Mother Jones Continues to Make the Case...That Guns Save Lives?

(UPDATE BELOW)

Josh Harkinson at MoJo has a series of charts debunking the "gun lobby" claim that "millions of people" stop crime with their guns. Honestly, that number is probably quite exaggerated and is worthy of debunking. However, what he does after establishing this is conflate a whole bunch of numbers for comparisons that obscure a very simple truth: guns save lives. A lot of them.

For example, his first chart [click through] compares gun related homicides to justifiable homicides in 2010. That number is 8,275 to 230. Granted, that's a huge disparity--but to those 230 people were deemed justly killed by someone with a firearm, that's a lot of potential lives saved from imminent danger. By comparison, the MoJo staff compiled a pictorial list of mass murder victims from 2012--all 151 of them. Clearly, those deaths are tragic, awful, and they each have a story worth telling. I don't blame them one bit for that story.

But what about the people who defended themselves against the 230 would-be assailants? Are their lives not valuable either?

And guns, of course, are also quite useful in dissuading attacks at all without pulling the trigger. Again, ahem, thanks to MoJo's fine research into federal crime data, we know that 338,700 people used guns for self-defense from 2007-2011, averaging out to 67,740 per year over that time.* That's a whole lot of self-defense. I can't say they were all at mortal risk, but it's foolish to think none of them were.

So yes, Mr. Harkinson, 12.5 million self-defense uses is probably too high. (I'm not sure where exactly that number came from, but my point holds even if I grant it.) But your own research shows thousands of cases of defensive gun use and at least 230 justifiable homicides in one year alone. I don't understand how that proves that "guns stop crimes" is a myth. Indeed, I think you proved exactly the opposite.

UPDATE 2:35PM: I was in a rush when I wrote this post, but having revisited the original article, I figured out where Harkinson seems to have come up with his 12.5 million self defense uses claimed by "the gun lobby." There is an oft-cited statistic that between 100,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses occur each year. It's hard to say what that number actually is, as someone who may have brandished a weapon to stop a crime from occurring may not report it. But if you multiply the high end of that estimate by 5, you end up with 12.5 million. I think there is a reasonable argument that an estimate in which the high end is 25 times the low end is inappropriate, but that's not the argument Harkinson is making.

If you take the low number of that estimate, cited in Mother Jones' own point #5 here, the accuracy of the claim leaps from .54% to 2/3 (67%). Even if the high end estimate is preposterous, and even if the low end is a bit of an exaggeration, that over 67,000 Americans use guns in self defense per year is noteworthy when discussing the number of occurrences of defensive gun use. Emphasizing comparisons of non-like statistics--as most crime victims are not themselves armed, or that gun-theft outpaces defensive gun use in unconnected instances--is irresponsible and to think such a framing was unintentional strains credulity. -JPB

 bellum medicamenti delenda est

*Their subsequent chart has the five year average at 67,600, but dividing 338,700 by 5 gets you the number I used. It's not terribly important to me. I mean, what's 140 self-defense uses among friends?

The Truth About Good Guys with Guns

NB: I'm writing strictly in my personal capacity, despite linking to my employer's website. Their endorsement should not be inferred. Thx, mgmt.

I'm beginning to believe Mark Follman was put on this Earth just to vex me. His latest at MoJo almost immediately gave me a migraine for its selectivity and implicit privilege in its data.

Moreover, our investigation made clear that so-called "good guys with guns" do not stop public shooting rampages. Likewise, Blair's data couldn't be any clearer when it comes to the National Rifle Association's favorite myth: He found just 3 cases out of 84 in which an armed individual who had been on the scene used a firearm to stop the shooter. And none of the three were ordinary citizens. According to Blair, in two instances those who intervened were off-duty police officers: one in a case in upstate New York in 2010, and another in a case in Philadelphia in 2005. The third case took place in Winnemucca, Nevada, in 2008; the man there who intervened and shot the rampaging gunman, as I've reported previously, was a US Marine.

Granted, the NRA and other pro-gun folks have been giving Follman & company a litany of straw men to take down. (There's an argument that Follman overestimates the utility of training police get with the use of firearms which he believes makes them something other than ordinary citizens, and any number of instances of police overreacting and endangering the public with reckless shootings supports this, but it's beside the point here.) I don't think every citizen should be armed at all times, but I think every law-abiding citizen should be able to protect himself if he feels threatened. And while only a few mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens, which I've already pointed out are themselves extraordinarily rare by any metric, the same is less true for more common crimes.

There are hundreds of documented cases of armed civilians stopping crime against themselves or others, and who knows how many robberies, rapes, and assaults are stopped by a citizen brandishing a weapon are never reported. The more zealous anti-gun folks support Vice President Biden's "if it saves one life" mantra for more gun control, but such simplistic sloganeering ignores the indisputable fact that, at least sometimes, guns save lives.

And in those instances, like this one in my old neighborhood, often don't find their way to national headlines because dozens of disrupted liquor store robberies in marginalized neighborhoods don't garner the same emotional effect as horrific scenes at middle class schoolhouses. And that makes complete sense when you're talking about what makes headlines, but national policy should be aimed at the broader problems: those issues which affect more people and have more common underlying factors like poverty, educational outcomes, high crime neighborhoods, drug abuse, and the like. But Follman exploits a freak and random tragedy in order to push new gun laws--none of which up for vote would have have affected Newtown one bit--without considering what impact they may have on places like the south side of Fort Wayne and any number of other cities where people have reason to defend themselves.

Law-abiding citizens have a right to protect themselves and have done so on literally countless occasions. Maybe "good guys with guns" don't stop random mass murderers, but they do stop a lot of other crime and save many lives. There is more to gun violence than mass shootings, and there is more to America than Newtown. Any new regulations should recognize both of these facts, where Follman recognizes neither.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

Some Thoughts on Fear and Gun Control

NB: my opinions alone, yadda yadda yadda.

As the New York Times noted this morning, most gun deaths in the United States are actually suicides—by a 2 to 1 margin. Thus, only about a third of Americans who die from guns are doing so by the will of another. Using 2012 data (courtesy of MoJo), there were 9,960 gun homicides in 2012, and roughly rounding the U.S. population using 2010 census data (~308,745,000), there were about 3.2 gun homicides per 100,000 people in America. That is, removing all risk factors, an American's chance of being shot to death in the last year was approximately .0032%. There is indeed a problem of gun violence in this country, but murder and other violent crime rates have been declining steadily over the past two decades. It's getting better, and we can find ways to make these numbers even smaller, but it's unlikely many of the newly proposed gun control measures will be effective in doing it. So why are they being pushed?

Earlier this week, a man was fatally struck by a train at DC's Gallery Place/Chinatown Metro Station during morning rush hour. I was running a little late that morning and that incident made me a lot later. At the time, we had no idea whether the person who was struck jumped, slipped, or was pushed, but everyone thinks getting hit by a train is tragic and awful. Yet, when the announcement came over my train's public address speaker, no one freaked out or even reacted at all, other than a couple eye rolls of frustration that their commute just got lengthened. No “Oh, that's a shame!” or “Oh my god, that's terrible!” Just a train of normal commuters reading their Kindles and filling out sudokus and crosswords like any other Tuesday train delay. A man's (presumed) death did not emotionally register with anyone on the train that I could tell.

While I was sitting there, I thought about the nonchalance with which the entire train took the person's probable death. I could be wrong, but I think that if he had gone to the platform at Chinatown at the exact same time for the exact same purpose, but pulled out a gun and immediately shot himself in the head, the reaction on the train at my station in Virginia would have been much different. Why?

Guns scare people. 

Despite the fact we stand on platforms waiting for zooming trains or get in automobiles unquestionably capable of killing us just as dead every day as part of our get-to-work ritual, people fear guns more even when used by someone on themselves alone. Sure, in theory, someone could pick up the gun after the man shot himself and harm others, but I would imagine most of the people on the platform would be too shocked to think “Oh, here's my chance to go on a rampage/rob a group of people at gunpoint!,” as if lack of opportunity is what prevents most people from doing it. Yes, guns are designed to be lethal whereas trains and cars serve other functions, but in this situation, the use of a gun would produce a much more shocking effect on the public—rather than just the witnesses on the platform and the poor train operator—despite being functionally indistinguishable to anyone but the emergency responders.

For comparison, 32,885 people were killed in fatal automobile incidents in 2010.* Roughly, then, any given American is more than three times as likely to die in a car accident than be shot to death if you ignore risk factors on both sides. That is, if you're not involved in the drug trade or in an abusive relationship, your odds of dying as a result of gun violence is even lower than the numbers above suggest.

There are numerous tragic exceptions, of course, but while firearms make violence easier, they are not the causes of violence. Policymakers should be addressing the causes of violence if the public safety were actually their primary goal. Instead, most of the gun debate operates on this emotional level detached from the actual harm to the general public because the people want to feel safe, despite the considerable safety most Americans already have.

This isn't to say we must preserve the status quo or that any new controls are an affront to the Constitution, because they may not be, but policies that are pushed by irrational fear of guns are unlikely to hinder gun violence because the root causes of most gun violence remain. Meanwhile, domestic violence and the Drug War rage on, and only so few in the gun debate are actually addressing them. 

bellum medicamenti delenda est 

*PS: Of course I understand that automobile deaths have decreased as cars have gotten safer and various other factors. But you're not going to make lethal weapons that much "safer" and simultaneously preserve their effectiveness. The point is not that cars are bad, but that the fears surrounding gun control are not generally borne out by statistics.

The Only Thing We Have to Fear is Josh Marshall's Fear Itself

Nota Bene: Given the sensitive nature of the subject, I want to reiterate my blog's disclaimer that this is a personal blog and not to be associated with my employer or imply their endorsement. Thanks, JPB

Last week, TPM's top-man Josh Marshall took it upon himself to speak for "his tribe": "non-gun people." I am not so bold as to speak for anyone but myself, but I think his post merits a response.

After recounting a childhood memory in which he found himself playing with an actual gun and pointing it at a friend, Marshall explains his discomfort with guns:

More than this, I come from a culture where guns are not so much feared as alien, as I said. I don’t own one. I don’t think many people I know have one. It would scare me to have one in my home for a lot of reasons. Not least of which because I have two wonderful beyond belief little boys and accidents happen and I know that firearms in the home are most likely to kill their owners or their families. People have accidents. They get depressed. They get angry.

In the current rhetorical climate people seem not to want to say: I think guns are kind of scary and don’t want to be around them. Yes, plenty of people have them and use them safely. And I have no problem with that. But remember, handguns especially are designed to kill people. You may want to use it to threaten or deter. You may use it to kill people who should be killed (i.e., in self-defense). But handguns are designed to kill people. They’re not designed to hunt. You may use it to shoot at the range. But they’re designed to kill people quickly and efficiently.

That frightens me. I don’t want to have those in my home. I don’t particularly want to be around people who are carrying. Cops, I don’t mind. They’re trained, under an organized system and supposed to use them for a specific purpose. But do I want to have people carrying firearms out and about where I live my life — at the store, the restaurant, at my kid’s playground? No, the whole idea is alien and frankly scary. Because remember, guns are extremely efficient tools for killing people and people get weird and do stupid things. (emphases mine)

As many caveats and explanation he gives, Marshall is simply stating that his feelings about guns are based on fear, and that fear is rooted in ignorance of the 'alien.' Indeed, after corresponding with a reader who was defending the right to open carry, he writes:

But at this point I was already starting to see red. I don’t pretend that [Marshall's interlocutor] is representative. But it captured a mentality that does seem pervasive among many more determined gun rights advocates — basically that us non-gun people need to be held down as it were and made to learn that it’s okay being around people carrying loaded weapons.

Well, I don’t want to learn. That doesn’t work where I live — geographically or metaphorically. (emphases mine)

This last bit struck me particularly, because he made this post about "his tribe." This fear of people unlike him and this idea that he's 'forced to accept' the rights of others often emanates from the more reactionary Right, usually regarding open displays of homosexuality or, more directly related to fear, when uncomfortable in the presence of racial or religious minorities.*(1)

Take the Juan Williams fiasco, in which Williams said that he was frightened by people on airplanes in traditional Muslim garb. Williams' forthright prejudice was a personal bias against Muslims, not reflective of any real threat from a Muslim just because he was wearing a keffiye. (Indeed, the 9/11 hijackers, the probable source of Willams' discomfort, were wearing Western clothes during the attack.)  Marshall's fearful explanation is no different, as the vast majority of gun owners are not criminals nor will they ever pose a direct threat to others or themselves. Similarly, it is the same sort of fear that motivates the cliched white woman to clutch her purse when in the elevator with a black man. Just as there are Muslim (and other) terrorists and black (and other) criminals, there are gun owners (and others) who kill people. In our society, the individual enjoys a presumption of innocence, particularly when exercising his or her rights. That guns give people like Marshall the creeps is not enough to restrict them at the expense of others' rights. Marshall's fear is just as irrational, if more understandable on some level, but his locked-in bias against guns isn't a policy argument.

I personally think that people carrying openly for its own sake is an ostentatious, provocative, and unpersuasive political gesture, but that's their right. Brandishing a weapon is still a crime, as it should be and where the fear of a "non-gun person" is justified, but the right to carry a gun should not be generally prohibited to law-abiding citizens. If it makes Marshall feel better, any law-abiding citizen may 'open carry' in Virginia, but you probably wouldn't know it by walking around Old Town or Arlington. Just because it's legal, it doesn't mean it's common or likely to become so. I can understand Marshall's hesitation to live in a city where most everyone is carrying a gun, though I wouldn't fear it as he does, but its sheer unlikelihood makes it the most fanciful of his many listed fears and thus he need not "learn" that, despite what the other tribe is saying.

But there are plenty of legitimate reasons that someone may want to carry a weapon. Take, for example, what a facebook friend of mine recently posted (verbatim):

I lived in NYC for 10 years, without ONCE fearing for my safety. Yet, it's only when I move to the nation's capital (how ironic is that?) that I find myself truly on alert. After 2 gay men were attacked 3 blocks from my home, it finally dawned on me that I'm not in the Big Apple anymore and that perhaps, I need to learn some self-defense. But another thing dawned on me too: the conversation about guns and gun violence is mostly taking place among people who live in safe environments and can therefore feel confident in telling others they don't need a gun to defend themselves. It would really interest me to hear what less privileged people-- who live in higher crime areas-- have to say about the issue. I don't think anyone is listening to them right now.

I can't imagine she's alone in her particular fear, as brutal attacks on gays and other Queer minorities seem to be on the rise in the District.**(2) As to her revelation about privilege, Marshall virtually stipulates his own in his post.

In another context, the last time I saw my father carry, he was transporting a considerable but not huge amount of money in order to purchase a car from a neighbor whom he'd known for over 60 years. My father and his friend lived in a neighborhood in which break-ins induced more than a few homes to have bars on doors and windows, and thus he felt he—a fit man, but in his 70s at the time—could use protection in case someone decided to rob two seniors who they heard had a bit of money on them. (In my experience, many robberies are crimes of opportunity by which someone takes action after learning a piece of otherwise innocuous information.) Gun bans, such as those struck down in D.C. and Chicago, would have made criminals of my father and his friend, whom I recall was also carrying that day—or, alternatively, it would have made them more vulnerable to potential criminals who were neither persuaded nor hindered by gun bans. My father had personal reason to be wary, as many years before, and an off-duty police officer at the time, he once stopped his own mugging with his concealed service weapon.

I've never pointed a gun at anyone, but I had one at-the-ready when a friend of my then-girlfriend was a victim of domestic violence and escaped to our place. The abuser, on a previous friendly(-ish) occasion, decided to fireman-carry me up a flight of stairs on a lark. Despite being six feet tall and weighing over 200 lbs., I was upside-down and half up the stairs before I knew what was going on. I would be no match for him in a fistfight, and any non-firearm weapon would require close contact, which would leave me vulnerable to being overpowered. Furthermore, it was very likely he knew where she was. Fortunately, I never had to use that gun, but we slept more soundly that night knowing we had an effective defensive deterrent in case we needed it.

When you think about it, a considerable amount of gall is needed to deny the right of self-defense to others just because it makes you feel uncomfortable. I grant that perhaps Marshall was just speaking his mind and not actually pushing back against the right to carry, but the Left's push for legislation similarly relies on fear and their own notions of propriety. I'm not asking, let alone 'holding down,' anyone to enthusiastically accept gun rights. But Marshall and others should understand that a relative feeling of safety without a weapon is far from universal. Good for him that the idea of personally defending himself or his family against attack is an alien concept, but that's simply not the case for everyone, even in the "good" neighborhoods in D.C..

We can debate options for the future, such as expanding gun safety training to anyone who seeks to carry firearms publicly or various restrictions on time and place for carrying, but prejudicial fear of the presence of a loaded gun, however palpable to some, does not remotely approach the threshold appropriate to deny a responsible, law-abiding citizen his or her most fundamental right to self-defense.

I speak for no one but myself, but I understand the sometimes-imminent necessity of firearms for people that may not have the luxury of waiting for a 911 response. There are many who choose not to use firearms for self-protection, which is fine and I'm not telling them they should. But there are some who, at one time or another, feel safer carrying a weapon for self-defense, and their rights should be respected—despite the fears of Josh Marshall.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

*(1)This is not to say, at all, that gun owners are being persecuted like blacks, Muslims, or other minorities have been or currently are—it's that Marshall's remarks bear a strong resemblance to the myopic mentality that, in other contexts, sometimes feeds persecution: 'I don't want to learn in order to respect your rights.' To wit, direct comparisons to the Civil Rights Movement, Nazi Germany, and Stalinist Russia that many virulent gun-rights supporters have invoked are entirely off-base and offensive. American gun owners may have reason to be wary of potential government action, but they have no reasonable fear of oppression against them. Absolutely none. 
Furthermore, it should not be inferred that I think Marshall is a bigot. It's just that Marshall admitted his own close-mindedness about people carrying firearms and, to a "gun person," its syntactical resemblance to other forms of prejudice is unmistakable. That does not mean, however, the effect of his particular prejudice bears the same cultural weight as racial, religious, or identity prejudice—nor do I think it makes him a bad guy.

**(2) I use "Queer" as an all-encompassing term for non-heteronormative genders and identities. Though in context it should be obvious, I wanted to make clear since I'm a straight guy loosely  right of center.

How Mother Jones makes my case against the assault weapons ban

Nota Bene: Given the sensitive nature of the subject, I want to reiterate my blog's disclaimer that this is a personal blog and not to be associated with my employer or imply their endorsement. Thanks, JPB

As we anticipate the coming fight over whether or not Congress should reinstitute the nationwide Assault Weapons Ban, I'd like to thank Mother Jones for making my case for me: no.

Now, in recent months—well before the tragedy at Newtown—a few folks at MoJo had been reporting on mass shootings and their recent frequency. They started collecting data on the numerous shootings over the past 30 years or so and recently put it all in a very convenient spreadsheet. If you click on the “weapon categories” tab, it breaks down the number and types of weapons used in each attack. What I found interesting is that assault weapons, the floated focus of the President's gun proposal, are used in a minority of the mass shootings. In addition, there were nearly as many used in mass casualty events during the 10 years of the last assault weapons ban (13) as there were in the 12 years previous (14). Since the expiration of the AWB in 2004, there have been 8 assault weapons used in mass shootings.

So, what we have is national legislation aimed at 35 weapons that were used in 25 instances over 31 years in a nation that contains approximately 300 million guns. What's more, the last time this ban went into effect, it failed to stop the acquisition and use of over a third of all assault weapons used in mass shootings since 1982. This legislation is likely to be wholly impotent to stop mass violence—the catalyst for this legislation.

In no other arena of public policy, save perhaps drug policy, would such inefficacy be so proudly touted as meaningful. And perhaps most frustrating, there is going to be so much self-righteous ink spilled all over this absolutely worthless legislation that, even if passed, will have no meaningful effect on gun violence. What a miserable waste of time and energy is on the immediate horizon. 

Welcome to D.C.'s latest dog and pony show.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

Jeff Toobin's History: Scarcely Related to Reality

Jeffery Toobin’s new piece on Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni leaves one wanting. I was waiting for a “gotcha” moment or perhaps a revelation about the couple that I hadn’t previously known or, at least, anything of interest that would warrant a few thousand words in the New Yorker.

[sad trombone]

Instead, what I read was a bunch of intimation about the Thomases traveling in conservative social circles, the revelation that Justice Thomas is an originalist (!!!), and a smattering of information about his life on the High Court.

One could have gotten as much useful information off of the justice’s Wiki page.

But what got me about the article wasn’t its complete lack of substance—an appalling lack, though it was, given the outlet and the author’s credentials as an astute Court watcher—but its blatant whitewashing of 14^th Amendment history. Toobin writes:

In his jurisprudence, Thomas may be best known for his belief in a “color-blind Constitution”; that is, one that forbids any form of racial preference or affirmative action. But color blind, for Thomas, is not blind to race. Thomas finds a racial angle on a broad array of issues, including those which appear to be scarcely related to traditional civil rights, like campaign finance or gun control.* In Thomas’s view, the Constitution imposes an ideal of racial self-sufficiency, an extreme version of the philosophy associated with Booker T. Washington, whose portrait hangs in his chambers. (This personal gallery also includes Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher.) *emphasis mine

I don't want to get into the campaign finance argument, but the gun rights comment was just too patently ignorant to let go.

Apparently looking to emulate his CNN colleague Wolf Blitzer and become the witless wonder of legal journalism, Toobin exhibits no respect for the substance of either the Heller or McDonald amicus briefs or decisions. Beyond that, Toobin should have a reasonable enough grasp of history—and by reasonable, I mean a basic, non-sanitized history understood by grown-ups—to be familiar with the stripping of blacks' legal protections that came in the post-Reconstruction era and continued up through the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. When marauding bands of hooded murderers ride the nights on horseback, the ability to protect one's family from them is very much a civil right—and the systematic removal of those rights doesn't require a special “angle” of jurisprudence to understand. 

UCLA law professor Adam Winkler penned a piece for the September issue of the Atlantic called “The Secret History of Guns.” Professor Winkler spent nearly 2400 words (of roughly 4700) detailing the explicitly race-based nature of various gun control actions—from Andrew Johnson unsuccessfully vetoing the gun rights of Freedmen (the legislative precursors to the 14^th Amendment) to then-Governor Ronald Reagan capitalizing on the spectre of armed Black Panthers at the California capitol. A snippet:

Indisputably, for much of American history, gun-control measures, like many other laws, were used to oppress African Americans. The South had long prohibited blacks, both slave and free, from owning guns. In the North, however, at the end of the Civil War, the Union army allowed soldiers of any color to take home their rifles. Even blacks who hadn’t served could buy guns in the North, amid the glut of firearms produced for the war. President Lincoln had promised a “new birth of freedom,” but many blacks knew that white Southerners were not going to go along easily with such a vision. As one freedman in Louisiana recalled, “I would say to every colored soldier, ‘Bring your gun home.’”

After losing the Civil War, Southern states quickly adopted the Black Codes, laws designed to reestablish white supremacy by dictating what the freedmen could and couldn’t do. One common provision barred blacks from possessing firearms. To enforce the gun ban, white men riding in posses began terrorizing black communities. In January 1866, Harper’s Weekly reported that in Mississippi, such groups had “seized every gun and pistol found in the hands of the (so called) freedmen” in parts of the state. The most infamous of these disarmament posses, of course, was the Ku Klux Klan.

In response to the Black Codes and the mounting atrocities against blacks in the former Confederacy, the North sought to reaffirm the freedmen’s constitutional rights, including their right to possess guns. General Daniel E. Sickles, the commanding Union officer enforcing Reconstruction in South Carolina, ordered in January 1866 that “the constitutional rights of all loyal and well-disposed inhabitants to bear arms will not be infringed.” When South Carolinians ignored Sickles’s order and others like it, Congress passed the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of July 1866, which assured ex-slaves the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty … including the constitutional right to bear arms.”

That same year, Congress passed the nation’s first Civil Rights Act, which defined the freedmen as United States citizens and made it a federal offense to deprive them of their rights on the basis of race. Senator James Nye, a supporter of both laws, told his colleagues that the freedmen now had an “equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense.” President Andrew Johnson vetoed both laws. Congress overrode the vetoes and eventually made Johnson the first president to be impeached.

Fittingly, as DC readies itself to officially open the memorial to America's most beloved and famously peaceful civil rights leader, Winkler goes on to note that Martin Luther King Jr. applied for—and was denied—a concealed carry permit for a handgun after his home was bombed.

Apparently Dr. King also subscribed to this “extreme” and peculiar “angle” of civil rights.

It's not that I think Toobin wrote this as a hit piece. (It was, if anything, a miss piece.) But by writing this as he did, he mischaracterized an important and well-documented aspect of traditional civil rights in America that—at the very least—any responsible Court watcher would instantly recognize from recent cases, whether or not he agreed with the policy outcomes. Toobin goes further to imply Thomas relies on a revisionist history that is perceived through his putatively unorthodox originalism and colored by his race. That is simply bullshit. 

Gun rights and self-defense have gone hand-in-hand with civil rights for blacks since the very first Civil Rights Act in our nation's history. It seems Mr. Toobin is the one with a questionable understanding of traditional American civil rights. 

bellum medicamenti delenda est

Imaginary Jurisprudence

The cojones on this Congress are approaching Blagojevich magnitude:

Self-proclaimed victims of global warming or those who "expect to suffer" from it - from beachfront property owners to asthmatics - for the first time would be able to sue the federal government or private businesses over greenhouse gas emissions under a little-noticed provision slipped into the House climate bill. (emphasis mine)

There is a long-established standard in courts of law: a plaintiff must provide what is known as "standing." Standing, in a nutshell, is reasonable proof that the plaintiff has suffered a harm because of the law or action they are challenging. For example, the D.C. gun case was originally called "Parker v. D.C.," but the complaints of Ms. Parker and all the other plaintiffs except Dick Heller were thrown out for lack of standing. Their complaints were based on conjecture: that they could reasonably expect to be arrested for having a firearm didn't pass the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' standing standard. Dick Heller showed standing by being rejected for a gun permit, going through a procedural hurdle to show the government actively denied his purported 2nd Amendment right--i.e., harm.

While I find that particular interpretation dubious, it illustrates my point that standing is an important and substantive hurdle that limits the suits brought into court. Expanding standing to expected harm, based on arbitrary standards of emissions, is entirely too burdensome on any defendant, whether a private entity or the federal government.

For example: while you are more likely to develop lung cancer or emphysema from smoking, it is not a statistical certainty. Indeed, you may get one or the other--or neither. You may, as smokers often defend themselves, get hit by a bus tomorrow and never suffer any long-term consequences from smoking. This law, if passed, will allow people to sue on grounds that they may--or indeed, may not--suffer harm from emissions.

This is not to anyway argue with the scientific methods of global warming. But there is not a single reputable study or finding that says that any individual or group will, with 100% certainty, suffer damages or harm as a result of carbon emissions. Furthermore, EVEN if there were, the extent of that damage is purely conjecture and incalculable for the purposes of awarding damages.

To exact an amount for damages that haven't happened yet is anathema to our theories of jurisprudence. This is a dangerous provision that can be described as nothing other than a gift to environmentalists and trial lawyers. This isn't justice: this is punitive preemption.

Ronald Coase famously dealt with pollution in market terms nearly 40 years ago, but I will grant that even in his framework, harm will come to people. In that case, the harmed have recourse through the court system, as they very well should. But while I fear an environmental regulatory regime under this Congress, it is infinitely preferable to an EPA rendered impotent by countless and contradicting lawsuits.

If they stop and think about it, I doubt highly that even environmentalist would like environmental protection by judicial fiat either--unless, of course, they want Justice Scalia determining environmental standards?

Pardon My Language

But this is just bullshit:

After opposition from the National Rifle Association, 22 Democrats joined Republicans in a Senate vote this month to negate the District of Columbia's tough gun registration requirements and overturn its ban on rapid-fire semiautomatic weapons.(emphasis mine)

And by "rapid-fire semiautomatic weapons" they mean handguns that aren't revolvers--aka a modern sidearm. People who no nothing of firearms may conclude that such language clears the way for fully-automatic Uzis. The difference, of course, is that you have to pull the trigger each time you want to fire a shot with a semiautomatic, whereas Uzis and other sub-machine guns can fire multiple round bursts. Shots fired from legal handguns would only be as rapid as the finger on the trigger. Many revolvers are dual-action, with admittedly more trigger resistance, meaning an experienced user could nearly as easily get off "rapid-fire" shots with a revolver.

If the press wants to shake the image of being biased as "liberal," they need to stop abusing language to make "conservative"-backed ideas sound scarier than they are.

Breaking News: ATF "Disrupts" Plot to Kill Obama; Scores of Black People

And the racists are mobilizing:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The ATF says it has broken up a plot to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and shoot or decapitate 102 black people in a Tennessee murder spree.

In court records unsealed Monday, agents said they disrupted plans to rob a gun store and target an unnamed predominantly African-American high school by two neo-Nazi skinheads.

I don't know how competent these idiots were or how close they could have gotten, but I expect that more of the same is coming. The backlash against a black President may be both dramatic and bloody -- and not just for the (presumable) president.

Obviously, I don't think any violence will be widespread in the sense that states are going to secede again, but there are enough hate groups that may test the patience of the US security apparatus-- probably to the point that a Democratic majority Congress would go to extraordinary (and extra-constitutional) lengths to attempt to bring them under control. I certainly hope we won't have a spate of domestic terror cells, but I'd be lying if I said that it wasn't a small fear of mine.

Unconstitutional impediments to assembly, speech, and--of course--firearms, will only fuel the fire of the hate groups and perhaps cause them to grow, albeit to rather limited (thankfully) extent. The problem with this is not that terror-minded hate groups will be stopped before killing or otherwise harming people--I'm all for that. But perfectly legal yet marginal fringe groups might be targeted in anti-racist crackdowns just because some group of white boys with guns decides to name themselves "militia." It isn't as if the government doesn't already cast too wide of net for terror suspects. (You know, like the environmentalists who ended up on terror lists in Maryland.)

If and when that happens, the same Democrats and other liberals who are (correctly) arguing against domestic wiretapping and treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo may be calling for similar measures--at least as they apply to surveillance and suspicion-- to be used against our own citizens who may or may not be associated with domestic racial terror.

The problem with fighting for liberty is that often you're stuck protecting the rights of bastards. But being a bastard does not equate being a terrorist--even if you're a racist bastard with guns. I have a feeling that the political dynamics of the personal liberties debate may change once the targeted people under suspicion aren't named Khalid and Abdul, but rather Kenny and Cletus.

Let's hope we don't find out.

Hat tip: NJ Ray

DC v. Heller: Counsels' Perspective

Quote of the Day

(Ok, it was this weekend. But I've been traveling, so deal)

[D.C. Police Chief Cathy] Lanier, who was accompanied at the news conference by City Administrator Dan Tangherlini with Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) out of town, defended the [Trinidad neighborhood] checkpoints yesterday as legal and a useful police tool. "Until a judge orders me to stop, I'm going to do everything I can to protect the people in Trinidad," Lanier said.

Except, of course, make it easier for the citizens to protect themselves with handguns.

Indiana: Home of the Status Quo

Very much like Garth in Wayne's World, many people from my home state of Indiana are saying "We fear change!"

Change, it seems, may not carry quite the same political magic in this state as it has elsewhere.

“We hold onto a lot of traditional values,” said Brian L. Thomas, 39, as he bought a cup of coffee along the courthouse square here on Wednesday. “Saying you’re ready to change is probably not the best or only thing you would want to say around these parts. Frankly, we want it to be like it used to be.”

Ah. Like any good journalist, the author of this story had to find someone who will use stereotypical anachronistic colloquialisms like "around these parts" -- I'm honestly surprised the man didn't explicitly call the past the "good ol' days." (Which, might I add, were not so good for certain people in the Hoosier State.)

All that aside, there is something to be said for keeping things the way they are. My friend and former colleague Michael Moynihan had an excellent piece over at reason yesterday addressing Obama's comments on religion and guns and how that might reflect on the candidate's elitism:

...Barack Obama thinks that, whether they know it or not, the gun-toting plebes of America are in desperate need of "change."

I don't think Michael is too far off the mark here...and I think this may hurt Obama's chances in the Indiana primary, given Hoosiers' predilection for guns and God.

Update: Colorado Shooting

From the security guard who took down the killer in the Colorado church shootings:

[Security Guard Jeanne] Assam said, "I wasn't just going to wait for him to do further damage."

How much damage could he have done?

[Gunman/dead guy Matthew] Murray was carrying two handguns, an assault rifle and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition, said Sgt. Jeff Johnson of the Colorado Springs Police Department.

But gun control advocates would say that calling 911 and waiting for the police would be the prudent thing to do.

Tell that to the survivors.

Moon Shot?

Yet another person with a weapon stops a criminal from hurting people:

An off-duty SWAT team member is being called a hero Sunday after shooting an armed robber outside a Brevard County supermarket.

Investigators said it all began after a man went into the Winn-Dixie on Singleton Avenue with a shotgun Saturday night. He then fired a shot at an office door to get inside and grab money.

Cool. But what unit is he from?

A member of the Kennedy Space Center SWAT team walked in the store, saw what was happening, and then went back to his car to get his gun.

Why in the world does the Kennedy Space Center have a SWAT team?

Murderous Moron Killed By Church Security Guard

In the latest event of jackass-gone-mad with a gun, a downplayed portion of the story buried in the text:

The gunman was killed by a member of the church's armed security staff before police arrived, Myers said.

That's right. This guy was killed by a private citizen before the police could respond. Granted, I've never been to a church with an armed security staff, but it seems this particular sect felt (correctly) that God's grace wasn't enough to protect them. Does it not make sense that we shouldn't rely on God or the police to protect the rest of us as well?

I predict that gun control advocates will be remarkably silent on this instance of private citizens handling this situation before police could react. They cannot wrap their heads around the fact that 2nd Amendment protects the most basic and fundamental individual right to self-defense. If our rights mean anything, the idea that we are allowed to be responsible for the safety of ourselves and families must be respected.

More prominently placed in the article, and quite grotesque when you think about it, is this statement by Colorado Governor Bill Ritter:

"Violent crimes of any sort are tragic enough, but when innocent people are killed in a religious facility or a place of worship, we must voice a collective sense of outrage and demonstrate a renewed commitment to keeping our communities safe."

Because this would be less tragic if it were at a secular event like a symphony or football game or MALL SHOPPING? This putrid comment serves only to placate the religious people in his state while simultaneously lowering the value of life for non-practicing/non-believing citizens.

Given the timing, one shudders to think that he may be trying to one-up the victims in Omaha.

It's Not Ridiculous...

but it is completely awesome:

07-290 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL. V. HELLER, DICK A.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to
the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C.
Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the
Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated
with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns
and other firearms for private use in their homes?

This sets a pretty high bar for the giving of gifts for Thanksgiving!