Meet FormerBu. Actually former FBI director James Comey

From Fox News:
Former FBI Director James Comey’s 'secret' Twitter account has finally been revealed after months of rumors linking him to cryptic tweets from the @FormerBu account. 
The account created a stir earlier this year when Gizmodo reported that it likely belonged to Comey. At the time the account used the handle @projectexile7. The account’s name has remained Reinhold Niebuhr. . . .



Post at the Crime Prevention Research Center: from defensive gun uses to recent media to what is happening in Washington

Democrats have become more consistently liberal over time than Republicans have become consistently conservative

So who has become more dogmatic over time?  Democrats or Republicans?  If you believe a recent PEW poll, it is Democrats.


Acknowledging the media bias on guns from former CEO of National Public Radio

The former CEO of National Public Radio Ken Stern has a piece at the New York Post on the media's bias on guns.  This discussion could have been taken from my book The Bias Against Guns.  From the NY Post:
. . . Over the course of this past year, I have tried to consume media as they do and understand it as a partisan player. It is not so hard to do. Take guns. Gun control and gun rights is one of our most divisive issues, and there are legitimate points on both sides. But media is obsessed with the gun-control side and gives only scant, mostly negative, recognition to the gun-rights sides. 
Take for instance the issue of the legitimate defensive gun use (DGUs), which is often dismissed by the media as myth. But DGUs happen all the time — 200 times a day, according to the Department of Justice, or 5,000 times a day according to an overly exuberant Florida State University study. But whichever study you choose to believe, DGUs happen frequently and give credence to my hunting friends who see their guns as the last line of defense for themselves and their families. 
At one point during my research, I discovered a video of a would-be robber entering a Houston smoke shop, his purpose conveyed by the pistol that he leveled at the store clerk. But the robber was not the only armed person in the store. The security cameras show Raleigh, the store clerk, walking out from behind the counter, calmly raising his own gun and firing an accurate stream of bullets at the hapless robber. The wounded robber stumbles out, falls over the curb and eventually ends up under arrest. 
It is not just the defensive gun use that makes the video remarkable — it is Raleigh himself who evidences such a nonchalance that he never bothers to put down the cigarette that he is smoking. At the end, Raleigh, having protected his store, enthuses “Castle Doctrine, baby” — citing a law that allows a person to use force to defend a legally occupied place. 
It is an amazing story, though far from unique, but you simply won’t find many like it in mainstream media (I found it on Reddit). 
It’s not that media is suppressing stories intentionally. It’s that these stories don’t reflect their interests and beliefs. . . . 

Labels: ,

Interesting information on crimes committed by NFL players

The data set is available here.



Rep. Rangel on why we don't need reciprocity for concealed handgun permits

Steve Wynn says that Las Vegas gunman seemed like 'a rational man'

From Fox News:
A week after a gunman used the 32nd floor of a Las Vegas hotel as a hunting perch to kill 58 people in what is the deadliest shooting rampage in modern U.S. history, casino magnate Steve Wynn says the gunman was known to staff, seemed like “a rational man,” and that beefing up security, re-training staff and implementing strict “do not disturb” rules are key to keeping visitors safe. 
Wynn, the billionaire CEO of Wynn Resorts, in an exclusive interview with “Fox News Sunday,” said he reassessed his casino’s security in 2015, when he developed a high-level counterterrorism program. 
“I got every consultant and adviser I can think of to come through from Ray Kelly to the people from Seal Team 6.  It took us from Thanksgiving until May to develop and institute and recruit a program of counterterrorism and it will be two years this May,” Wynn told "Fox News Sunday" anchor Chris Wallace. 
“Basically we had to recruit and expand security by tens of millions of dollars to cover every entrance, to retrain the entire workforce -- from housekeeping and room service -- and people are in the tower and observing people.  We had to cover every exit and every aspect of the building to see if we could identify and preempt any kind of terroristic or violent action. It is never perfect, of course, but what you can do, to use local vernacular: you can change the odds,” Wynn said. . . .


At National Review: "The Gun-Ban Fetish: Banning guns invariably leads to an increase in the murder rate"

I have a new op-ed at National Review responding to Bret Stephen column in the New York Times that calls for repealing the Second Amendment.  His piece starts this way:
Is support for gun ownership and the Second Amendment a “fetish”? Bret Stephens, a New York Times columnist, sure thinks so. 
Stephens acknowledges the “feckless” gun-control laws that keep being trotted out before we even know the facts of each case. (Indeed, as with universal background checks on private gun transfers, we keep finding out that they would not have stopped any of these attacks.) So his solution is to “repeal the Second Amendment,” because gun ownership doesn’t “need a blanket Constitutional protection.” 
He says he doesn’t want to ban guns, but according to the Supreme Court, the only protection that is so far given by the Second Amendment is that the government can’t completely ban all guns, or all handguns. So whatever Stephens’s intentions may be, cities such as Washington and Chicago would again try to ban guns. And California’s handgun-safety regulations, which currently allow only a dozen models to be sold, will continue on their path to banning handguns completely. 
Here’s one problem with this argument: A ban on guns, even in cities like Washington and Chicago, will make things much worse. While gun bans (either a ban on all guns or on all handguns) have been imposed in many places, every time guns have been banned, murder rates have gone up. 
One would think that one time, just out of simple randomness, murder rates would have gone down or at least stayed the same. Yet in every single case for which we have crime data both before and after the ban, murder rates have gone up, often by huge amounts.
Americans, including Stephens, should be familiar with the disasters that befell Washington and Chicago after their gun bans. After Washington’s ban, the city ranked No. 1 or 2 in murder rate among the 50 largest cities for half of the next 30 years, and in the top four for two-thirds of that time. Before the ban, Washington had never been near that high. Chicago’s murder rate relative to other cities also soared after its ban. 
Gun-control advocates will tell you that Washington and Chicago weren’t fair tests. They will point out that criminals could still get guns in Virginia or Maryland, or in Illinois or Indiana. That is true, but while it might explain why murder rates didn’t fall as promised, it doesn’t explain why murder and violent crime rates went up. After all, criminals could get these same guns before the ban. If it was so obvious to these advocates that the Washington and Chicago experiments were going to be failures, they should have let others in on this secret. 
But even island nations have fared no better. One would think that these would be the ideal experiments. After the U.K. banned handguns in January 1997, their homicide rate rose by 50 percent over the next eight years. It came back down to around its earlier levels only after a 14 percent increase in the number of police. Even more dramatic increases in homicide rates occurred in Jamaica and the Republic of Ireland after their gun bans, with sixfold or sevenfold increases. 
Many will blame drug gangs for the increased violence in all these countries, and that is certainly correct, but the point is that gun bans didn’t stop these gangs from getting guns, any more than we have succeeded in stopping them from getting drugs. Why have murder rates so consistently gone up after bans? While the bans may reduce the supply of guns to criminals to some degree, they most particularly disarm law-abiding citizens, thus making it easier for criminals to commit crimes. 
Stephens cites a 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health as evidence that states with more guns have higher homicide rates. The study he cites is filled with the kind of embarrassing errors that we keep finding in public-health research. Even basic controls that account for differences in crime rates across states are left out. 
The study claims: “States with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.” But it doesn’t actually look at “gun ownership.” The authors just assume that states with a higher percentage of suicides committed with firearms have more guns. But there are some real problems with that assumption. Whether people use firearm or other methods to commit suicides has a lot to do with factors such as gender, age, and race. For example, there has been a big increase in gun ownership among women, but there has been little increase in guns used in suicides by women. 
Stephens also raises the specter of mass public shootings. But this problem is hardly unique to the U.S. Indeed, despite much stricter gun-control laws around the world, the U.S. is a relatively safe oasis in terms of such attacks compared to the European Union and the rest of the world. If gun bans work, why do we see so many machine-gun attacks in Europe? We have also not had as many bombings and vehicle attacks as the rest of the world. . . .
The rest of the piece is available here.



In The Hill: "Democrats should embrace FBI background check for voters and gun purchasers alike"

I have a new piece at The Hill
Background checks are required for so many things from getting a job to buying a gun. But despite legitimate concerns about voting by illegal aliens and felons, Democrats become outraged by the mention of checks for voting. 
Last week, in testimony to the President’s Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, I suggested using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to screen for ineligible voters. Democrats have long lauded this system, calling it simple, accurate, and in complete harmony with the second amendment right to own guns. 
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) bragged that the checks are done “without in any way abridging rights.” Former Vice President Joe Biden claimed that expanding the system to cover all private transfers of guns would not be “in any way imposing on or impinging on the rights that the Second Amendment guarantees.” 
But literally only a few states currently even try in any way to check whether registered voters are US citizens. In 34 states, felons are not able to vote immediately upon release from prison. Even the states that check people criminal records rely on just records in their own states. 
The NICS checks information from the entire country and looks at more than people’s criminal histories. It also checks on citizenship status. So why not use that information to prevent ineligible people from voting? 
Background checks for gun purchases are costly, running roughly $55 to $175 for checks on private gun transfers. Requiring federally licensed gun dealers to do checks on each individual transfer is somewhat time-consuming. The current NICS system places the entire financial burden on gun buyers. This is unfair to poor people just trying to obtain a gun for self-defense, just as it would be unfair to voters. 
But checks on voters would be a simple and very low-cost process. States would comparing a state’s computer database of voters with NICS. Indeed, many states already regularly compare their list of concealed handgun permit holders to ensure that they are still eligible to carry. Under my proposal, the states would pick up the costs. 
The reaction to using NICS for voting was swift and harsh. “Horrified,” “patently absurd,” and “flabbergasted” were some of the reactions. That it was being proposed just to “suppress” voting. Reporters attacked my qualifications. The Washington Post’s Christopher Ingraham asserted that except for one unpublished paper, I had not done any other research “on elections or voting.” CNN’s Eric Bradner quoted someone questioning whether I was really “an academic” and that I hadn't written anything about elections in a decade. ProPublica’s Jessica Huseman attacked Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach for “falsely” saying I am a “prolific author” in academic publications. 
But I have published 19 peer-reviewed, academic articles on the issues of elections, voting, and election law. My most recent is from 2014. I also served as a statistical expert for USA Today on the 2000 presidential election, wrote the Statistical Report on that election for the Minority members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and testified before the US Senate on election issues. In total, I have published over 100 peer-reviewed articles and I have held academic positions at the Wharton Business School, University of Chicago, and Yale. 
Salon’s Heather Parton argued that I am disqualified from the discussion because I usually study “gun violence on behalf of the NRA.” But the NRA has never paid for my research. 
Most of the responses have been personal in nature. But there have also been some more substantive comments. 
A Kansas City Star editorial raised the concern that . . .
The rest of the piece is available here


In Philadelphia at least 220 noncitizens were registered to vote in the 2016 election

From FoxNews.com:
. . . Philly.com reported that 317 such illegal voters have contacted the commission since 2006 to have their registrations canceled. Of those, Schmidt's office said that 220 were registered to vote from 2006 to 2017. Forty-four voted in one election and 46 voted in more than one election.  

"This is a real concern," Schmidt said. "It is harmful to election integrity, and it is harmful to members of the immigrant community who are applying for citizenship. If you've registered to vote in the U.S., and you're not a citizen, it's potential grounds for the denial of your citizenship application." 
Schmidt said that many more noncitizens could have mistakenly registered through the system, both in Philadelphia and elsewhere in Pennsylvania. However, he pointed out that no municipal election was close enough to have potentially been affected by improper voting.  
Schmidt also said that the cases likely did not rise to the level of voter fraud because of the apparent lack of intent by the registrants.  
"All voter fraud is an irregularity; not all voter irregularities are fraud," he said. "Regardless of the intent, the damage is still the same." . . .



At The Hill: "Democrats must denounce the rise in harassment against Republicans"

I have a new opinion piece at The Hill newspaper on the union-backed disruptions of congressional Republicans.  The title used by The Hill says "Democrats must denounce the rise in violence against Republicans," but that isn't exactly what the op-ed piece says.  The article starts this way:
As masked leftists use clubs to shut down free speech at Berkeley and elsewhere, Democrats have unfortunately been reticent to condemn the activity. But Antifa violence is not the only kind of condemnable disruptive activity. Democrats should also disavow the organized campaign to harass Republican congressmen and stop Republican town halls. 
One group in the thick of this battle is “Indivisible.” The group was founded by a former staffer for Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett, and its COO, Matt Traidi, is the research coordinator for the Service Employees International Union. Indivisible provides these instructions on how to prevent other town hall attendees from asking questions: “Don’t give up the mic until you’re satisfied with the answer. If you’ve asked a hostile question … keep a firm hold on the mic. No staffer in their right mind wants to look like they’re physically intimidating a constituent, so they will back off.” 
Not content to interfere with town halls, Indivisible has also gone to the homes of Republican congressmen. They have targeted swing districts such as those of Rep. John Faso (R-N.Y.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif). About 200 protesters showed up at Issa's home to harass him for not holding town hall meetings. 
But Indivisible isn’t the only organization causing problems. TakeActionMN showed up at Rep. Jason Lewis’ (R-Minn.) house during the August recess. “It’s gotten so bad that unruly protestors recently invaded my family’s home and personal property, frightening neighbors who then called the local police," Lewis told me. "The group [that] organized the trespass has not only refused to apologize, but hasn't ruled out doing it again.” 
Indivisible plans to disrupt town halls and then go to Republican congressmen’s homes and offices to protest the lack of town halls. “This is a well-oiled, very much activist plan to disrupt the democratic process,” Lewis said. “I have a responsibility to serve the 2nd district to the best of my ability. I don't have a responsibility to host — at taxpayer expense — a Democrat campaign rally just because hyper-partisan opponents call it a "town hall." 
And one can easily see the impact. While 92 percent of Democrats in the House have had Town Halls this year, only 54 percent of Republicans have. While Democrats have held more Town Halls this year than last year, the number for Republicans fell by 54 percent. Many Republicans who held August events faced disruptions from Indivisible, even those in safe districts in such states as North Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia. 
It’s understandable that Democrats don’t want to criticize the tactics of Indivisible or the Service Employees International Union. Over two years from 2015 to 2016, the Service Employees International Union’s PAC spento ver $55 million helping candidates, and 100 percent of their contributions to federal candidates went to Democrats. 
The threats to congressmen’s offices have become of sufficient concern that the Capitol police have reissued guidelines for all members of Congress. Indivisible disrupts California Congressman Ed Royce’s office once a week. 
While some in the media have tried unsuccessfully to get Democratic politicians to disavow Antifa, questions about Indivisible and the Service Employees International Union seem to be off-limits. The tea party never did anything like this. Do Democrats want Republicans showing up at their homes and harassing their families the next time they control the government? . . .
The rest of the piece is available here.



Chant in St. Louis after acquittal of policeman Jason Stokley: “hey ho, hey ho, these racist cops have got to go”

There is no evidence that Jason Stokley, the police officer who shot the black man in 2011, is racist.  But the perception is that blacks are being shot by white officers and the only explanation for it is racism by police.
Sunday’s crowd began peacefully protesting in the afternoon as demonstrators gathered in front of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department headquarters in downtown St. Louis at about 3 p.m. 
They chanted “hey ho, hey ho, these racist cops have got to go” and “black lives matter,” while also staging a die-in, in which participants lie down on the ground as if dead to protest police violence. . . .
Yet, the evidence suggests that there is not systematic shooting of blacks by white officers.  For the research, see this paper available here.


Using a unique new data set on police-involved homicides, we apply several discrimination tests to determine if white police officers discriminate against black suspects. We find that the probability of an unarmed black suspect being killed by a white police officer is significantly greater than the probability of a black suspect being killed by a black police officer. We also find that while black officers are generally more likely than white officers to kill unarmed black suspects at a higher rate than they kill unarmed white ones, the differences in these gaps for black and white officers are not statistically significant. These findings are inconsistent with taste-based discrimination on the part of white police officers. 

Read more here: http://www.bnd.com/news/local/article173868421.html#storylink=cpy



Bloomberg's Everytown announces initially spending of $1 million on Virginia state races this year

In 2015, Bloomberg spent $2 million just on two state Senate races to flip the control of the Virginia state Senate.  This $1 million only includes money directly from Everytown and not the side donations that Bloomberg makes directly to Democrats.  From the Washington Post:
Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, the campaign arm of one of the nation’s biggest gun control groups, announced Thursday that it would spend at least $1 million in Virginia as part of an “initial investment” to elect Democrats in November. 
The fund is donating $450,000 directly to gubernatorial contender Ralph Northam, and spending $250,000 on mailers on his behalf. It’s also giving $300,000 to Attorney General Mark Herring for his re-election bid, as he faces attack advertising from the National Rifle Association.  
“We are making this initial investment because Ralph Northam and Mark Herring have been forceful champions for gun violence prevention in Virginia, while their opponents subscribe to a dangerous ‘guns everywhere’ agenda,” Brynne Craig, a senior strategist for Everytown, said in a statement. . . .

Labels: ,

Major League Baseball is fining the Boston Red Sox for misusing Apple Watches to steal pitcher's signals

While this isn't technology being used to violate the law, it is being used for a violation of rules.  From CNBC:
The investigation follows a report that the Red Sox used an Apple Watch to steal signals from the Yankees. A Red Sox trainer was caught looking at his watch and then relaying a message to players. 
While decoding another teams' signs isn't against the rules, using technology to do so is forbidden. 
MLB Commissioner Robert Manfred, Jr. said in a statement that he had investigated the complaint from the Yankees and that an undisclosed fine would be levied. The Yankees will also pay a smaller fine after the investigation determined that the team had separately violated a rule involving the use of the dugout phone in a prior season. . . .



In the Chicago Tribune: "Apply background checks for gun purchases to voting"

Dr. John Lott has another op-ed in the Chicago Tribune based on part of the testimony that he will be giving on Tuesday morning to President's Commission on Voter Integrity in New Hampshire.  The piece in the Tribune starts this way:
Republicans worry about vote fraud. Democrats claim that Republicans are just imagining things. But in testimony Tuesday before the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, I will suggest a simple solution that could make both parties happy: Apply the background check system for gun purchases to voting.
Democrats have long lauded background checks on gun purchases as simple, accurate and in complete harmony with the Second Amendment right to own guns. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has bragged that the checks “make our communities and neighborhoods safer without in any way abridging rights or threatening a legitimate part of the American heritage.” 
If Democrats really believe that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System doesn’t interfere “in any way” with people’s constitutional rights to own a gun, doesn't it follow that the same system would not constitute an infringement on people’s right to vote? This would give Republicans a system for stopping vote fraud and Democrats a system that they have already vigorously endorsed. 
The NICS system doesn't just determine if potential gun buyers have criminal histories. It also checks whether a person is in this country illegally, has a nonimmigrant visa or has renounced his citizenship. Such people are not allowed to vote. The system doesn’t currently flag people who are on immigrant visas but who could be added to the system.
In 34 states, felons are not able to vote immediately upon release. The background-check system would detect these too. 
Of course, Democrats and Republicans will continue to argue over whether illegal voting is a major problem. 
Since Democrats believe that the NICS doesn’t in any way interfere with or suppress gun ownership, how could it suppress legal voter registration? Thus, Democrats shouldn't have anything to worry about. If there doesn't turn out to be any vote fraud, Democrats can say that they were proved right. 
But it is likely that Democrats will take issue with the NICS once it is applied to something other than gun purchases. NICS requires government-issued photo IDs, and Democrats have vehemently opposed voter ID laws. Moreover, the fees that gun buyers have to pay on private transfers can be quite substantial, ranging from $55 in Oregon to $175 in Washington, D.C., and would be compared to poll taxes. Because of the Constitution’s 24th Amendment, the courts have struck down poll taxes as unconstitutional. . . .
The rest of the piece is available here.
The Kansas City Star already has an editorial attacking the idea.
The right people? You know, the eligible people, says John Lott, the president of the Pennsylvania-based Crime Prevention Research Center, whose plan would use the federal background check system for gun purchases on voters. That includes checks on whether a person is a U.S. citizen or has a felony conviction. Lott, who is a long-time opponent of gun control, argues that if background checks don’t limit the rights of gun owners, then they wouldn’t disenfranchise voters, either, would they? . . . 
while the commission is in no danger of uncovering any such evidence, putting voters through a background check does sound like an efficient way to suppress the vote. . . .
The question is why will this background check suppress voters if it has no effect on discouraging people from being able to use guns for self-defense.

In the Kansas City Star: "Look at facts in the campus firearm debate"

I have an op-ed in the Kansas City Star on the debate of permitted concealed handguns on college campuses.  The piece starts this way:
As college classes start up in Kansas this fall, it’s a good time to take stock of the rise in the number of schools where people can carry guns for protection. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 11 states now mandate that concealed handgun permit holders be allowed to carry on public college campuses. There are 12 states if we count Michigan, which only allows permit holders to carry if they do so openly. Twenty-three other states leave the decision up to individual colleges. 
Gun control advocates in Kansas predict disaster, just as they have in each new state that adopted campus carry. Unable to point to any actual catastrophes, opponents do their best to imagine what might go wrong. 
But at school after school, no problems have occurred. Over the decades, not a single permit holder who was allowed to carry on university property has committed a crime with his gun. No permit holder has ever gotten angry over a grade and started shooting. As far as we know, no permit holder has ever used his gun to threaten anyone on campus. There have only been six accidental discharges, all of which involved minor injuries. In no case did someone other than the permit holder get a hold of the gun.
Of course, the media loves giving national attention to professors who do silly things, such as resigning from their jobs in protest or wearing protective body armor to teach classes.
Professor Kevin Willmott is worried that the University of Kansas will become a “war zone” now that it has started allowing campus carry. He has promised to wear body armor throughout the entire school year as “a constant reminder to all of us that our students could have a gun, and in an emergency, this could make a bad situation even worse.” Texas community colleges have also just started with campus carry, and San Antonio College Professor Charles K. Smith is also wearing body armor, claiming that the policy “increases the chances of something [bad] happening.” 
In May, associate history professor Jacob Dorman resigned from the University of Kansas. He accepted another tenured position at a public university in a non-campus-carry state. In his resignation letter, Dorman predicted that Kansas would be “driving off faculty members.” 
Dorman also claims that “arming students has done nothing to quell active shooter situations because students do not have the training to effectively combat shooters.” My research has found numerous instances of concealed handgun permit holders with no more training stopping dozens public shootings
Willmott and Dorman are only two out of 2,600 faculty members at the University of Kansas. Likewise, just two of 20,322 have left the University of Texas System on account of campus carry. One of those, a visiting retired professor, would likely have left anyway. And the body-armor-wearing Charles Smith is just one out of over 43,000 faculty in the Texas community college system. 
Kansas professors have had several years’ notice that the policy would take effect — plenty of time to look for other jobs. 
It is a wonder how these professors ever go off-campus. After all, there are over 1.15 million concealed handgun permit holders in Texas. Kansans don’t even need permits to carry. Professors can’t go to restaurants, movie theaters, or grocery stores without being around legally-carried concealed handguns. . . .
The rest of the piece is available here.



Antifa not only admits to using violence, they say that it is necessary

The communists who make up Antifa don't see any irony in using violence to combat authoritarianism.  Amazingly, Antifa claims that the police are "no better" than the Nazi. From The Hill:
Antifa activists justify their use of violence as self-defense against “the inherent danger of fascists organizing,” according to Mark Bray, a Dartmouth historian and author of a recent book on the movement. 
“The argument is that it needs to be stopped immediately, because if you let it grow, that poses a danger to society,” Bray said. 
Dubbed the “alt-left” by President Trump, antifa has increasingly been making their presence known after his victory in the 2016 election was openly embraced by white supremacists. 
On Sunday, antifa protesters hurled glass bottles and bricks at police officers monitoring a far-right march in Portland, Ore. . . . 
"Getting state involved in this is no better than letting the Nazis go free,” he said, pointing to the Virginia State Police response to the violence at the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, which many protesters and counterprotesters criticized as too slow. 
Activists, including Isaacson, claim that police departments and the military have been infiltrated by Nazis and “have them kind of on their side. . . .
UPDATE: "MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace defended Antifa on Thursday afternoon, and referred to them as 'good people' on 'the side of angels.'” For those who don't remember, Wallace was Sarah Palin's handler during the 2008 presidential campaign, and Wallace sabotaged Palin's appearances. 



Talk on Bloomberg and background checks on private transfers

 Dr. John Lott gave a talk on the Crime Prevention Research Center's new research on Bloomberg's push for background checks on the private transfer of guns.  A video of the talk is available here.  If you can't make out the slides in this talk, they are from Lott's book "The War on Guns" and can be seen there.

 (Sunday, August 27th, 2017 at the Carry Guard Expo in Milwaukee, Wisconsin)



Talk on the CPRC's new research on Mass Public Shootings and Gun-free zones

Dr. John Lott gave a talk on the Crime Prevention Research Center's research on Mass Public Shootings and Gun-free zones.  The video is available here.  Unfortunately, the first few minutes of the beginning of the talk is missing. The first reference is to a quote from former President Obama that if guns stop mass public shootings, the US shouldn't have any mass shootings. Beyond Lott's response to that point in the video, a list of mass public shootings that were stopped by concealed handgun permit holders.  The slides in the talk are based on information in his book "The War on Guns."

(Saturday, August 26th, 2017 at the Carry Guard Expo in Milwaukee, Wisconsin)



At Fox News: "Concussions occur in soccer and other sports, too -- but yeah, let's go after all-American football"

With all the commotion over Ed Cunningham's resignation from ESPN this last week, the media is solely focused on concussions in football.  While this involves legal violence, not crime, the piece still illustrates how media does a very poor job of informing people about what is happening.  The piece starts this way:
Did you know who Ed Cunningham is? Probably not. Cunningham, a college football analyst for ESPN, was unknown to all but hardcore football fans. But by tying himself closely to a politically correct cause – in this case, resigning his position Wednesday, in a protest over concussions in football – he is guaranteed fawning media coverage.  The New York Times is leading the Cunningham canonization. 
With the new college football season for most teams starting this weekend, the resignation seems timed for maximum attention.  But the politically correct movement seems much more focused on opposing what is uniquely American than where players actually face the greatest risks of concussion. 
In college, women's soccer has a higher rate of concussions than men's football or soccer: 6.3 per 10,000 times women participate in soccer practice or a game versus 4.9 for men's soccer and 6.1 for men's football. Men's wrestling and hockey have even higher rates at 12.4 and 8.4 respectively. 
But concussions aren't the only problem. In total injuries, both men's and women's soccer exceed those of men's football. Total injuries for men's soccer are 11.14 per 10,000 practices or games and 9.7 for women's soccer. For football, the number is 9.5. 
College sports are about twice as likely as high school sports to result in concussions. At the high school level, the numbers for soccer aren't quite as bad as for football. High school football is the riskiest. But girls' and boys' soccer are still the second and third most dangerous sports for concussions, followed closely by girls' basketball. 
There is also data showing that, while football causes a higher number of concussions, girls and boys' high school soccer is responsible for more of the serious concussions. We can tell that from the recovery time. Concussions from soccer are about twice as likely as football to require 22 or more days of recovery. . . .
The rest of the piece is available here.


With all the attacks on Trump, how much have Democrats given to charity?

Donald Trump is giving one million dollars to help people after Hurricane Harvey.  He and his family have also been extremely generous over time to others.

Gores' Charitable Giving Raises Some Eyebrows

Bush, Clinton, and Gore Release Charitable-Giving Records

96 Percent Of Hillary’s Charitable Donations In 2015 Went To Clinton Foundation -- The Clintons then get everything from travel to meals to support staff provided to them from their foundation.

Labels: ,

Talk on the CPRC's new research on the changing face of people who are carrying permitted concealed handguns

Dr. John Lott gave a talk on the Crime Prevention Research Center's new research on the changing face of people who are carrying permitted concealed handguns.  The video is available here.  The slides in the talk are available here or in his book "The War on Guns."
 (Saturday, August 26th, 2017 at the Carry Guard Expo in Milwaukee, Wisconsin)


At Fox News: "Police and military equipment - overturning Obama ban protects Americans and law enforcement"

I have a new piece up at Fox News on the Trump administration's decision to overturn Obama's ban on used military equipment being given to police.  The piece starts this way:
During his address Monday to the annual meeting of the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation's largest police union with 330,000 members, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that President Trump is overturning Obama’s ban on supplying surplus military equipment to police. 
It is an issue that the Fraternal Order of Police and other police organizations cared about deeply during the campaign last year.  Indeed, they based their endorsement of Trump during the election on his promise to overturn this ban. 
Obama first ordered a review of the Clinton-era program after heavily armored police confronted rioters in August 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. Obama worried that the armored vehicles and heavily-armored police only exacerbated tensions and led to more violence, but Obama never seemed to understand that with rocks, bottles, and tent poles being thrown at the police -- and even bullets being fired at them -- the police couldn’t have stood between the protestors and those who they were protecting without this gear.  And that without the police, the violence would have been much worse. 
If there are any doubts what would have happened without such protection, just remember how much worse the riots were when Governor Nixon (D-Missouri) temporarily kept the police and national guard out of Ferguson.  As one newspaper wrote: “A show of force by police and the U.S. National Guard in Ferguson, Missouri, prevented a second night of widespread rioting by early on Wednesday.”  Nixon might have been well motivated by the fear that police would only antagonize the rioters, but his decision meant that the demonstrators ran wild, destroying businesses and harming people. 
With businesses destroyed and leaving the area, it is the loss of jobs and higher prices that leave long-term scars on minority communities such as Ferguson. 
The vast majority of the military surplus equipment provided the police is purely defensive.  Still, even the more extreme sounding weapons, such as flashbang grenades and sniper rifles, have important uses.  Some police departments face well-armed and vicious drug gangs.  Flashbang grenades may be the safest option to immobilize criminals before police enter a room.  Sniper rifles might be necessary to save innocent lives when hostage situations exist. . . .
The rest of the piece is available here.