slothropia.com

Another set of homicides from a well armed vPsychotic-American.

The late killer had a website where he documented his preparation for his final outrage. He was definitely messed up and hated women as well as himself. He was also definitely well armed.

Why do these things happen so frequently in the U.S. as compared to other industrialized democracies? Don’t know. I do know, however, that on average, individual Americans are well armed, compared to their peers in countries like Japan and Canada. And more gun homicides and more homicides from all causes occur here than in countries with similar economies, cultures and governments.

This seems to me to be a bug afflicting the nation. To the NRA and the politicians who fellate that conspiracy of scum it is apparently a feature. The causes and remedies (if any are possible) may be cultural rather than political or legal. It is in any case an issue that is rarely mentioned in political discussion or in the media.

I am not offering solutions here, but why is a conversation about the problem of gun killings not allowed to take place?

Here is what I just wrote to the Peoria Journal Star:

Dear PJ Star,

I am writing in response to a Forum letter published on June 20 titled Concealed-carry could save lives in Peoria, submitted by Chuck Emig, responding to a earlier Forum letter from John Longmire. Mr. Emig advocates a concealed/carry law for Peoria and for Illinois. Fair enough, but I wonder on what evidence Mr. Emig bases his support for conceal carry. He says, “If Mr. Longmire would have done some research before writing his letter, he would have seen that crime is down where they have concealed-carry.”

Well, if Mr. Emig had done some research beyond NRA talking points he would known that like every story this one has at least two sides. I have done a little research and I found this conclusion in a study published in the Stanford Law Review titled: Shooting Down the “More Guns Less Crime” Hypothesis “No longer can any
plausible case be made on statistical grounds that shall-issue laws are likely to
reduce crime for all or even most states.”
In another article titled The Latest Misfires in Support of the “More Guns, Less Crime” Hypothesis

In our initial article “Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime”Hypothesis1″ we reached two main conclusions: First, that there was no credible statistical evidence that the adoption of concealed-carry (or “shall issue”) laws reduced crime; and second, that the best, although admittedly quite imperfect, data suggested that the laws increased the costs of crime to the tune of $1 billion per year (which is a relatively small number given the total cost of FBI index crimes of roughly $114 billion per year).

Later, Ayres concludes, “We feel confident concluding that we have indeed shot down the more guns, less crime hypothesis.”

I am opposed to a conceal and carry law for Illinois (including Peoria) because more guns means more death, accidental and otherwise. More guns will not stop the drive by shootings and gas stations robberies. Many residents of the areas where these crime occurs want fewer guns on the street, not more.

I just wish that advocates for conceal carry laws would have the intellectual honesty to look at all the data, not just the studies that support their point of view. Maybe the media should look at some of this research as well, so that a reasonable and well informed debate on this issue could finally occur.

Comments welcome.

Man! Talk about your judicial activism:

A federal appeals court in Washington today struck down on Second Amendment grounds a gun control law in the District of Columbia that bars residents from keeping handguns in their homes.

The court relied on a constitutional interpretation that has been rejected by nine federal appeals courts around the nation. The decision was the first from a federal appeals court to hold a gun-control law unconstitutional on the ground that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, as opposed to a collective right of state militias.

Linda Singer, the district’s acting attorney general, said the decision was “a huge setback.”

“We’ve been making progress on bringing down crime and gun violence, and this sends us in a different direction,” Ms. Singer said.

The principles violated by these right wing judges would be the same no matter what jurisdiction is affected, but D.C. has its share of crime, and this will make it worse. It won’t take long either before gun crime is mysteriously up – way up – in Washington.

But that’s the way of the right in America, these days. Conduct radical experiments in social engineering, make a mess, destroy lives, leave a mess for someone else (Democrats by default) to clean up. That’s the way Bush Republicans govern.

I don’t know who appointed these judges, but something tells me it wasn’t Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton.