Enough With Being “Reasonable’ About Guns.

              Back in 2016, you may recall that our friends in Fairfax (a.k.a. the NRA) not only endorsed Sleazy Don for President at an unprecedented (for them) early date, but combined this decision with an attack narrative that went far beyond anything they had previously said or done. Remember Dana ‘home-school-queen’ Loesch warning ‘every lying member of the media’ that their ‘time has come?’ Recall how Wayne-o showed up at C-PAC and told the adoring audience that the media ‘wants to make us less free?’

              The problem with lumping their PR strategy together with what Trump was whining about on the campaign trail, is that it never occurred to the leadership of America’s ‘first civil rights organization’ that maybe, just maybe, the whole thing would hit a dead end. And the dead end occurred back in November, when the Democrats handed Trump and the GOP a startling and staggering loss. Despite claims by Sleazebag Don and fathead Limbaugh that the election was a ‘victory’ for the red team, in fact, neither Party has ever gained as many House seats in any election since 1938.

              More important than the size of the victory is the fact that the blue team now has a national leader who cleaned Sleazy Don’s clock this week by responding to his taunts about the ‘radicals’ running the Democratic Party by telling him that as for the State of the Union, he could stay away.  The best example of the collapse of America’s great deal-maker was his comment that he might look for an alternate site for delivering the speech. Why not the Trump International Hotel?  He could walk over from the White House in ten minutes or less.

              So the bottom line is that the world has changed both for our friends in the gun-control movement as well as for our friends who run the NRA.  Between trying to pick up the pieces of their dopey Carry Guard insurance program, defending themselves against allegations of all kinds of nefarious election activities and looking to put together a new list of corporate partners offering discounts to the NRA faithful, there’s not a lot of time left over to promote the agenda of Sleazebag Don. So they have fallen back on what they do best, namely, posturing themselves as being stalwart defenders of our beloved 2nd-Amendment ‘rights.’ And the most effective way to get that message across is to claim that all those groups advocating ‘reasonable’ gun laws are nothing more than fronts for the continued efforts of Mike Bloomberg to get rid of guns.

              If you were the mayor of a city where shootings were a routine part of life, how could you not want to get rid of guns? Frankly, I never understood why anyone would be either surprised or upset by the fact that a guy like Bloomberg would be against guns. Now maybe if he had been responsible for public safety in a quiet little town somewhere in the Midwest, it would be difficult to imagine him leading an anti-gun crusade. But his views on gun violence happen to align a lot more consistently with his background and experiences than the positions on gun violence taken by that stupid, vulgar, POS-landlord who happens to be sitting in the White House right now.

              Just as Gun-nut Nation was probably unprepared for the strength and depth of November’s blue wave, I also suspect that the outcome of the 2018 election came as something of a shock to my friends in the gun violence prevention movement, a.k.a. the GVP. Which brings me to the real reason for what I want to say today.

              Given the new political realities in DC, I think it’s time for my GVP friends to drop all this nonsense about supporting ‘reasonable’ gun laws and tell it like it is. Either you end gun violence by ending open access to the guns which cause the violence (read: handguns) or you don’t. If Nancy’s willing to tell Sleazebag Don to stick it you know where, why can’t my friends in the gun-control movement say the same thing to the NRA?

Advertisements

Want To Contribute To This Blog?

Last year I began posting content on this website written by people other than myself. To date, readers have been able to enjoy columns by 14 men and women who can all be seen on the Contributing Editors page. I wanted these contributions to reflect my commitment to listening to voices on both sides of the gun debate because until and unless we learn how to communicate across the great divide between pro-gun and gun violence prevention (GVP) communities, we won’t get anywhere at all.

I believe that my website is the only online venue which gives visitors an opportunity not only to read commentary which agrees with what they believe, but to also access commentary which disagrees with their beliefs. Which is exactly the point.

For all the talk within the GVP about how they are committed to ‘reasonable’ solutions to gun violence, I have never seen a GVP venue which hosts a single, ongoing discussion between the two sides about what the word ‘reasonable’ really means. Or what it should mean. Every time that GVP advocates jump for joy when a survey shows that a majority of gun owners support comprehensive background checks, I wonder how the GVP would react if they knew that these same gun owners also support eliminating gun-free zones.

On the other hand, the pro-gun movement has certainly never demonstrated any interest in hearing from the gun-control crowd. At best, the 2nd-Amendment gang usually dismisses all talk about gun controls of any kind as nothing more than a Bloomberg-Soros hoax. At worst, I won’t bother to mention the worst, okay?

I am not only very pleased that 14 writers have contributed to my blog – the purpose of this column is to reach out and solicit more commentary from people on both sides. I do not make editorial judgements of any kind, the writer can discuss any subject he/she likes, there is no limit as to length and I ask only that the content does not contain any profanity or personal attacks. Otherwise, what you send to me is what you will see posted on this blog.

By the way, of the 14 contributing editors whose work has been published here so far, I would consider 8 of them to be from the pro-gun side and 6have views are aligned with the GVP. That’s an interesting breakdown, insofar as the majority of my readers tend to be more pro-GVP than not.

Anyway, please feel free to become a Contributing Editor on Mikethegunguy.com.

Don’t Count The NRA Out.

              Now that the gun-control movement finds itself in an alliance with the House majority, instead of the House minority, joy abounds. And why not? How long has it been since Nancy wielded the gavel? Wow! And not only do we have friends in high places, so to speak, but the vaunted Trump-NRA combine which first reared its ugly head back in 2016, now seems to have collapsed.

              Granted, banning bump stocks is nothing more than a cosmetic attempt to pretend that something is being done to reduce the toll of gun violence, but you can’t tell me that anyone in Gun-control Nation would have predicted that even this mild rebuke of the joy of shooting was going to occur under the Trump regime, right?

              But even more to the point, when was the last time you picked up a copy of The Trace at your friendly internet news stand and not read a story about how the NRA is being accused of illegal campaign contributions, or how the NRA is going broke, or how a Russian ‘spy’ used the NRA to infiltrate America’s political elite. Just my luck, I give America’s ‘first civil rights organization’ money to set up an endowment, and it goes down the drain. But to all my friends in Gun-control Nation, do yourselves a favor and don’t start dressing for a big funeral at Fairfax just yet, okay?

              Yesterday I received my daily email from Friends of NRA ( I also receive daily emails from Everytown and Brady, just to balance things out) which invited me to “Join Second Amendment Supporters in Your Community for an Evening of Fellowship, Firearms, and Fundraising for the Shooting Sports!” The email then goes on to list social events that are already planned in New England between March and September in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Vermont. How many evenings of fun and fellowship are on the calendar so far?  Try 20 events. That’s twen…ty events, not five or ten. Twen…ty.

              And by the way, although folks in New England tend to stay indoors in January and February, the national gun show calendar lists 79 weekend shows just between January 18th and January 27th in other parts of the country, and I guarantee you that by March, there will be a gun show every weekend in at least one New England state.  Does the NRA do a booth and sign up members at every gun show? Does the bear sh*t in the woods? Is New York a city? No – it’s a jungle! Anyway….

              The point is that anyone who believes the NRA is on the verge of collapse is whistling Dixie, believe it or not. Because the one thing they have going for them, actually the two things, are: 1) they are a real membership organization in a way that none of the gun-control groups can even begin to compare; and 2) this membership shares one, very fundamental trait, namely, they love to get together and talk about their guns.

              Groups like Everytown and Brady attract supporters who agree that something needs to be done to reduce the violence caused by guns. Fine. But believe it or not, people don’t join the NRA because they want to show their support for 2nd-Amendment ‘rights.’ Yea, that nonsense goes with the package when you get your membership kit, and Wayne-o will get up at the 2019 national meeting in Indianapolis and whine that ‘our God-given ‘right’ to defend ourselves is under attack.’ You think any NRA member who comes to the show because he has been coming to the show every year really cares?

              If you ask the average NRA member whether his organization bears any responsibility for the 125,000 Americans who are killed or injured each year with guns, he’ll stare at you as if you just landed from Mars. And this is the reason why the NRA right now may be down, but I wouldn’t count them out just yet.

Do Guns Protect Us or Hurt Us? The Answer May Be in Brazil.

              What’s the issue Numero Uno which divides Gun-nut Nation from Gun-control Nation?  If you guess that it’s whether guns are a positive social benefit or a negative social risk, you guessed right. Virtually every piece of pro-gun legislation (concealed-carry, removing purchase restrictions) is justified by the claim that owning a gun protects you from crime; every time a new restriction is proposed, the rationale is that we need to reduce access to guns because guns cause violence and crime.

              This debate has been front and center since the early 1990’s, when our friends Art Kellerman and Fred Rivara published research showing that access to a gun increased homicide and suicide risk; versus research by our friends Gary Kleck and John Lott which found that having a gun represented a significant preventive measure against crime. When the National Academies reviewed all the relevant research in 2005, the review panel refused to come down definitively on either side, thus, the research battle continues to this day.

              One of the major problems in trying to evaluate whether guns make us more or less safe is that our system for regulating guns is unique insofar as it allows most American free and easy access to the types of guns – handguns – which are responsible for nearly all intentional gun injuries, regardless of the circumstances in which the injury event occurs. Whether someone walks into a mini-mart and sticks the place up, or someone hears a suspicious noise at their back door, if either or both of those events end up resulting in some kind of gun injury, dollars to doughnuts the injury involved using a handgun.  In both scenarios, Grandpa’s old shotgun hanging over the fireplace just doesn’t work.

              Because private ownership of guns, thanks to Heller, can’t be legally challenged, it is impossible for anyone to assess the real relationship between guns and violence because there’s no jurisdiction in the United States where we could perform a before-and-after analysis of what would happen if handguns were no longer considered products that could be legally owned. The fact that my friend David Hemenway finds a statistical correlation between the size of the civilian arsenal and the high rate of homicide doesn’t necessarily mean that the reverse (less guns = less homicide) would necessarily be true.  Regression analysis is a wonderful tool for describing how two trends move and change over time; whether one can link trends in terms of cause and effect is simply not a scientific approach, I don’t care how often public health gun researchers talk about ’science’ they use to study guns violence.

              But yesterday a new law went into effect in Brazil which might, for the first time, give us some serious indications of how to understand the connection between violence and guns. Under a new law which just took effect, Brazilians will now be able to purchase and own handguns without prior approval from the police, a process that has usually restricted private handgun ownership to only lucky few. Law enforcement agencies in Brazil have the same discretionary authority vis-à-vis handgun ownership that U.S. cops have in ‘may issue’ states, except in Brazil the criteria for issuance is much more stringent than over here.  The result? Brazil happens to be a country with a major small-arms manufacturing industry; it’s also a country where all these guns are shipped overseas.

              The new law is the handiwork of Brazil’s new President, Jair Bolsonaro, who ran on a right-wing, nationalist program that could have been written for him by the same guys who write the scripts and tweets for Sleazy Don Trump. Brazil currently owns up to the highest homicide numbers for any country on the globe, and Bolsonaro made a point of claiming during the election campaign that armed citizens would help bring the murder rate down.Cross-national crime comparisons can be tricky things, but here we have a clear before-and-after situation that can test whether the pro-gun argument promoted by the NRA has any truth to it at all.

The RAND Corporation recently announced a new pot of dough for gun-violence research.  Why doesn’t RAND fund someone to study Brazil?

Did Voters Think About Gun Violence When They Went To The Polls?

              Yesterday I received my weekly (sometimes daily) email from our friends at Everytown asking me to give them some bucks. If it weren’t for the fact that a gun-nut friend of mine wants to sell me his Smith & Wesson Model 41 for $700, I’d respond positively to Everytown’s solicitation today. But I’ll get another email from Mayor Mike tomorrow. I won’t see another Model 41 out there for $700 bucks, okay?

              What caught my eye in the Everytown email was not the request for dough, I will send them something soon. It was this statement which sums up the Everytown analysis of the election results in 2018: “For the first time, it’s clear that across the country gun safety is a winning issue.” Which happens to be what every Gun-control Nation organization is saying about the mid-terms, by the way.

              When either side in the great gun debate makes a claim, I try to verify the statement before I accept it as being true; I’m just a contrarian when it comes to noise made by advocates on either side . Take a look, if you will, at the House races where major donations from Bloomberg helped Democratic candidates grab the brass ring.  Of the 44 seats which will now be occupied by Democrats and were either GOP seats or vacant last year, 19 of those races evidently turned on major cash infusions from Bloomberg, either monies he directly gave those campaigns or money which he gave to other outside organizations which then used the dough to bolster those same campaigns. These campaigns also received money from the Everytown PAC, so we can assume that for these contests, the gun issue was a ‘winning issue,’ correct? The answer: yes and no.

              In Virginia’s 2nd CD, a pro-gun Democrat, Elaine Luria, beat out a ‘pro-gun’ incumbent. In Virginia’s 10th CD, the defeat of Barbara Comstock had nothing to do with the gun issue at all. In both of these races, the issue was Trump. In New Jersey’s 11th CD, an open seat, Mikie Sherrill won an open seat against her GOP in a race where guns meant nothing to either side. Take a look at the issues in Pennsylvania’s 6th CD, guns aren’t mentioned by either side. And even in a race where the blue candidate, Jason Crow, touted his gun-control bone fides against NRA stooge Mike Coffman, the loser was against an assault weapons ban but he supported a red-flag law, too.

              The one race where guns were certainly front and center was Georgia’s 6th CD, where the incumbent Republican, Karen Handel, lost her seat to a first-time Congressional hopeful, Lucy McBath. What created the noise in this race was the fact that McBath has been a spokeswoman for Everytown, following her son’s shooting death in 2012.

              Am I saying that gun-control issues didn’t make a difference? No. Am I saying that the energy and determination of Gun-control Nation didn’t outdo the efforts of the other side? No. Am I saying that the NRA’s lack of fungible cash wasn’t a factor in how the mid-terms turned out? No.

              What I am saying, however, is that the gun issue, in and of itself, just doesn’t explain how most electoral contests turn out.  The CNN exit polls for House races found that support for stricter gun laws ran 59% in favor, 37% opposed. But 76% of Democratic voters favored stricter laws, while 76% of Republican voters were opposed. The Parkland kids generated lots of media attention, but if you’re a Democratic candidate, you’re in favor of expanded background checks. If you’re a Republican, you’re not.

              What my GVP friends need to remember is that while NRA political contributions went down the drain in 2018, lobbying expenditures slipped from the previous year but were $1 million higher than 2016. Wishful thinking about the demise of the NRA to the contrary, the balance sheet of America’s ‘first civil rights organization’ shows them $26 million in the black.

              Want to reduce gun violence? Maybe the fight’s just begun.

Stopping Mass Shootings: Andrew Ross Sorkin Gets It Wrong.

              For all the talk about how the liberal media tries to present a balanced view on issues that provoke public debate, a column by Andrew Ross Sorkin goes so far beyond what should be the proper boundaries for defining discussions about gun violence that The New York Times should be ashamed of themselves for running it earlier this week.

              I am referring to Sorkin’s claim that he found a pattern running through the preparations made by people who committed mass shootings, the pattern being that they used credit cards to make large and expensive purchases of guns and ammunition which would not have been possible had these guys been forced to use cash.

              Sorkin reviews documentation from various mass shootings, including The Pulse and Aurora, where it appears that both shooters, Mateen and Holmes, may have secured credit cards for the express purpose of stocking up on large amounts of ammunition and multiple guns, which were then used in both attacks.

              That’s fine as far as it goes. But Sorkin then steps across the line, actually leaps across the line, by talking in very positive terms about how easy it would be for banks and credit card underwriters to track such purchases and alert law-enforcement authorities if and when someone’s credit card account suddenly shows all kinds of buying activity involving ammunition and guns. Sorkin claims it would be a simple process for financial institutions to create and administer the same kind of data-crunching systems which they currently use to track fraud, money-laundering or terrorism.

Basically, such a scheme would require merchants who take credit card payments to identify the type of object being purchased, which is almost always found in the item’s SKU, which is that bar-code on the package which tells a merchant how to adjust inventory levels after every sale. All we would need to do is create a specific SKU for guns or ammunition that would be reported to the credit card underwriter and then flow directly to the cops.

The idea that we would give the police any information about our buying habits except when we make an illegal purchase, simply blows my mind. If this isn’t the most egregious violation of just about every, Constitutional protection we have, I don’t know what is.  And while Sorkin spends two paragraphs on the civil liberties issue with the requisite comment from the ACLU, he doesn’t seem overly concerned about the loss of privacy where guns are concerned. If he knew anything about the gun industry (and when was the last time that any of the self-appointed ‘experts’ who write about guns for media outlets like The New York Times knew anything about the gun industry?) he would realize that the system for spotting people who purchase large numbers of weapons in short periods of time is already in place.

The system is called FBI-NICS, and while the FBI is supposed to destroy data generated by all background checks within 24 hours, duhhh, they don’t. And there is no statute which prevents the FBI from alerting ATF if a background check with the same personal identifiers shows up multiple times on the same day.

I can guarantee you that if Sorkin had written an article about why we need to track purchases of any consumer item except guns, there would have been an enormous geschrei from every civil libertarian around.  But giving the cops an unfettered look into the most personal habits and behavior of every American who owns guns because, after all, that’s how we will prevent what happened at Aurora and Sandy Hook?  Is he serious?

Until Omar Mateen walked into the Pulse and shot the place up, the record for the highest number of shooting casualties was held by Seung-Hui Cho, set at Virginia Tech. Between the pistol, the extra mags and the ammunition, the rampage that cost the lives of 32 faculty and students cost him less than $500 bucks.

That wouldn’t have happened if VISA had sent a ding to the cops after Cho bought his Glock?  Give me a break. 

Why Do We Let Cops Carry Guns?

              The town of Northampton, MA has always been a center of racial, gender and cultural diversity; hence, it’s no surprise that the town is, apolitically speaking, about as liberal as you can get.  Their liberalism was on display this week when the City Council criticized an offer from the local Wal Mart which wanted to donate $13,000 in ammunition that could be used for training the town police. This led to a nasty exchange at a City Council meeting, which made Wal Mart’s withdraw from the deal.

              What caught my eye in the reportage was a statement from a local attorney, Dana Goldblatt, who got up at the Council meeting during the public comments period and made this remark: ”We should be able to say fewer police, fewer guns, less ammo, and somehow we can’t.”

              The entire episode got me thinking about gun violence and the degree to which the discussion never seems to focus on whether the cops should actually be walking around with guns. In fact, the United States is the only advanced nation-state which grants its local police the same free access to small arms that we grant to every adult who hasn’t committed some kind of serious crime. In effect, we extend to our police the same Constitutional protection for carrying guns that we give to everyone else, even though there’s nothing in the 2nd Amendment about using a gun to enforce the law.

              Several years ago, our friend Frank Zimring published a really good book, When Police Kill, which pointed out that not only is the annual body count from police shootings at least double what we get from the official reports, but there doesn’t appear to be any connection between the number of police shootings and controlling crime or crime rates at all. What Zimring suggests, and the evidence certainly sustains his argument in this respect, is that other countries which have a similar rate of violent crime exercise tight control over when and how local police can carry guns.

              It’s all fine and well that Wal Mart wanted to give the Northampton Police Department free ammunition that could be used for training the cops how to use their guns, but many, if not most cops rarely, if ever practice using their guns.  Research on this issue is spotty at best, but even a pro-cop, pro-gun blog like Bearing Arms had to admit that, “the overwhelming majority of police officers are not competent shooters.”  And take it from me, that’s an understatement if there ever was one.

              I don’t think it would be such a bad idea if Gun-control Nation would begin asking themselves why are the cops exempted from concerns we all share about the risks of walking around with guns? To be sure, the gun-control contingent has no problem aligning itself with the various public-interest and community groups who decry police violence practiced against members of the ‘less-than-fortunate’ class. But the usual strategy here is to demand more sensitivity training and more time spent on the proper use of lethal force.

How about considering the idea that cops simply shouldn’t be walking around with guns?  This is exactly the point made by Attorney Goldblatt at the Northampton City Council meeting, but I don’t hear it being said anywhere else.

I have been arguing, largely against a brick wall, that until and unless we get rid of handguns, particularly the handguns which account for more than 80% of all gun violence, so-called ‘reasonable’ restrictions won’t do much at all. And while gun researchers continue to pretend they can preserve the 2nd Amendment by using synthetic controls regression analysis to come up with a ‘scientific’ proof of how some new gun law will reduce shootings, there’s about as much science in that nonsense as the science that Pope Urban VIII used to lock up Galileo in 1633.

Want to end gun violence?  It’s simple. Take away what causes the problem, and the problem is caused by guns.  Gee, that was tough one.

What Do We Know About Gun Laws? Not Much.

              Now that the Trump Administration has announced a ban on bump stocks, which means that Sleazy Don is about as willing to support the 2nd Amendment as he’s about to build a wall on the border with Mexico, all of a sudden Gun-control Nation is buzzing with the idea that a new gun law might actually take shape. And since Pelosi has also made noisesabout more gun control, who knows?

              Which means that there will certainly be an animated and serious discussion within the ranks of Gun-nut Nation to figure out what should be the ‘reasonable’ new gun laws that might be pushed forward in the days to come.

              But it seems to me that if you are going to argue for anew law, any kind of law, you’d better have some idea of what the current gun-control laws are all about; otherwise, how do you know what needs to be changed?

              If you go to my blog, you’ll find a page which gives you the opportunity to take a completely anonymous survey that tests your knowledge of current gun laws.  The survey asks the same questions of people who consider themselves to be members either of Gun-nut Nation or Gun-control Nation; Survey #4 is for gun-control activists,Survey #5 is for the other side.  For the time being, I have taken down the link which lets you see the real-time results,but here’s what the surveys reveal so far.

              Of the 12 questions which comprised the survey for residents of Gun-control Nation, only half or more of the respondents gave the correct answer to 5 questions; for the other 7 questions, correct responses were between 10% and 45%.  A majority of respondents knew how to define the difference between a long and a hand gun; knew what documentation was required in order to purchase a gun from a dealer; knew who could and could not walk into a licensed gun shop; knew how to define a ‘straw sale;’and knew the definition of a legal gun. However, for those 5 answers where  a majority of Gun-control Nation knew what the current law says, incorrect answers were almost as frequent as correct ones. The only question in the entire survey which received more than 80% correct answers was the question involving the legal definition of a gun. In other words, when it comes to understanding current gun laws, the knowledge among our friends in Gun-control Nation is, to be polite, rather scant.

              What about the Gun-nut Gang?  In fact, for all their talk about the 2nd-Amendment this and the 2nd-Amendment that, most of the residents of Gun-nut Nation don’t even know what the 2nd Amendment actually says.  A larger percentage of the gun nuts who answered the question asking for an explanation of the 2nd Amendment got it wrong than the percentage of wrong answers registered by the gun-control gang. Overall, respondents who consider themselves gun-rights advocates also only registered more than 50% correct answers in 5 of the 12 questions,although the questions they answered correctly were slightly different than the correct answers provided by the folks who advocate more controls over guns.

              Incidentally, I didn’t put questions on the survey covering esoteric or little-known legal issues covering guns. In fact,  I made a point of asking questions about the legal issues that are publicly discussed every day – background checks, straw sales,purchase requirements, etc. The bottom line? Both groups flunked. 

              I can certainly understand why a majority of gun lovers don’t understand the laws they have to follow in order to own guns. After all,tap the average gun owner on the shoulder and he’ll tell you that, as far as he’s concerned, we don’t need any laws on guns at all.

              On the other hand, you would think that my friends who endlessly promote the virtue of ‘reasonable’ gun laws, would at least have some idea of what they are talking about.  But when did anyone ever let facts get in the way of emotions, right?

Confessions of a Gun Nut.

Over the next several weeks, I am going to serialize and publish a new book – Confessions of a Gun Nut.  I’ll post each chapter on my Medium blog, and when it’s finished, I’ll publish it as an e-book. 

The purpose of this book is to use the more than 50 years that I have been in the gun business (and more than 60 years since I bought my first, real gun) to try and figure out what I know and don’t know about guns. 

Believe it or not, there’s a lot that I don’t know about guns. But I’m not about to kid myself into believing that because I can get my hands on some data, run the data through some statistical model or another and come up with some kind of ‘evidence-based’ conclusion, that I know anything about guns at all. And if I don’t know all that much about guns, the so-called experts on both sides of the argument know a lot less. 

In fact, what I find most interesting about the gun debate is the lack of modesty which seems to infect the pronouncements and publications of the individuals who turn up again and again as the self-identified authorities whose views form the accepted narrative in the gun debate.

If anything, the pompous and self-fulfilling judgements about guns and gun violence emanating from the academic research community tend, if anything, to be further removed from reality than the screeching which erupts from the other side. This is because most of the pro-gun noisemaking comes from the groups and organizations which exist for the purpose of marketing guns. Which means, at the very least, that they have to know something about the people who might actually buy their products.

On the other hand, the anti-gun movement (which is what gun-control people really want – they are against guns) has to operate under greater restraints than the pro-gun folks, most of all because they are committed to making arguments which can or should be supported by facts.  Now the fact that many of these so-called facts are nothing more than what this or that academic researcher claims to be facts – so what? In the greater scope of things what counts is whether your audience believes you or not.

Don’t worry – this isn’t going to be a kvetch by a pissed-off, former academic who didn’t get tenure and wants to get even with some of his tenured friends. First of all, I had academic tenure, so it’s not as if I’m sitting here all hot, bothered and jealous because gun-control researchers like Hemenway and Webster are inside the academy and I’m out. Second, I’m going to spend just as much time throwing slings and arrows at the pro-gun mob, if only because some of what they say is so dumb that it’s an insult even to their most ardent fans, and if anything, they often get away with it because their critics, being academics, often tend to be too polite.  On the other hand, if the academic gun researchers are too courteous to their opponents, they tie themselves into knots with the degree to which they are deferential to the work conducted by their academic peers on the same side.

Again and again I hear my friends in the anti-gun movement talking about how they want to craft gun-control policies that will be ‘reasonable,’ thus appealing to all those ‘responsible’ gun owners out there who just can’t wait to join them in the ‘middle’ of the gun debate. And along with this mantra comes the continued lament about how the ‘gap’ between the two sides is unbridgeable, and hence, simply resists any fair attempt to narrow the divide.

To the credit of gun owners, most of them will tell you that there’s a simple way to end the gun debate, namely, just stop complaining about guns and accept the fact that anyone and everyone should be able to own a gun, notwithstanding the 125,000 or so deaths and injuries that occur every year. And they should be able to own these guns without going through all this nonsense about background checks, and concealed-carry permits, and safe storage, and all that other Big Government crap.

On the other hand, how come the rest of the industrial world makes do without guns and we can’t?  Because if we agree that 125,000 deaths and injuries from the use of any specific product constitutes a crisis of public health, why should we put up with the continued availability of this product just because the Constitution says you can keep one in your home? The Commerce Clause also gives me the right to buy cigarettes. So what?

So stay tuned.  The chapters to Confessions of a Gun Nut book will shortly start rolling out. And I promise to respond to any and all feedback, at least up to a point.

Can Nancy And The Democrats Pass a Gun Law That Will Make A Difference?

Since I long ago gave up the idea that what I have to say about gun violence supports what my friends in Gun-control Nation want to hear, I’m going to spend today’s column taking some pot-shots at the single, most cherished goal of the gun violence prevention (GVP) movement, a.k.a., universal background checks.  Let me make it clear again that I have never (read: never) raised the slightest objection to reducing this awful social stain known as gun violence through, among other strategies, adopting public policies which work. But let me also make it clear that just because some piece of research finds a theoretical link between a certain public policy and an alleged outcome, doesn’t mean that the research isn’t flawed.

              That being said, it now turns out that Pelosi is telling the GVP that she intends to pass a ‘bold’ package of gun reforms right after the 116th Congress convenes.  She said this at a moving memorial service held in St. Mark’s Church, marking the anniversary of the Sandy Hook tragedy, this event part of the month-long, national vigils against gun violence which you can support here.

The Numero Uno issue that Pelosi will doubtless try to pass is a law that would expand background checks beyond the initial point of sale.  Before I get into the research used to justify this policy, we need to spend a bit of time understanding what such a law would require in terms of how the infrastructure which supports the background check process would have to change. You can promote any public policy you want, but unless you figure out and implement the logistics required to make the policy actually achieve its goals, I mean, what’s the point?

The theory behind universal background checks (UBC) is that if every gun transfer required the recipient to fill out a 4473 form, then register the transfer registered with FBI-NICS, this process would keep guns from falling into the hands of individuals who, under law, cannot own or have access to a gun. Fine.

In addition to qualifying the behavior of everyone who would be receiving a gun, the process would also make it easier for law enforcement to figure out how a gun that was used illegally or inappropriately ended up in the ‘wrong’ hands. Also fine.

Now here’s where the details meet the devil, okay? First, we have absolutely no idea, and my friends in the gun-research community have never attempted to figure this out with any degree of accuracy, how many guns are floating around in the ‘wrong hands’ right now. Nor do we have any verifiable data on how many guns are stolen each year, thus adding to the arsenal of guns in the ‘wrong hands.’  If my friends in public health would spend a little more time trying to figure that one out and a little less time pretending that regression analyses using synthetic controls really tells us how a new gun-control law impacts gun violence rates, maybe, just maybe we could craft some kind of policy that would diminish the illegal flow of guns.

Since Sandy Hook, three states – Oregon, Washington, Colorado – have instituted UBC.  In 2014, these three states experienced a gun-violence rate of 11.37 (ICD-10 Codes: W32-W34, X72-X74, X93-X95, Y22-Y24.)  In 2016, the rate was 11.88.  Would anyone like to tell me the connection between UBC and a 4% gun-violence increase in these three states? We don’t have official 2017 data yet, but in Oregon they are referring to 2017 gun-violence rates representing a ‘modest spike.’  Great, just great.

If Speaker Pelosi and her GVP allies want to take a bold step forward in the fight against gun violence, I have a simple idea.  Why don’t they just craft a bill that would strictly regulate the manufacture, purchase and ownership of highly-lethal handguns?

Oh! We can’t do that!  It’s a violation of 2nd-Amendment ‘rights!’ In fact, it’s not a violation of any Constitutional ‘right’ at all. And yes, I will shortly be explaining this on my new Facebook page. Please stop by.