill known as Ambien, he was also stocking up on ammunition for his gun. But according to the Secretary of the Army, John McHugh, he gave “no sign” during a recent psychiatric exam that he might become violent.

So everybody’s off the hook. President Obama and Governor Perry finally find an issue to agree about - they both want to get to “the bottom” of the problem and fix things so it won’t happen again. The Army medics did an exam and couldn’t find anything wrong. And let’s not forget the poor gun shop owner in Killeen who probably saw his shop invaded and turned upside down by a regiment of ATF agents who were hoping they could come up with something he did wrong.

I’m beginning to wonder whether we have any idea what goes on in the brain of someone who seemingly out of nowhere pulls out a gun and tries to shoot everyone in plain sight. Connecticut authorities spent a year trying to figure out Adam Lanza and came up with zilch. The Navy Yard shooter liked to play video games - gee, what a telltale symptom that must be. The guy who shot Gabby Giffords still hasn’t authored his best-selling book. Come to think of it, America’s best-known mass shooter, David Berkowitz, a.k.a. Son of Sam, is still sitting in an upstate correctional facility telling reporters that people shouldn’t be allowed to walk around with guns.

I suspect that as many as 50% of the people who commit gun violence each year had contact with a medical professional within the last few months before the event. In the case of suicides, which account for two-thirds of the victims of gun violence each year, the figure is probably closer to 90%. In the case of homicides we know that more than 80% of such killings grow out of ongoing arguments and disputes that, in many cases, landed one or both of the combatants in an ER or other medical facility getting treatment for an injury that will later provoke a response with a gun.

I think it’s time for physicians and other medical professionals to create and use better tools to identify, diagnose and treat patients at risk for the improper use of guns. There is no law that requires physicians to maintain confidentiality if a patient presents evidence that he is an immediate danger to himself or others, and what could be more immediate than someone exhibiting symptoms of depression or anger who also has access to a gun? Let’s put aside the endless arguments about the 2nd Amendment and agree that important scientific work in this area still needs to be done.

Newer Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 171 other followers

Build a website with WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: