Guns and Politics and What Actually Reduces Gun Violence http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-heroux/guns-and-politics-and-wha_b_9022768.html Guns are one of the most divisive aspects of public policy in America. Two sides compete for an outcome. One wants to expand gun ownership and the other side reduce guns in America. Both argue that their own perspective will reduce violence with guns. I disagree. Neither argues from a point of view about what works. My standard is very simple: Does it work? Alas, child training programs don't work, and this has been reported on by USNEWS, ABCNews, and CNN. More guns, less crime doesn't work. Gun bans don't work. What Then Works? I define what works as an intervention in a place that has been measured against another place that didn't get the specific intervention. Did the intervention cause less violence with guns? I am skipping over all of the statistical and research methods mumbo jumbo to get to the point quicker and talk about what works. If there is a common denominator that we find in interventions of what works we find that going after who is abusing guns and where they are abusing them is critical. This is what I call a bottoms-up strategy. This is usually a community or policing approach. A top down strategy is an intervention that casts a wide net and by definition is going to include people who aren't committing crime with a gun. This is usually a legislative approach. The Kansas City Gun Experiment is one great example of what works to reduce gun violence. Police were trained how to detect people who were illegally carrying and concealing guns and the focused on the areas that had the most gun violence. The training was implemented in certain areas of the city that were randomly assigned and compared to other randomly assigned areas of the city where police did not get the same training. The result was a nearly 50 percent drop in gun violence. This approach was replicated in several other major cities. No new laws were created. But intervention did cost money in terms of police overtime and training. But it worked. Another approach to gun violence is known as Operation Ceasefire. In a report on this intervention it states at the bottom of page 1: "The two main elements of Ceasefire were a direct law enforcement attack on illicit firearms traffickers supplying youths with guns and an attempt to generate a strong deterrent to gang violence." The report continues to states that "the implementation of Operation Ceasefire was associated with a 63-percent decrease in youth homicides per month, a 32-percent decrease in shots-fired calls for service per month, a 25-percent decrease in gun assaults per month, and a 44-percent decrease in the number of youth gun assaults per month in the highest risk district (Roxbury)." In both of these approaches (and many more that I don't have space in a column to cover), the police used current laws to reduce gun violence where it was happening by the people doing it. Gun violence was successfully reduced and it was measured with a scientific rigor that was strong enough to stand up to scrutiny. Politics is Getting in the Way of Public Safety A lot of what we see proposed today on TV by political pundits or from special interest groups is only tinkering on the margins. In a recent live town hall style meeting on CNN, President Obama tacitly recognized that none of his executive actions would have prevented any of the recent high profile mass shootings. But he says that is not reason to not take any action. Mass shootings are not what are driving our high gun violence rates in America; individual homicides are. I don't think there is research yet available that tells us what to do on mass shootings. Too many people throw around 'evidence based' but they don't know what it means. Good research is an evaluation of a real world intervention and when compared against a control group. The outcome doesn't make research good or not; the methodology does. A lot of the solutions that are proposed by people who fiercely for or against guns just don't work. They argue about what they think should work or what makes sense, or what fits their political worldview, but not what has been empirically proven to reduce gun violence. I voted against a 40-page gun bill in 2014 because it didn't go far enough to reduce gun violence. The bill tinkered on the margins as there was nothing in it that was an evidence-based approach. A bill that I have twice filed (H.2136) would reduce gun violence where it is happening by the people doing it, and measure the outcomes. It would cost money but it would be based on peer reviewed empirical approaches to what works. I have published about two dozen articles on gun violence. Gun violence isn't going away under current popular and politicized approaches.
Facebook Banning Private Gun Sales on Its Social Network "Facebook Inc. is banning private gun sales between people on its social network, where users had been coordinating transactions without background checks. Facebook, which has been taking steps to limit gun sales via its website since 2014, is now banning people from arranging deals in private messages, the company said. It already bans the sale of illegal drugs. Gun control has become a bigger social issue following a series of high-profile mass shootings, including the 2012 murder of 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, and an attack in San Bernardino, California, in December that left 14 people dead and 17 wounded. Advocacy groups have lobbied Facebook and other online forums to restrict users’ posts about firearms for sale on their profiles and group pages. While no money changes hands on the site, the groups say it enabled illegal sales by failing to police the conversations that led to them...." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...nning-private-gun-sales-on-its-social-network
School superintendent erects signs warning that its teachers are packing heat His justification? "Having a sign in your front yard saying 'this is a gun-free zone' just tells the idiots, 'Come on in,' because we can't defend ourselves" http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/educ...cle_2c9b2d42-57ca-5a94-b475-a19361f764fd.html
Six Dead in Chicago Mass Stabbing. Time for some Assault Knife Control Legislation from the liberals http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/04/six-killed-in-chicago-mass-stabbing/
El Presidente needs to take his money out of mutual funds and just buy stock indexes. An ex-gun "SPY" ETF would be helpful. They have ex-energy "SPY" so why not ex gun? Why Obama and other gun control advocates own stock in firearms makers "Barack Obama might seem an unlikely investor in the firearms industry. But the U.S. president, a fierce advocate for gun regulation, has money in a pension fund that holds stock in gun and ammunition companies. Although Obama's stake is minuscule, worth no more than $30, it reflects a much larger surge of investment. The president is among millions of Americans buying into gun companies - often unwittingly - as mutual funds have increased such holdings to record levels, according to a Reuters analysis of institutional investment in firearms companies. Since Obama was elected in 2009, mutual funds have raised their stakes to about $510 million from $30 million in the nation's two largest gun manufacturers with publicly traded shares, Smith & Wesson Corp and Sturm, Ruger & Co . That means such stocks are now common in retirement and college savings plans. The influx has helped to boost both companies' shares by more than 750 percent during the Obama presidency; each now has a market value of about $1 billion....: http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...tock-in-firearms-makers/ar-BBpaTa8?li=BBnbfcL
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/tex...d-is-met-with-gunfire-from-dog-owners-friend/ only thing that can stop a "good guy" with a gun...is another "good guy" with a gun.
America's passion for guns intact as shooting toll rises "A rifle as new state symbol. A bill that lets young children use handguns under supervision. As mass shootings shatter lives, the fascination with firearms among many Americans shows little sign of fading. Over the past week, two gunmen killed at least nine people in unrelated rampages in Michigan and Kansas. Add to that the death in Indiana of a father who was accidentally shot by his six-year-old son who found a loaded revolver lying around and pulled the trigger. President Barack Obama -- who offers his condolences to families of loved ones lost after each mass shooting -- has decried the "routine" nature of reporting about and responding to such tragedies. But faced with a Republican-controlled Congress unwilling to move forward on the matter, Obama -- who made fighting gun violence his chief resolution for 2016 -- is left with his wheels spinning. In January, he shed tears as he announced limited measures to tackle the rampant violence that kills around 30,000 Americans each year and called on citizens to punish lawmakers who oppose more meaningful reforms...." http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/am...-as-shooting-toll-rises/ar-BBq6H87?li=BBnb7Kz
Ted Nugent blames Jews for gun control in Facebook posts "Rocker Ted Nugent has drawn fire from the Anti-Defamation League with an online post insinuating gun control is the product of a vast Jewish conspiracy. The 67-year-old “Cat Scratch Fever” singer shared an image Monday on Facebook that shows the faces of several U.S. politicians next to Israeli flags and beneath the caption: “So who is really behind gun control?”..." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/9/ted-nugent-blames-jews-gun-control-facebook-posts/