Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”

Up until 2018, deep blue Vermont was a model for sensible gun laws – meaning they had few and politicians on both sides of the aisle understood the tranquil state didn’t need any. Vermont was the original Constitutional Carry state, as the Right-to-Carry without a permit was affirmed in a 1903 state supreme court case. In 2017 Vermont ranked 49^th in violent crime – ahead of only Maine.

Then in 2018, Vermont lawmakers rejected the state’s independent tradition to become just another New York satrapy. That year politicians enacted a ban on commonly-owned firearm magazines and criminalized the private transfer of firearms (sometimes inaccurately termed “universal” background checks). The legislature also instituted “Red Flag” gun confiscation orders that deprive a person of their Second Amendment rights without due process.

This year, the Empire State’s Green Mountain Colony enacted a 72-hour waiting period on firearm purchases. The move provides gun owners with further evidence that gun control advocates intend to build ever more restrictions on top of any private transfer restriction scheme.

According to CDC fatal injury data, the total number and crude rate of “violence-related firearm deaths” (which includes suicides) increased from 2017 to 2021. Both the total number and crude rate of “violence-related firearm deaths” fell during the same period in neighboring New Hampshire. In Vermont, from 2017 to 2021 “violence-related firearm deaths” among kids ages 0-26 increased 40 percent.

According to FBI data, the violent crime rate increased in Vermont from 2017 to 2020. From 2017 to the first full year of Vermont’s 2018 gun control measures (2019) the violent crime rate rose by nearly 20 percent. Over the same period, New Hampshire’s violent crime rate fell by 19 percent. Maine’s violent crime rate also fell over this period. For 2021, Vermont slipped to 48^th in violent crime, with New Hampshire taking the 49^th slot and Maine taking 50.

So, do Vermont’s ridiculous gun control laws make the state less safe? To the extent these laws inhibit the ability of law-abiding individuals to defend themselves, yes. Is the data presented above strong evidence that gun control is making Vermont, in general, less safe? No. At best it’s mildly indicative of what common sense would dictate – that Vermont’s gun control measures had no salutary impact whatsoever in the already peaceful jurisdiction.

The point of laying out this information is to draw attention to how political advocates and the media can manipulate data to construct whatever preexisting narrative they want. While in this case accurate statistical information was used to concoct a pro-gun narrative, gun control advocates and their media lapdogs employ the same tactics to argue the reverse.

Above is an example of bivariate analysis, where only two variables are compared. In this case, years pre- and post-gun control are compared with firearm injury and violent crime data. Such analysis doesn’t consider the myriad other variables that could be having an impact on firearm injury and violent crime. Some might include criminal justice and law enforcement practices or changes in economic circumstances.

Further, starting and ending points for statistical analysis and what variables to highlight can be cherrypicked. This is particularly problematic in smaller or more peaceful jurisdictions, as when the small total number of firearm-related incidents vary by year, the percent increase or decrease in total and the rate of such incidents per 100,000 population will vary wildly.

However, this doesn’t mean that the more sophisticated statistical modeling that comes out of the academy is of any use either. More sophisticated models offer further opportunities for cherry-picking and other manipulation.

Concocting sophisticated statistical models presents a nearly endless array of choices, and each decision leads to other different choices. This concept is sometimes presented as the “garden of forking paths.” In practice, this means that different researchers presented with the same exact data will come to wildly different conclusions.

A 2022 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences titled, “Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty,” illustrated this point.

To construct their experiment, the authors assembled 161 researchers in 73 teams and provided them with the same data and hypothesis to be tested.

Explaining the results of the experiment, the authors reported,

Results from our controlled research design in a large-scale crowdsourced research effort involving 73 teams demonstrate that analyzing the same hypothesis with the same data can lead to substantial differences in statistical estimates and substantive conclusions. In fact, no two teams arrived at the same set of numerical results or took the same major decisions during data analysis.

In other words: Much of social science is of dubious value, even before trying to account for political bias. Of course, when it comes to guns the academy favors more control.

In 2022, Reason magazine did an excellent job of exposing almost all “gun violence” social science for the junk science it is by producing an accessible video explainer on the topic.

Drawing on the expertise of statistician and New York University and University of California at San Diego instructor Aaron Brown and a 2020 analysis by the RAND Corporation, the video explained that the vast majority of gun violence research is not conducted in a manner sufficient to offer meaningful conclusions. An article accompanying the video, written by Brown and Reason Producer Justin Monticello, noted,

A 2020 analysis by the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, parsed the results of 27,900 research publications on the effectiveness of gun control laws. From this vast body of work, the RAND authors found only 123 studies, or 0.4 percent, that tested the effects rigorously.

Reason and Brown examined the remaining 123 studies from the RAND analysis and offered the following,

We took a look at the significance of the 123 rigorous empirical studies and what they actually say about the efficacy of gun control laws.

The answer: nothing. The 123 studies that met RAND’s criteria may have been the best of the 27,900 that were analyzed, but they still had serious statistical defects, such as a lack of controls, too many parameters or hypotheses for the data, undisclosed data, erroneous data, misspecified models, and other problems.

The gun issue aside, the problems inherent in the type of modeling presented here, the academy’s obvious political bias, and the replication crisis have led to increasing doubts about whether large swathes of the social sciences have any value at all.

So how is a normal gun owner supposed to wade through this statistical and social science “sea of trash?” Meet any data presented by gun control advocates and their servants in the academy and media with the utmost skepticism. Moreover, recognize that law-abiding Americans have a right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that is independent of the professed benefits of any gun control measure.

HONOLULU (AP) — Hawaii Gov. Josh Green on Friday signed legislation that will allow more people to carry concealed firearms but at the same time prohibit people from taking guns to a wide range of places, including beaches, hospitals, stadiums, bars that serve alcohol and movie theaters. Private businesses allowing guns will have to post a sign to that effect.

The legal overhaul comes in response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from last year that expanded gun rights by saying Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.

New York and New Jersey adopted similar laws last year that quickly met legalchallenges which are making their way through federal courts.

Green, who is a physician by training and has been an emergency room doctor in Hawaii for decades, said gun violence is a public health crisis and action needs to be taken to address it.

“On many occasions in my training back on the mainland, I was one of the physicians that took care of individuals who were victims of gun violence. Not only that, I lost a loved one to a suicide with a gun,” Green said before signing the measure. “And so anything that we can do, we should.”

Rep. David Tarnas, chair of the House judiciary committee, said lawmakers carefully crafted the measure to be consistent with the high court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms and also establish what he called a “fair system” for regulating concealed carry permits.

“We aim to create a balanced approach that respects the rights of gun owners and the need to maintain a safe and protected space in Hawaii,” Tarnas said.

Hawaii has long had some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

Before the Supreme Court ruling, Hawaii law gave county police chiefs the discretion to determine whether to issue gun owners a permit to carry. Police chiefs rarely did. They issued just six such permits in 21 years, making it virtually impossible for civilians to carry guns in Hawaii. Otherwise state law only allowed people to keep firearms in their homes and to transport them – unloaded and locked up – to shooting ranges, hunting areas and other limited places like repair shops.

In 2022, Hawaii had the second-lowest gun death rate among the 50 states, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only Massachusetts had a lower figure.

Andrew Namiki Roberts, the director of the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, said Hawaii lawmakers wanted the law to be a “workaround” of the high court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. He said the new law effectively makes it so people can’t carry firearms in public for self-defense and is a “gross infringement” on the Second Amendment.

“It limits carrying a firearm to public sidewalks and private businesses — if you can get permission. All other places in the state, it’s going to be illegal to carry a firearm,” he said.

Kainoa Kaku, president of the Hawaii Rifle Association, said it showed the state’s leaders viewed “law-abiding, gun-owning citizenry of Hawaii as criminals.”

“They are so stupid they cannot tell the difference between someone who doesn’t follow the law and commits crimes with firearms and someone that just wants to protect themselves and their family with a gun,” he said.

Both gun rights groups plan to challenge the new law in court.

Attorney General Anne Lopez said her office was prepared to fight these lawsuits.

Kaku also objected to the anticipated expenses of the new law, estimating it will cost gun owners $1,000 to take all the classes and proficiency tests required to obtain a concealed carry permit that will only be valid for four years.

The governor also signed another bill requiring the state Department of Education to develop a training program to help public and charter schools respond to school shootings.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee’s administration accused the National Rifle Association of wanting to use involuntary commitment laws “to round up mentally ill people and deprive them of other liberties,” according to documents drafted by the Republican’s staffers as part of their initial attempt to pass a gun control proposal earlier this year.

The memos, provided by Lee’s office as part of a public records request, reveal a rare criticism of the powerful gun lobby made by the Republican governor. Lee has previously praised the NRA’s efforts to protect the Second Amendment but has since faced opposition from the group as he works to pass gun control legislation in response to a deadly Nashville school shooting that took place in late March.

So far, Lee has proposed keeping firearms away from people who could harm themselves or others. He’s currently facing pushback from both the GOP-dominant General Assembly and firearms rights advocacy groups, including the NRA, that are wary of loosening gun laws in ruby red Tennessee. The NRA’s opposition is particularly notable because the group was a crucial player in Lee’s successful push in 2021 to pass a law that allows people 21 and older to carry handguns without a permit in Tennessee.

That means Lee has been forced to go on the defensive, arguing that what he has proposed is not, in fact, a so-called red flag law like those adopted by other states in the wake of tragedies. Instead, the talking points show he is attempting to sell his proposal as “the most conservative in the nation” and the best plan for “Second Amendment advocates.” He also is taking aim at advocates who want to focus on Tennessee laws that allow committing people without their permission if they pose “a substantial likelihood of serious harm” due to a “mental illness or serious emotional disturbance.”

“Not only is the NRA’s proposal impractical — it would drastically expand the scope of government,” one of the memos reads.

In announcing his plan publicly in April, Lee acknowledged the proponents of involuntary commitment, but did not name the NRA.

“Some advocates of the Second Amendment say something called ‘involuntary commitment’ is the answer, but that would restrict all kinds of constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment,” Lee said at the time. “It’s not the best way.”

Speaking with reporters on Wednesday, House Speaker Cameron Sexton further lowered expectations that Lee’s proposal has a chance to pass, saying he doesn’t think he and fellow Republican lawmakers support red-flag-esque laws. He said some other areas of policy could be considered: involuntary commitment, more mental health in-patient beds, better database updating for background checks, a new state-level offense beyond the federal law prohibiting felons from having a certain amount of ammunition, and broadening state law so more types of violent threats could be considered a crime.

“When you look at what the NRA is saying, is you currently have laws on the books — emergency, involuntary commitment,” Sexton told The Associated Press on Wednesday. “And so, use what you have.”

The governor initially unveiled his legislation just weeks after six people — including three young children — were killed in a Nashville school shooting. Lee’s wife, Maria, was friends with the head of the school and a substitute teacher who were among those killed.

Despite Lee’s urging for lawmakers to pass his proposal, GOP leaders have resisted. The Legislature adjourned without taking up the issue in April, but Lee has since called them to come back to address the matter in late August.

The documents reviewed by AP show that Lee’s administration drafted the talking points in April. They tout the governor’s proposal as “more targeted and more limited” than what the NRA currently supports. It’s unclear where the memos were circulated or how many people outside Lee’s office received them.

In the memo, Lee’s office wrote that the NRA’s plan “does not get at the heart of the problem, as it fails to address unstable individuals who suffer from mental health issues but do not qualify for involuntary commitment to a facility.”

“Gov. Lee believes the best path forward is practical, thoughtful solutions to keep communities safe and protect constitutional rights,” his spokesperson, Jade Byers, said in an emailed statement. “He looks forward to speaking with key stakeholders, including the NRA, and working with legislators on proposals in the months ahead.”

In an April memo, the NRA’s lobbying arm urged its supporters to oppose Lee’s plan. The group noted that “Tennessee already has broad civil commitment laws” and added that the state could improve access to emergency mental health services.

Asked about the governor’s office talking points about their group, NRA spokesperson Amy Hunter didn’t address the claims, saying in a statement that the group is focused on “preserving and advancing the rights of law-abiding gun owners in Tennessee.”

————————————————————————————–Yet Billy Lee thinks it’s okay to deprive his constituents of other civil liberties such as the Right to Bear Arms and the Right to Due Process