Moderna should have told the FDA and CDC about the bone problems in rats, and then those bureaucraps should have told the public.
This is called allowing people to make informed decisions about their bodies,  which is a very important issue for many people.
Of course, when I heard that the mRNA vax was going to be allowed for ’emergency use’ before the long term study for bad effects was even started, I decided to pass taking something that had never been authorized for humans before. Of course everyone who did get the vaxx is part of that long term effect test.

FDA Records Show Significant Number of mRNA Test Rats Born with Skeletal Deformations

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it received 699 pages of records from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding data Moderna submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, which indicate a “statistically significant” number of rats were born with skeletal deformations after their mothers were injected with the vaccine. The documents also reveal Moderna elected not to conduct a number of standard pharmacological studies on the laboratory test animals.

Judicial Watch obtained the records through a September 2021 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) failed to respond to a June 2021, FOIA request biodistribution studies and related data for the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson& Johnson COVID vaccines (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 1:21-cv-02418)).

The records include a “Nonclinical Overview” prepared by Moderna and submitted to the FDA for approval of its vaccine revealing that a number of rats were born with skeletal deformations, known as “wavy ribs” and “rib nodules,” to mothers injected with the mRNA vaccine. The study dismissed the anomalies as “not considered adverse:”

mRNA-1273-related variations in skeletal examination included statistically significant increases in the number of F1 rats with 1 or more wavy ribs and 1 or more rib nodules. Wavy ribs appeared in 6 fetuses and 4 litters with a fetal prevalence of 4.03% and a litter prevalence of 18.2%. Rib nodules appeared in 5 of those 6 fetuses. Skeletal variations are structural changes that do not impact development or function of a developing embryo, are considered reversible, and often correlate with maternal toxicity and/or lack of other indicators of developmental toxicity (Carney and Kimmel 2007). Maternal toxicity in the form of clinical observations was observed for 5 days following the last dose (GD 13), correlating with the most sensitive period for rib development in rats (GDs 14 to 17). Furthermore, there were no other indicators of mRNA-1273-related developmental toxicity observed, including delayed ossification; therefore, these common skeletal variations were not considered adverse.

(Non-adverse deformations receive a different perspective in the July 2009 Environmental Researcharticle, “Dose–response relationships of rat fetal skeleton variations: Relevance for risk assessment:”

(Whether or not a substance-induced increase in the incidence of fetal skeleton variations should be taken into account for human risk assessment is a long-standing controversial issue. It has been argued that chemical-produced increases in variations are not to be considered for risk assessment because they are “unlikely to adversely affect survival or health.” The counter argument is that even not being overtly adverse and conveying no apparent selective disadvantage, a treatment-induced increase in the occurrence of variations means that the chemical agent has the potential to perturb skeleton development. According to this view, under a different condition of exposure, or in another species, this perturbation of normal bone formation may give rise to a different and more severe outcome.))

A “Pharmacokinetics Written Summary” marked “Confidential,” indicates that the information it contains is related to the mRNA-1273 (Moderna vaccine) strain, however, much of the data comes from work with mRNA-1647. The study states:

The results of a biodistribution study of mRNA-1647 support the development of mRNA-1273.

Continue reading “”

Amazon worker shot, colleague returns fire killing suspect outside facility

An Amazon contract worker was hospitalized with life-threatening injuries after a gunman allegedly opened fire at an Amazon facility in Arizona Wednesday, according to police.

The alleged gunman was shot and killed by a second Amazon contract worker who returned fire, investigators said.

The incident occurred in the parking lot of an Amazon Flex facility in Chandler, Arizona, around 9:30 a.m. local time, police said.

The suspect, identified as Jacob Murphy, 29, who allegedly fired multiple rounds at one of the contracted workers before a second contract worker returned fire, Sgt. Jason McClimans of the Chandler Police Department told reporters at a news conference.

The unidentified wounded worker was taken to a local hospital in “life-threatening condition,” according to McClimans. Murphy was not employed by Amazon and was declared dead at the scene, police said.

“At this time, police cannot determine if the actions of the third male resulted in Murphy’s death or if Murphy took his own life,” the police said in a statement.

The second unidentified contracted worker who fired at the suspect was cooperating with the investigation, McClimans said.

The investigation was ongoing.

“We do not know what led up to this,” he said. “We believe this was confined to one suspect only.”

The Amazon facility and local schools were locked down when the shooting took place, according to police.

“We weren’t sure if this was an active shooter, but within 20 minutes, we were able to lift those lockdowns,” McClimans said.

Bryton Bobbitt, a contracted Amazon worker, told ABC affiliate KNXV he was getting ready for a normal workday when the shooting occurred.

“All of a sudden, just hear pop, pop, pop. [I] start looking around, like where did that come from? A few of our other workers started running,” he told the affiliate. “I was already in my work van, I put it in gear and tried to find a safe place and got out of here.”

A spokesman from Amazon told ABC News that operations at the facility were suspended following the incident and all employees and partners were sent home with pay.

“We’re deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence in our parking lot. We’re working closely with law enforcement as they investigate and are focused on supporting our team during this difficult time,” Richard Rocha, an Amazon spokesperson, said in a statement.

Why the Left Must Destroy Free Speech – or Be Destroyed

In Hayek’s famous 1944 book, The Road to Serfdom, he warned that the intellectual and political classes of the democracies of that time were embracing some of the same ideas that inspired Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and Stalin’s Russia:  comprehensive government planning, hyper regulation of industry,  nationalization, welfare statism, and collectivism in general.  He did not predict that these societies would end up “in serfdom,” however, as some have mistakenly claimed.  Quite the contrary.  In his first chapter he clearly stated that he hoped the ideas in the book would help these countries to avoid that disastrous fate.  He hoped the ideas of the book would be a roadblock on the road to serfdom.

Continue reading “”

Biden Dumbs Down American Citizenship Test

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced changes to the U.S. naturalization test on Wednesday, reducing the difficulty of the English-speaking section and editing the civics section to make the test easier for citizenship applicants, according to an unpublished notice obtained by the DCNF scheduled for publication Thursday.

The changes will lead to the English-speaking section being curated to more daily conversational subjects, as opposed to more formal subjects formerly discussed, with standardized criteria for assessment that reduce the examiner’s discretion to judge the quality of responses. “Applicants will respond to three color photographs randomly selected from a bank of approximately 70 images that directly correspond to an ordinary usage scenario,”

Additionally, the section on civics will be recrafted to become a multiple-choice format with each question having four options, as opposed to the previous “fill-in-the-blank” test where candidates have to answer a question from memory. The multiple-choice format, used on standardized tests for college admissions like the SAT and ACT, increases the probability of a candidate selecting the right answer by 25%, while allowing the candidates to recall the right answer more easily.

“Primarily, this is about responding to suggestions from the wider community that we’ve received over the past couple of years and making it more fair,” a USCIS official told CNN in advance of the notice’s publication. The proposed test will enter a five-month trial period in 2023 before being adopted later in the year, though current citizenship applicants will use the existing test.

The measure is one of several initiated by the Biden administration to streamline the immigration and naturalization process, as well as reverse Trump-era measures that progressives have claimed were barriers to immigrants’ integration. Twelve days after taking office in 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order directing government agencies to “identify [and remove] barriers that impede access to immigration benefits” as well as conduct a “comprehensive review…of the civics and English language tests.”

In November 2020, the Trump administration promulgated a new syllabus for the naturalization test, raising the pass threshold to answering 12 out of 20 questions correctly (instead of 10, previously), with a larger question bank of 128 questions. Officials claimed that the test would “provide the applicant with more opportunities to learn about the United States as part of the test preparation process,” per the USCIS website.

The Trump administration’s version of the test contained additional questions about Founding Fathers such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, as well as questions about the Civil War, the spread of communism, the 14th Amendment and the War on Terror, among others. The Biden administration promptly rescinded the new test months later when it took office, reverting back to a 2008 version utilized during the George W. Bush administration.

However, the Biden administration is not changing the English reading and writing sections of the naturalization test. “We welcome input from – and the participation of – stakeholders who are familiar with this important process, as we continue to improve and update our naturalization test,” said USCIS Director Ur M. Jaddou.

The White House, UnidosUS and the Heritage Foundation did not respond to a request for comment.

Appeals Court Stays Another Ruling Against New York Gun-Carry Law

New York will once more be able to enforce another section of its sweeping gun-carry restriction bill.

A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay against a district court’s decision blocking a ban on carrying a gun on private property that’s open to the public without express permission. The Monday ruling put a hold on the lower court’s injunction as the appeals court waits to hear the case. It is the third stay issued by the panel as lower court judges pick apart New York’s law, passed in response to the Supreme Court striking down the state’s previous strict gun-carry law.

The stay will allow New York to enforce the first-of-its-kind private property provision and arrest anyone who violates it until the appeals court issues its own ruling. Thanks to the intervention of the Second Circuit in two other cases, the same is true for a wide range of other restrictions–from bans on carrying in church or on the subway to a requirement applicants for permits prove they are of “good moral character” by turning over their social media activity to police. The stays represent a reprieve for New York officials and a setback for the gun-rights groups challenging the law.

Judge John Sinatra of the Western District of New York, a Trump appointee, issued a Temporary Restraining Order against New York’s private property provision late last month. He argued the state’s novel policy, which effectively made most of the state off-limits to legal gun-carry by default, violates the Second Amendment.

“Property owners indeed have the right to exclude,” he wrote. “But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense outside of their own homes.”

Sinatra ruled the state defaulting private property that is open to the public, such as retail businesses or restaurants, as off-limits to licensed gun-carriers does not pass the historical test set down by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The state’s rule is the opposite of how every other state regulates gun-carry on private property. Sinatra said he could not identify any historical analogue for the regulation as required by the Bruen standard.

“The Nation’s historical traditions have not countenanced such an incursion into the right to keep and bear arms across all varieties of private property spread across the land,” he wrote.

He declined to issue a stay requested by New York Attorney General Letitia James (D.). He said a stay would only exacerbate the deprivation of New Yorkers’ rights.

“[L]egislative enactments may not eviscerate the Bill of Rights,” he wrote. “Every day they do is one too many.”

The Second Circuit disagreed. The court did not set a date for when arguments in the appeal would begin. However, it did order an expedited briefing schedule for the case.

A government of officious martinets

This is a unique point in our history. Our rulers lack either powerful intellects or great accomplishments. They have no leadership aura, having advanced through coercion and corruption. Both parties’ leaders are mostly empty suits with little to no substance. If one leaves, a new one fills the space without disruption.

Should people of accomplishment or independent thinking sneak into one of these positions, those abilities are deemed irrelevant or attacked. If they were elected, the election was illegitimate. If they were appointed, the appointment was invalid. The powers-that-be must correct the error that people chose someone for a powerful position based on his qualifications.

The feckless leaders have a facade of leadership without substance. The government’s administrative offices can decide what will be done, and they direct the selected leaders as the public face of the administrative decision.

These cardboard standup leaders must be able to look like leaders. They must have a veneer of leadership that is the face the public sees. The real source of political power, the administrative bureaucracy, will assure the people that the new leaders are legitimate.

Eventually, a weak administration will find itself unable to lead effectively due to incompetency or corruption. The bureaucracy will be called in to protect the administrative state from being exposed as the real power source. A process resembling justice will be started. The administrative police force will lead in the removal, and the administrative state will select an acceptable leader to become the new face of leadership.

The transfer of power to an unconstitutional, unelected fourth branch of government will be complete. The Republicans and Democrats will join to serve this administrative state as a unified party. They will run in elections where the administrative state and its corporate sponsors select the winners and direct the results. The people, they hope, will retain the delusion that they have really elected them.

The people and the states will be told what to do. The nation’s wealth will be siphoned off to feed the dictating administrative state and buy the states’ obedience. There will be no single leader that can be removed to end the tyranny. Leaders will come and go, and the administrative state will rule.

The administrative state will be manned by like-minded comrades selected from college graduating classes. These schools will successfully indoctrinate their students into the need for a powerful government outside the people’s will. They have been taught what to think and do. They will be useful cogs in the administrative machinery.

K-12 government education will prepare them for these colleges. Teachers (themselves college-trained) will tell students only what they need to know. They will eliminate teaching students to be free and independent thinkers. The curriculum for mathematics, reading, and social studies must be carefully crafted to give an appearance of education. The goal will be to teach the ability to react without logic and reason and to respond to the facts as given.

Many more people exist outside of this administrative system than there are rulers within the system. The ones on the outside will be fed a sterilized stream of information about the great administrative system while being blocked from information that opposes the system. Media will participate, as will social media, sports, and entertainment.

The people will be constantly reminded how the administrative leaders care deeply for the people, and the people will be given opportunities to apply these lessons. For example, an international health emergency may be declared, after which the administrative state issues guidelines that must be followed to prove the citizens’ understanding and fealty to those in charge. They will get extra credit for becoming personal enforcers of the state demands.

The administrative state will need to control the flow of wealth. The possibilities for control include supply chains, energy production, food production and distributions, banking, housing, and anything else that may be considered essential to living. When problems occur and people suffer, the government must be the first source of relief—the same government that caused the suffering. Suffering people are less likely to complain.

Finally, we no longer need to be a moral people as seen by our Founders. Traditional morality must be replaced by a new morality based on individual desires and wants. Religious teaching will be unnecessary as the administrative government will define and enforce morality. Traditional religion will be discouraged. Threatening to take tax favors and showing that they can be shut down on a government whim should keep churches under control.

We can then welcome with open arms our new government. We will have long lost the republic and have abandoned the “precious” democracy. We will have become the world’s first great government of officious martinets, The Administrative State of America. We will own nothing and be happy.

Nebraska senator confident permitless carry bill will pass

One wouldn’t picture Nebraska as being anti-gun. Then again, it’s not really. It’s just not as pro-gun as some might imagine.

That’s because, like many places, a couple of urban areas have a lot more say in matters than they should. Just enough to block permitless carry from passing last year, as a matter of fact.

Well, the lawmaker behind that bill is back with it again, only this time, he thinks it will pass.

he new legislative session is just weeks away, and one state lawmaker believes that some controversial bills have a good chance at passing.

Sen. Tom Brewer said that includes his gun rights bill, which would bring permitless concealed carry to Nebraska.

The proposal fell just two votes short of the 33 needed to overcome a filibuster last legislative session.

Brewer said in a column last week that November’s election made the Nebraska Legislature slightly more conservative, so there are finally enough votes to advance several priorities.

After the last session, Brewer told Channel 8 in June that this bill would be his top priority going into the next session.

“The very first bill that I will drop in the next session will be constitutional carry,” he said. “What the decision today has done has helped us to better shine a light on why it’s important, and to take away some of the concerns folks had about legalities.”

Constitutional carry, permitless carry, they both amount to the same thing. They mean that law-abiding citizens don’t have to ask for government permission to carry a firearm.

And they should pass it.

Critics will claim that constitutional carry will benefit bad guys. Some have started trying to frame it as “criminal carry.” What they miss is that the bad guys are already carrying guns. It’s only the law-abiding being hamstrung by permit requirements, which in Nebraska includes mandatory training for a carry permit.

That creates still more delays, all while the bad guys are just ignoring the law.

So permitless carry doesn’t empower anyone but the law-abiding.

It’s my sincere hope that Nebraska passes his measure. No one should have to take a particular class in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right, and the Second Amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms.

Permitless carry is just a step in the right direction, to be sure.

But do they have the votes? That remains to be seen. I’m not as familiar with the politics of the state as I’d like to be before speculating on it, but falling just a couple of votes shy last year is a promising sign this year. If they can get those two votes, then permitless carry is a done deal in the state and the people of Nebraska will no longer be required to jump through hoops just to get a carry permit.

Especially since there’s little evidence that training requirements yield any actual benefits except to make anti-gunners feel better.

Then again, screw poor people who want to defend themselves, right?

Oregon judge signals more trouble ahead for Measure 114

Oregon’s ban on “large capacity” magazines and the state’s “permit-to-purchase” scheme remain on hold for now after a hearing in rural Harney County on Tuesday, with the judge who originally granted a restraining order against the anti-gun ballot measure telling both sides in a court challenge to the new restrictions that he’ll issue a formal ruling on a request for an injunction by this Friday.

Harney County Circuit Judge Robert S. Raschio did say during the hearing, however, that the permit-to-purchase portion of Measure 114 will not take effect, at least until the state can prove that the system is fully operational and won’t result in residents being unable to exercise their right to acquire a firearm for self-defense.

“Any complete bar on the ability to secure a firearm would be unconstitutional even under strict scrutiny,” said Harney County Judge Robert Raschio on Tuesday morning.

The order was also the precursor to several hours of oral arguments and witness testimonies about whether the judge should place a preliminary injunction against ballot Measure 114’s ban on high-capacity magazines. While Judge Raschio made no formal decision on that proposed injunction Tuesday, he said he would issue an opinion no later than Friday, Dec. 16 at noon.

Altogether, Tuesday’s court hearing marked an eventful day for gun advocates in Oregon, many of whom tuned-in to the district court’s live feed to witness the marathon hearing about why the judge should or should not issue a preliminary injunction against Oregon’s ballot Measure 114.…

It was a different story for the issue of magazine capacity, however, discussion of which occupied another six hours in court Tuesday.

Plaintiffs largely argued that by capping magazines to 10 rounds and including restrictions on the use of extenders and removable baseplates, the state has essentially made it impossible to purchase legal firearms in Oregon from gun manufacturers. To prove a point, attorney Tony Aiello called upon firearm dealer Ben Callaway as an expert witness, who said online vendors like MidwayUSA or Zanders Sporting Goods no longer ship firearms to Oregon if they can be modified to hold more than 10 rounds.

Yet, the real challenge for the groups was to prove that guns with a 10-round capacity or more were commonly used for self-defense in 1859, a requirement made by Oregon Supreme Court’s protection of the right to bear arms. But while expert witnesses from both sides of the injunction agreed that multi-shot firearms existed around that time, there was disagreement as to whether these weapons were of common use.

The availability of multi-shot firearms in 1859 shouldn’t be the determining factor in whether or not they’re protected by the Second Amendment. As the Supreme Court noted in the Caetano case, arms that are in common use today but weren’t around at the time of the Founding are still protected by the text of the Second Amendment.

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008) , and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010) . In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ ”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent.

What the court should actually be looking for are statutes in place at the time of Oregon’s founding that are historical analogues to the ammunition capacity restriction the state wants to put in place today, and I don’t think anything like that exists. I’m not aware of any state law or even a local ordinance in the state that barred the carrying or possession of revolvers or other multi-shot firearms at the time the state constitution was approved, and given that these types of bans are modern inventions of the anti-gun lobby, I suspect that finding a 19th century analogue is going to be difficult… at least without stretching the bounds of credulity as U.S. District Judge Karen Immergut did when she upheld the magazine ban in a federal lawsuit filed by the Oregon Firearms Federation and several county sheriffs.

With Rashcio pledging to deliver his ruling on the request for an injunction against Measure 114 by noon Pacific time on Friday, we won’t have too long to wait before we learn whether the magazine ban can take effect, though if Raschio does impose an injunction the state will appeal once again to the state Supreme Court. That body has already declined to overturn Raschio’s initial restraining order against Measure 114, however, and if Raschio keeps the status quo in place while the constitutionality of Measure 114 is being litigated there’s a very good chance the state’s highest court will do the same.

People who skipped their COVID vaccine are at higher risk of traffic accidents, according to a new study

If you passed on getting the COVID vaccine, you might be a lot more likely to get into a car crash.

People who skipped their COVID vaccine are at higher risk of traffic accidents, according to a new study© Getty Images

Or at least those are the findings of a new study published this month in The American Journal of Medicine. During the summer of 2021, Canadian researchers examined the encrypted government-held records of more than 11 million adults, 16% of whom hadn’t received the COVID vaccine.

They found that the unvaccinated people were 72% more likely to be involved in a severe traffic crash—in which at least one person was transported to the hospital—than those who were vaccinated. That’s similar to the increased risk of car crashes for people with sleep apnea, though only about half that of people who abuse alcohol, researchers found.

The excess risk of car crash posed by unvaccinated drivers “exceeds the safety gains from modern automobile engineering advances and also imposes risks on other road users,” the authors wrote.

Of course, skipping a COVID vaccine does not mean that someone will get into a car crash. Instead, the authors theorize that people who resist public health recommendations might also “neglect basic road safety guidelines.”

Why would they ignore the rules of the road? Distrust of the government, a belief in freedom, misconceptions of daily risks, “faith in natural protection,” “antipathy toward regulation,” poverty, misinformation, a lack of resources, and personal beliefs are potential reasons proposed by the authors.

The findings are significant enough that primary care doctors should consider counseling unvaccinated patients on traffic safety—and insurance companies might base changes to insurance policies on vaccination data, the authors suggest.

First responders may also consider taking precautions to protect themselves from COVID when responding to traffic crashes, the authors added, as it’s more likely that a driver is unvaccinated than vaccinated.

“The findings suggest that unvaccinated adults need to be careful indoors with other people and outside with surrounding traffic,” the authors concluded.

This isn’t the first time that researchers have examined the link between behavior and vaccination status. Among young adults, a 2021 study published in the Journal of Bioeconomics found a correlation between self-reported risky driving and having skipped their flu vaccine. It examined the survey responses of more than 100,000 Canadians.

Homeowner shoots, kills woman burglarizing property,

HOUSTON (Gray News) – A homeowner in Houston shot and killed a suspected burglar, according to police.

Houston police said they are investigating the fatal shooting that happened around 3:45 a.m. Monday.

Officers responded to a report of a shooting, where they found an unresponsive woman in a ditch next to the roadway. Paramedics pronounced her dead on the scene.

According to witnesses, the 26-year-old deceased woman and an unidentified man were seen burglarizing vehicles in the area. One resident shot and killed the woman, and the man fled the area on foot.

Police said no charges have been filed at this time as the investigation is ongoing.

Observations:
“generalized estimating equation estimates”
Translation (even with the statistical word salad definition) it still comes to: There’s actually no way to figure this out, so I’ll make my SWAG look good on paper

John Lott (more guns/less crime) was right, but they couldn’t let that be confirmed, so they kept torturing the statistics hoping for something different, but the best they could come up with was that gun sales don’t have any effect on crime rates.

Legal Firearm Sales at State Level and Rates of Violent Crime, Property Crime, and Homicides

Journal of Surgical Research, Volume 281, January 2023, Pages 143-154

Abstract

Introduction

The effects of firearm sales and legislation on crime and violence are intensely debated, with multiple studies yielding differing results. We hypothesized that increased lawful firearm sales would not be associated with the rates of crime and homicide when studied using a robust statistical method.

Methods

National and state rates of crime and homicide during 1999-2015 were obtained from the United States Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Instant Criminal Background Check System background checks were used as a surrogate for lawful firearm sales. A general multiple linear regression model using log event rates was used to assess the effect of firearm sales on crime and homicide rates. Additional modeling was then performed on a state basis using an autoregressive correlation structure with generalized estimating equation estimates for standard errors to adjust for the interdependence of variables year to year within a particular state.

Results

Nationally, all crime rates except the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–designated firearm homicides decreased as firearm sales increased over the study period. Using a naive national model, increases in firearm sales were associated with significant decreases in multiple crime categories. However, a more robust analysis using generalized estimating equation estimates on state-level data demonstrated increases in firearms sales were not associated with changes in any crime variables examined.

Conclusions

Robust analysis does not identify an association between increased lawful firearm sales and rates of crime or homicide.

Based on this, it is unclear if efforts to limit lawful firearm sales would have any effect on rates of crime, homicide, or injuries from violence committed with firearms.

Continue reading “”

This guy is Gov DeSantis’ deputy press secretary, so, no joke.

I’ve always said that if demoncraps didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.

Democrats’ double standard on constitutional amendments

Ballot measures to impose new gun control laws? Democrats love ’em, even when the courts question their constitutionality. But when Republicans turn to voter referendums and constitutional amendments to strengthen the Second Amendment, as they’re doing in Montana, Democrats declare an “existential crisis” is at hand.

Thanks to the midterm elections, Republicans in the state now enjoy a supermajority in both legislative chambers as well as the governor’s office. That gives them the numbers (on paper, anyway) to start the ball rolling on amending the state’s constitution, and several lawmakers are already looking at one area they say is in desperate need of reform: the unfettered power given to the state’s Board of Regents in establishing rules and policies governing public colleges and universities in Montana.

Continue reading “”

Is There Anything We can do to Stop Mass Murderers in the United States?

That question comes to mind since President Biden recently claimed we need to massively disarm honest US citizens in order to stop mass-murderers. Instead of accepting the President’s words at face value, I looked at what the experts say. There are many questions we might ask and lots of facts we can consider. We do many things today to stop violence in the US. There is more we could do, and this is what I found;

  • We stop several thousand violent events every day.
  • The United States is about average in its rate of mass murder.
  • We stop more than half of the attempted mass murderers who attack where honest citizens are allowed to go armed.
  • Most mass murderers go through a predictable process, and we ignored warning signs time after time.
  • We should stop making the murderers into overnight celebrities, but that is hard to do.

A Walmart employee murdered several of his co-workers in Virginia. That happened a few weeks ago. President Biden then commented that,

“[T]he idea we still allow semi automatic weapons to be purchased is sick.  It’s just sick.  It has no, no social redeeming value. Zero. None. Not a single, solitary rationale for it except profit for the gun manufacturers.”

The president’s comment sounds bizarre given what we know. We know that more than 5,000 ordinary US citizens use a firearm to protect themselves from a serious threat every day. Stopping that much assault, robbery, rape and murder every day sounds like an immense socially redeeming value to me. The president obviously disagrees.

That level of armed defense shouldn’t come as news. We’ve seen similar reports for the last few decades. The data is broadly consistent, including a report from the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention that was commissioned by the Obama Administration.

All of us are biased, but we have good reason to be. We think that what we see in the news gives us a representative picture of what is happening in the world overall. It feels that way to us, but in truth there is a lot of news that goes unreported by our local news stations. Our news media covers a mass murder in the US for days but they only cover a mass murder that happened in another country for a few minutes. That distorts our thinking about where violence happens.

Continue reading “”

“Plain Text”
When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers conduct, it is presumptively protected

STEPHEN HALBROOK

The Supreme Court’s decision invalidating New York’s law giving discretion to officials to deny licenses to carry handguns for insufficient “need” held that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” A restriction may be found valid only if the government demonstrates that it “is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022).

Fortunately, the plain text analysis is not difficult because the Supreme Court has already defined the key terms of the guarantee that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Here are some of those definitions:

  • “The people” facially means “all Americans.” District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
  • “Arms” facially means “all instruments that constitute bearable arms.”
  • “Keep Arms” facially means “have weapons.” Heller.
  • “Shall not be infringed” facially means that the right conferred by the Second Amendment is an “unqualified command.” Bruen.

The Supreme Court has long held that the constitutional text also encompasses necessarily-included matters that are required for the exercise of a right and thus includes rights “implicit in enumerated guarantees.” Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980).

The right to keep and bear arms thus presupposes the right to acquire a firearm, to obtain ammunition, to train, and to make a firearm operable. See Luis v. United States (2016) (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment); see also Heller (government cannot require firearms to be made inoperable).

Accordingly, lower courts are not free to interpret the terms of the Second Amendment de novo or to insist on a wooden literalism that would empty the Second Amendment of practical meaning.

Since Bruen, some courts have inappropriately considered subjects that are properly part of the historical analysis as part of the textual analysis. They have also taken a narrow view of the text that does not include related acts necessary to the exercise of the right. Three examples include reasoning that: 1) “the people” does not include Americans generally, but only law-abiding, responsible people; 2) to “keep arms” does not include the making and acquisition of arms; and 3) “arms” do not include magazines.

First: “the people.” Heller started textually “with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.” Any limitations on the scope of this right for certain Americans must come from history, and the government bears the burden.

Continue reading “”