Category: RKBA

At Real Clear Politics: When Misinformation Drives Bad Policy

The CPRC commissioned a survey by Real Clear Politics. Dr. John Lott wrote a new piece at Real Clear Politics on the survey evidence.

To President Biden, public health researchers, and the media, violent crime is all about guns. But a new survey finds that people are badly misinformed about how much violent crime involves guns. The average likely American voter is way off, thinking that over 46% of violent crimes involve guns. In fact, the true figure is less than 8%.

Not surprisingly, those who believe that most violent crime involves guns are more likely to view gun control as the solution.

Biden has given four major speeches on violent crime (here, here, here, and here). Each one of them was focused on enforcement of gun control laws. In the four speeches, he mentioned “gun” or “firearm” 179 times. The term “weapon,” sometimes in connection with “assault weapon,” was used another 31 times.

The words “crime,” “violence,” or “violent” were mentioned about half as often — 94 times. He only mentions the words “murder” or “homicide” seven times in these four presentations, which involve guns at a higher rate, and entirely omits them from his two most recent talks.

But this “guns first” approach to reduce overall violent crime ignores a basic fact – over 92% of violent crimes in America do not involve firearms. Although Biden blames guns for the increase in violent crime, the latest data show that gun crimes fell dramatically.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey, in the latest year available (2020), shows that there were 4,558,150 rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults, and the FBI reports 21,570 murders. Of those, 350,460 rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults (see Table 8) and 13,620 murders involved firearms. So, adding those numbers up, 7.9% of violent crimes were committed with guns.

The new McLaughlin & Associates survey of 1,000 likely voters from April 20th to 26th for the Crime Prevention Research Center shows how misinformed people are. People across the country, of all races and incomes, have wildly inaccurate beliefs about how frequently violent crime involves guns.

Even so, there are large differences across groups. The average Democrat estimates that 56.9% of violent crimes involve guns, whereas the typical Republican gave an answer of 37%. Those with the highest incomes (over $250,000 per year) and those who work for the government give the highest numbers — 56.1% and 51% respectively. Women (50%) believe that more violent crimes involve guns than men do (43%). Urban Americans say 48%, whereas rural Americans say 40%. But the biggest difference is between blacks (59%) and Asians (31%).

The McLaughlin survey also gave people three options on the best way to fight crime: pass more gun control laws, more strictly enforce current laws, or have police concentrate on arresting violent, repeat criminals.

Some respondents at least got it right that less than 20% of violent crime involves guns. Just 8% prioritized more gun laws, and 15% focused on stricter enforcement of existing laws. An overwhelming 71% thought the best way of fighting crime was to arrest violent criminals.

Some likely voters thought that more than 80% of the violent crime involved guns. Most supported either more gun control laws (33%) or more strict enforcement of current gun laws (28%). Only 36% of them wanted the focus on arresting violent criminals.

Those who think that most violent crime is committed with guns consistently support more gun control. Those who don’t believe that instead want to focus on arresting violent criminals and keeping them in jail.

Perhaps the gun control debate would be very different if the media had done a better job of informing people about crime. The most newsworthy cases, unfortunately, don’t tend to be typical of violent crime. Focusing on how to solve eight percent of violent crime does nothing to solve the other ninety-two percent.

John R. Lott, Jr., “When Misinformation Drives Bad Policy,” Real Clear Politics, May 16, 2022.

MAYOR ADAMS OFFERS VERY BAD ‘BE VERY CONCERNED’ ADVICE TO NEW YORKERS

Democratic New York City Mayor Eric Adams was elected to get his city back on a path to safety. He’s instead continued down the path of his predecessors to punish law-abiding New Yorkers. He’s failed to turn the focus and resources towards those that commit crimes and hold them to account.

The result is crime surging and Mayor Adams’s recent “big announcement” was a nationalized gun control plan that will do little in his city.

Mayor Adams is facing the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down New York’s restrictive “may issue” pistol permitting law, his plan is to instill fear over confidence. He told media, “We should be very afraid. I’m very concerned.”

The Stakes
New York is one of just eight “may issue” states that restrict concealed carry permits to law-abiding gun owners based on the whims of bureaucrats. New Yorkers must first prove they have a “good enough” reason before a government agency allows a permit to protect oneself outside the home. This differs from other states where if a firearm owner who passes the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verification and applies for a carry permit, the state “shall issue” the permit.

States with “may issue” restrictions are ripe for corruption. California and New York – specifically in Mayor Adams’s New York City – are prime examples of why the law should be struck down. In 2016, federal prosecutors uncovered a pay-to-play scheme within the New York Police Department’s licensing division where workers were paid thousands of dollars to rubber-stamp carry permits. Four officers connected to the scheme were arrested.

The corruption is disgusting enough but the right for law-abiding Americans to carry a firearm shouldn’t be left to arbitrary whims and inconsistent decision makers. The landmark 2008 U.S. Supreme Court Heller decision recognized the pre-existing right of Americans to own and possess firearms for self-defense. The court will shortly rule on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen challenging New York’s “may issue” law in the coming weeks.

False Forecasting
Mayor Adams likely sees the writing on the walls. Make no mistake, a Supreme Court ruling that strikes down NYSRPA v. Bruen is a good thing for law-abiding New Yorkers and Americans protecting themselves and their families. The prospect of “may issue” laws falling, though, has national gun control groups, President Joe Biden, New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul and Mayor Adams scared.

At a press conference, the mayor was asked about the imminent ruling. The city, despite his new leadership, is still facing an ongoing crime spike and violence.

“This is a significant issue for our city: it is the right to carry. After what we saw what the Supreme Court did on abortions, we should be very afraid,” Mayor Adams said, referring to a pending gun rights case. “In a densely populated community like New York, this ruling could have a major impact on us.” He continued, saying, “But we should all be concerned.”

The mayor is flat wrong. No greater example exists than the recent Brooklyn subway attack, where one individual targeted innocent New Yorkers left defenseless by New York’s strict gun laws.

Continue reading “”

What that verse? ‘A house divided cannot stand’? Well, may their house collapse on them the same way the Samson collapsed the temple of dagon on the philistines.

Gun control activist admits Dems “divided” on pushing new 2A restrictions

I wish we were talking about a true change of heart on the part of many Democratic politicians, but the reluctance to pursue new gun control legislation in the wake of the mass shooting in Buffalo, New York appears to be based far more on political calculations than any scales falling off the eyes of gun-banners in Congress.

Still, there are growing grumbles of dissatisfaction among gun control activists who say Democrats should be pushing for new restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, even if the prospects of passage are slim to none.

Alex Barrio, with the Center for American Progress, says following the mass shooting in Buffalo, Senate Democrats are largely avoiding talking about new control measures. Barrio explained “Democrats are divided.”

“The House, which can act, which has acted, which wants to act on this feels this sense of futility. Because again, a handful of senators who would rather just wash their hands of the whole issue, side with the conservatives and pretend that nothing’s going to happen – pretend that they can’t do anything,” Barrio said.

Barrio didn’t say what, exactly, anti-gun senators can do other than to bring forward bills that don’t have the votes for passage, but I guess at this point the gun control lobby is willing to settle for political theater on Capitol Hill if they can’t actually pass legislation.
Last week we talked about the reluctance of Senate Democrats like Dick Durbin to indulge the desires of the gun ban crowd, and now other senators are going public with their reluctance to spend much time on the issue between now and the midterms, though most of them are portraying their reservations as more frustration with Republicans than anything else.

Senator John Hickenlooper (D-CO) explained “I think people are frustrated, that again and again despite best efforts the Senate has been unwilling to just work through what universal background checks would look like.”

Senators John Hickenlooper and Mark Warner both expressed no hope of passing a universal background check bill.

“Do I think it’s going to get 60 votes? Probably not. But I do think it’s important that the American people, you, are able to judge senator by senator where you stand on responsible gun safety legislation,” Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) said.

Note, by the way, that both Hickenlooper and Warner are talking specifically about a universal background check bill; a measure that, even it had been law at the time of the Buffalo attack would not have had an impact because the suspect went through and passed a background check before legally purchasing a firearm at retail. The reason why gun control activists have decided to make that the focus of their (ineffective) lobbying efforts at the moment has nothing to do with the actual policy at hand and far more to do with the politics of the moment. They view universal background checks as the easiest lift in the Senate, especially since a bill has already passed the House, so even though they can’t plausibly claim that the measure would have prevented the heinous crime in Buffalo, it’s still their “do something” soundbite solution.
Fortunately for those of us who don’t believe that an ineffective and unconstitutional gun control law is the best way to fight the scourge of violent crime and targeted attacks like the one in Buffalo, it looks like even the “easy” lift is unachievable for Senate Democrats… at least at the moment. Democrats could probably get to 60 votes on a bill that would expand access to mental health resources, but that doesn’t appear to be a priority or even an option for Schumer and his Senate cohorts in the Democratic caucus.

When Misinformation Drives Bad Policy

To President Biden, public health researchers, and the media, violent crime is all about guns. But a new survey finds that people are badly misinformed about how much violent crime involves guns. The average likely American voter is way off, thinking that over 46% of violent crimes involve guns. In fact, the true figure is less than 8%.

Not surprisingly, those who believe that most violent crime involves guns are more likely to view gun control as the solution.

Biden has given four major speeches on violent crime (here, here, here, and here). Each one of them was focused on enforcement of gun control laws. In the four speeches, he mentioned “gun” or “firearm” 179 times. The term “weapon,” sometimes in connection with “assault weapon,” was used another 31 times.

The words “crime,” “violence,” or “violent” were mentioned about half as often – 94 times. He only mentions the words “murder” and “homicide” seven times in these four presentations, and entirely omits them from his two most recent talks.

But this “guns first” approach ignores a basic fact – over 92% of violent crimes in America do not involve firearms. Although Biden blames guns for the increase in violent crime, the latest data show that gun crimes fell dramatically.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey, in the latest year available (2020), shows that there were 4,558,150 rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults, and the FBI reports 21,570 murders. Of those, 350,460 rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults (see Table 8) and 13,620 murders involved firearms. So, while it’s true that firearms are the weapon of choice in more than half the murders in this country, it’s also true that only 7.9% of violent crimes were committed with guns.

The new McLaughlin & Associates survey of 1,000 likely voters from April 20 to 26 for the Crime Prevention Research Center shows how misinformed people are. People across the country, of all races and incomes, have wildly inaccurate beliefs about how frequently violent crime involves guns.

Even so, there are large differences across groups. The average Democrat estimates that 56.9% of violent crimes involve guns, whereas the typical Republican gave an answer of 37%. Those with the highest incomes (over $250,000 per year) and those who work for the government give the highest numbers – 56.1% and 51% respectively. Women (50%) believe that more violent crimes involve guns than men do (43%). Urban Americans say 48%, whereas rural Americans say 40%. But the biggest difference is between blacks (59%) and Asians (31%).

The McLaughlin survey also gave people three options on the best way to fight crime: Pass more gun control laws, more strictly enforce current laws, or have police concentrate on arresting repeat violent criminals.

Some respondents at least got it right that less than 20% of violent crime involves guns. Just 8% prioritized more gun laws, and 15% focused on stricter enforcement of existing laws. An overwhelming 71% thought the best way of fighting crime was to arrest violent criminals.

Some likely voters thought that more than 80% of the violent crime involved guns. Most supported either more gun control laws (33%) or more strict enforcement of current gun laws (28%). Only 36% of them wanted the focus on arresting violent criminals.

Those who think that most violent crime is committed with guns consistently support more gun control. Those who don’t believe that instead want to focus on arresting violent criminals and keeping them in jail.

Perhaps the gun control debate would be very different if the media had done a better job of informing people about crime. The most newsworthy cases, unfortunately, don’t tend to be typical of violent crime. Focusing on how to solve 8% of violent crime does nothing to solve the other 92%.

Wisconsin’s high court broadens who can carry concealed guns

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A disorderly conduct conviction can’t disqualify someone from obtaining a permit to carry a concealed weapon in Wisconsin, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday in a unanimous decision that could dramatically broaden who can carry hidden firearms, knives and stun guns.

The court found that disorderly conduct isn’t a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under federal law and therefore doesn’t disqualify a person from holding a concealed carry license.

Justice Jill Karofsky, a member of the court’s liberal minority, concurred but in a separate opinion called on legislators to close a “dangerous loophole” that will allow domestic abusers to carry concealed weapons. Lawmakers introduced a bipartisan bill a year ago that would have reconciled the language but it never got got a hearing.

“Though legally correct, this result is as nonsensical as it is dangerous,” Karofsky wrote. “When a domestic abuse perpetrator, who has engaged in threats to kill or any other type of domestic violence, has access to a gun, the lethality risk for his victim increases significantly.”

The case revolves around Daniel Doubek, of Green Bay. According to court documents, Doubek broke into his estranged wife’s trailer in Door County in 1993 waving a board and shouting threats. He was ultimately convicted of disorderly conduct.

Continue reading “”

Anti-gun groups, Eric Swalwell try to fundraise off Buffalo massacre

Wasting little time in the aftermath of Saturday’s mass shooting at a Buffalo supermarket, gun control groups and at least one Democratic lawmaker are already using the monstrous, racially-motivated crime to try and fill their campaign coffers.

Screenshots of fundraising emails sent out by Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady PAC and Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) were shared on social media this week.

“This weekend’s mass shooting in Buffalo is yet another horrifying reminder of how white supremacy is deadly, especially when it’s combined with easy access to guns,” read a screenshot of an email from Everytown for Gun Safety that was tweeted by Second Amendment activist Robert Romano Monday.

Continue reading “”

Judge Napolitano is too kind. Actually she doesn’t have blinders on. She’s just another wanna-be tyrant who complains about the Constitutional restrictions on goobermint like they all do.

BLUF:
The governor has blinders on. She complains of too much freedom. In New York, there is too little.

Blaming the Constitution

Within hours of the tragic killings of 10 Americans — nine Black and one white — in a Buffalo supermarket by a deranged white racist last week, the governor of New York began calling for infringements upon personal liberty. First, she argued that social media platforms were somehow liable for these killings since they provided a platform from which the killer could reinforce his hatreds and on which he could manifest them.

Then, she argued that hate speech and incendiary speech should be prosecuted. Finally, she attacked the U.S. Supreme Court, which is about to rule on a challenge to New York’s restrictive concealed carry laws. She said twice that “New York is ready for you.” It is unclear just what she meant, but the implication was that she’d find a way around whatever the court rules.

She uttered a bitter constitutional mouthful.

From the writings and mental history of the gunman, we know that he was and is deeply disturbed. Police brought him to a mental hospital after he made threats at school, and his hatreds were posted on dark websites. Nevertheless, New York gun laws — among the strictest in the country — did not stop him from lawfully purchasing a rifle and the ammunition with which to use it.

The gun control crowd, personified by the governor, makes critical errors in its arguments and shows material misunderstandings of fundamental liberties.

Its critical error is a mistaken belief that someone willing to commit mass murder will somehow comply with gun regulations. It doesn’t matter to the killer what the gun laws are; he will find a way to attempt to kill. What matters is a set of laws with which law-abiding folks do comply, the effect of which is to neuter their ability to defend themselves.

This column has steadfastly maintained that the only language mass murderers respect is their own — violence. Only violence against them, or its serious imminent threat, will stop them.

Continue reading “”

There’s a reason why gun control fails after mass shootings

In the wake of any mass shooting, we hear a lot about gun control. Proponents of it argue we simply need to embrace it to make such shootings a thing of the past. It just hasn’t worked out for them.

Over at Axios, they decided to lament this fact by pointing out all the times gun control failed to materialize after a mass shooting.

What they miss is that there’s a reason it didn’t pass in pretty much all of those cases.

Sandy Hook, December 2012
  • After the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, in which 26 victims — including 20 children — were killed, Congress proposed a bipartisan bill expanding background checks for gun buyers, a ban on assault weapons and a ban on high-capacity gun magazines.

Part of the reason that didn’t pass was that the killer didn’t purchase his gun. He murdered his own mother and took an AR-15 that she lawfully purchased–and underwent and passed a background check for–to use it to carry out that particular atrocity.

Expanding background checks wouldn’t have prevented such an attack.

Charleston church, June 2015

When a white man opened fire at a Black church congregation in Charleston, South Carolina, killing nine people, Democrats proposed legislation to tighten background checks.

Democrats sought to eliminate what became known as the “Charleston loophole,” which allows people with incomplete background checks to purchase guns after three days, Politico reports.

And that remains because going beyond those three days is too much of an infringement on people’s Second Amendment rights.

What people have to remember is that the three-day window was put in place to appease gun rights advocates who worried that people could be long-term denied the ability to purchase a firearm simply because their background checks never came back.

The three-day window remains because no one trusts the government enough to take it away.

San Bernardino, December 2015

A shooting at a San Bernardino County Department of Public Health holiday party killed 14 people and injured 22 others.

One day after the shooting, the Senate rejected two gun control proposals introduced by Democrats on background checks, the Washington Post reports.

California pass universal background checks in 1991. The killers in this case still acquired weapons illegally and without undergoing a background check.

Why pass more of what clearly didn’t work?

Pulse Nightclub, June 2016

The proposed bills would have prevented people on the federal terrorism watch list from buying guns and closed loopholes in background check laws, per the Times.

And that one failed because there’s no due process on the terrorism watchlist. You can be added for any reason and aren’t told you’re on it. Getting yourself removed is a nightmare.

Plus, the terrorism watch list is a list of names. There are no other identifiers. So if a terrorist named Tom Knighton exists somewhere on Earth, I don’t get to purchase a firearm under this rule.

Yeah, it’s an absolute mystery why this didn’t pass.

Look, you’re starting to see how this goes, and Axios does continue.

For example, they bring up Atlanta and how background check bills didn’t pass despite President Biden calling for just that, but the shooter in that one actually passed a background check. They tie this to Boulder, but he also passed a background check.

Time and time again, there’s a mass shooting, then lawmakers make demands for laws that wouldn’t do anything to stop the attack, but would do wonders for infringing on people’s rights.

Look, gun control isn’t the answer to this. Especially since the two high-profile attacks we saw last weekend were both in heavily gun-controlled states.

Gun control doesn’t pass because, in each of these cases, it’s clear that the laws proposed wouldn’t have done a damn thing. Further, each of these is actually something of a black swan event, meaning they’re not the norm, despite people trying to pretend they are.

So I’m actually OK with inaction from Congress on this. Frankly, I prefer inaction in Congress on most things, but especially here.

There are better ways to handle mass shootings than infringing on the rights of the non-shooters, especially when it’s clear that infringement wouldn’t have stopped diddly.

But they said nobody wants to take your guns.
And actually, if there were magically, mystically, no guns, life would return to the world of ‘main force’ where might makes right and the stronger rule over the weaker. The world “BG” – before guns – had a much higher murder rate than after they became reliable. That’s her world with swords

Sick of Massacres? Get Rid of the Guns. [hah]

Gail Collins Gail Collins

[it’s sooo nice they provide pictures for positive identification]

A) Toughen background check laws
B) Limit the sale of semiautomatics to people with hunting licenses
C) Good Lord, just get rid of them
Yeah, C does simplify things, doesn’t it?

Continue reading “”

Manchin gives Democrats a reality check on gun control

Democratic lawmakers are calling for new gun control legislation in the wake of the racially motivated massacre in Buffalo, New York, last weekend, but once again Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is standing in the way of the most fervent progressives.

President Joe Biden went to Buffalo on Tuesday and visited with the families of 10 people who were killed and three others wounded by a white supremacist gunman. In a speech, the president denounced the attack as an act of “domestic terrorism,” condemned white supremacy, and renewed calls for a federal ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

“There are certain things we can do. We can keep assault weapons off our streets. We’ve done it before. I did it when I passed the crime bill,” Biden said, referring to the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which included a 10-year assault weapons ban.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), also speaking in Buffalo Tuesday, vowed that Democrats would “work towards finally ridding our streets of weapons of war.”

But Manchin, speaking to reporters shortly before Biden spoke, gave his realistic assessment that in the 50-50 Senate, the only gun control legislation that has a chance of passing is a bipartisan compromise on background checks that previously failed. That bill, named for Manchin and his chief co-sponsor, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), would expand federal background check requirements to all advertised commercial sales, including sales at gun shows and over the internet.

“I support the Manchin-Toomey, I’ve always done that,” Manchin told reporters, according to The Hill. “The Manchin-Toomey is the one. I think if you can’t get that one, then why try to do something just for basically voting for the sake of voting?”

While some Democrats want action on a universal background check bill that passed the House in March last year, the West Virginia moderate has previously said that bill goes too far because it would extend to private transactions, such as those between neighbors, hunting buddies, or even family. The Manchin-Toomey bill exempted those transactions.

“The best piece of legislation that we’ve ever had, that most people agreed on, was the Manchin-Toomey. We didn’t infringe on anyone’s rights privately,” Manchin said.

But if Manchin-Toomey was the bill “that most people agreed on,” that wouldn’t mean much — the bill failed in 2013, coming six votes short of the 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster at a time when a stronger Democratic majority held the Senate. Only two Republicans voted for it, Toomey and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

It is far more unlikely that 10 Republicans would cross the aisle to vote for any sort of gun control bill this year, especially before the midterm elections in November.

Gun control groups issue new (and impotent) demands to D.C. Democrats

A day after the number two Democrat in the U.S. Senate publicly stated that he doesn’t see a reason to hold a vote on any gun control proposals because they’re doomed to failure, a coalition of 38 gun control organizations (who knew there were that many?) is demanding that Congress not only vote on, but approve Joe Biden’s gun ban and more.

The gun control activists laid out three demands for the Democratic-controlled Congress, none of which are likely to happen. First, the gun control lobby wants the House to approve spending $750-million on “evidence led Community Violence Initiatives”, which is on top of the roughly $2-billion that was approved in Biden’s “American Rescue Plan”. Just a few days ago the White House even issued a call for these groups to apply for grants because the money is there for the taking. Nancy Pelosi might be willing to go along with this demand, but I doubt there are 60 votes in the Senate.

The second demand from the gun control groups is House passage of “legislation banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines,” which is also going nowhere in Congress. Nancy Pelosi, who put a universal background check bill on the floor of the House for a vote, hasn’t pushed for a similar vote on Biden’s gun ban plan, and while that could change, any bill that would pass the House is going to die in the Senate.

The gun ban fans are also specifically calling on the Senate to “live up to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s pledge to hold a Senate debate and vote on legislation expanding background checks to all gun purchases and addressing the Charleston Loophole,” though oddly they don’t say anything in their demand letter about the Senate voting on Biden’s gun ban and compensated confiscation scheme.

“Following the most recent racist act of domestic terrorism in Buffalo, New York and the increase in gun
violence across the country, we are calling on you to immediately do everything and anything in your power to live up to the promises you make to voters every election year,” the groups wrote in their letter.

The groups also asked the Biden administration to answer the calls of survivors and “establish a White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention in order to expedite the government’s response and issue further executive actions that will save lives.”

“With voters expressing concern about public safety and rising crime, you have a moral and political
responsibility to fight for the safer future you promise Americans on the campaign trail every election season,” the groups wrote.

The White House has resisted that particular demand for well over a year now, and new press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was asked again yesterday about the idea, but was decidedly non-committal in her response.

Q    Further on the issue of guns: Gun prevention groups or gun violence protection groups — prevention groups, rather — have been pressing the White House to start an office of gun violence protection.  Is that something that President Biden is considering, particularly in light of this most recent attack?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So I would have to go back to the team and see if that is something that’s actually on the table.  I have not heard of that.  I could understand why that is being requested or asked, especially what we have been seeing these past — this past weekend.  I just don’t have anything more to share or preview or anything to —

If Jean-Pierre hasn’t heard about the idea, then that means no one in the White House is seriously talking about it, because that particular demand has been made for well over a year. My guess is she knows far more than she was willing to disclose in a press gaggle; namely that the White House has no plans to acquiesce to this particular demand from their anti-gun allies.

I’ll confess that I’m a little surprised that Biden hasn’t thrown the gun control lobby this particular bone to appease them, but whatever internal politics are in play seem to have kept that option off the table. Still, with Congress a dead-end for their anti-gun agenda at the moment (and likely for the next two years as well, begging the White House to help make them relevant is the best option the gun control lobby has left.

Follow the Science, Unless it Leads Where You Don’t Want to Go

Researchers in California have published the results of a study evaluating the effectiveness of so-called “gun violence restraining orders” (a.k.a. “extreme risk protection orders” or “red flag” orders). Assembly Bill 1014, was enacted in California in 2014, and since then, 19 states and the District of Columbia have adopted similar laws.

Authors of the study, Firearm Violence Following the Implementation of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order Law, include Garen Wintemute, the director of the University of California Firearm Violence Research Center and a “key contributor” who helped draft AB 1014.

Very briefly, these laws create a mechanism that allows a family member, police officer, or some other third party (in California, this includes coworkers, school employees, and teachers) to file a petition in court, supported by allegations that the person named in the petition, at some point in the future, poses a danger to themselves or others by possessing or having access to a firearm. If the court is satisfied that there is some potential of future harm, it issues an order authorizing police to take away all firearms the person owns or controls, and prohibiting the person from possessing or acquiring firearms while the order is in effect. The initial court process may be “ex parte” (without any notice to, or an opportunity to respond by, the affected person) or a full hearing on notice. In California, the ex parte order has a minimum duration of 21 days. Once confirmed in a full hearing, the “temporary” order is in effect for up to five years, although orders may be renewed indefinitely.

The researchers examined whether implementation of the California gun violence restraining order (GVRO) law was associated with decreased rates of “firearm assault” or firearm self-harm between 2016 (when AB 1014 took effect) and 2019. They compared the post-GVRO rate of firearm violence in San Diego County (chosen because it had a “high GVRO uptake” or incidence of GVROs) with the estimated outcome in a synthetic control unit (a combination of California control counties weighted to match the firearm violence trend in San Diego, 2005-2015, as closely as possible). The researchers “hypothesized that the GVRO law would be associated with a reduction in firearm violence.”

The results, though, showed that the GVRO law had no impact – “we found no evidence that GVRO implementation was associated with decreased firearm assault or firearm self-harm at the population level in San Diego.” The researchers sought to qualify this result by noting that the findings could be “partially explained by access to firearms through the underground market,” or “could reflect a true absence of association or limitations of our study; further research is needed to determine which of these is the case.”

Continue reading “”

More People Dead as Gun-Control Fails in New York State

Time and again we’ve seen crazy murderers target unarmed citizens in New York City and New York State. A few weeks ago, a black man deliberately attacked white people on the New York City subway. We saw a white teenager deliberately go hunting for blacks and Jews in Buffalo last week. Sadly, the response of New York politicians is the same each time. Despite the extraordinary gun-control laws already in place, New York Democrats think the solution is to disarm more law-abiding citizens. It is hard to look at violence but it is more dangerous to think that more ink-on-paper will keep us safe next time.

Continue reading “”

What he also wants is for the reinstitution of the Obammy era program of listing Veterans and Social Security recipients who get their monthly payments sent to a fiduciary who manages the person’s finances to be entered as a prohibited people in NICS.

In Buffalo, Biden calls for gun control that’s already law and didn’t work

Joe Biden brought his confusing anti-gun rhetoric to Buffalo, Tuesday – a city still grieving the loss of 10 good souls who were cut down Saturday by a hell-bound madman.

Even though most of the victims have yet to be buried, Biden didn’t hesitate to use the solemn occasion as an opportunity to advocate for more gun control, in this case another federal “assault weapon” ban.

“There are certain things we can do,” Biden told the grieving crowd. “We can keep assault weapons off of our streets. We did it before and violence went down.”

Even the FBI has acknowledged that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that Biden referenced, which was a part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, did little to deter or prevent crime.

Besides, New York already has a stringent “assault weapon” ban, as well as every other anti-gun law Biden has ever called for. They’re codified into state law, yet none of them worked.

The mass murderer was not stopped by New York’s SAFE Act, which bans AR-15s and similar weapons. The state’s ban on standard-capacity magazines didn’t stop him, nor did the New York’s mandatory background check requirement or its Red Flag gun-confiscation law.

New York State Police were called to the gunman’s high school last June because he threatened to commit a mass shooting during the school’s graduation ceremonies. He was involuntarily committed to a mental hospital for an evaluation, and was released after a day and a half. However, this did not trigger New York’s red-flag law, which should have stopped him from purchasing a firearm.

Rather than infringing upon the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens, Biden should focus on why yet another mass murderer was “known to law enforcement,” yet no action was taken before he began killing people.

Why New York’s ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban Didn’t Stop the Buffalo Massacre
The problem is not sneaky entrepreneurs who sell accessories; it’s legislators who ban guns based on functionally unimportant features.

The suspect in the mass shooting that killed 10 people at a Buffalo grocery store on Saturday used a rifle that was widely described as an “assault weapon.” With certain exceptions that don’t apply here, that category of firearms is illegal in New York. Yet The New York Times reports that the shooter legally bought the rifle from a gun dealer in Endicott, New York. How is that possible?

It turns out that the rifle, a Bushmaster XM-15 ES, was not an “assault weapon” at the time of the purchase, but it became an “assault weapon” after the shooter tinkered with it. The details of that transformation illustrate how arbitrary and ineffectual bans like New York’s are.

Continue reading “”

Gun Owners Need to Think Like Supply Chain Managers Before the Next Ammo Shortage.

During the two years that COVID-19 has altered American life, we have seen shortages of goods ranging from toilet paper and N95 masks to semiconductors and new cars. The supply chain disruptions that fueled those shortages often followed a general pattern.

  • Unexpected demand caused booming sales for a given product.
  • Retailers and manufacturers depleted their inventories of that product.
  • Supply chain bottlenecks such as temporary Covid-related factory closures or delayed shipments prevented firms from replenishing their inventories, leading to stockouts, rationing, and higher prices.
  • With their resources and options limited, manufacturers and retailers streamlined their offerings, focusing on their most popular products while abandoning niche items.

While gun and ammunition supply chains are unique in some ways, they have experienced many of the same problems and trends seen in other industries during the pandemic.

Below, we examine how gun and ammo supply chains performed in the face of massive demand and outline supply chain principles that will help gun owners prepare for future shortages.

Firearm Supply Chains

Guns

When uncertainty looms, demand for guns surges. Anxiety over election outcomes, civil unrest, and increasing crime rates all fuel demand spikes. In fact, the connection between gun prices and the federal election cycle is strong and predictable enough to be classified as an economic law. But the COVID-19 pandemic raised the bar considerably.

Many gun buyers seem worried that the exponential spread of COVID-19 will lead to a season of hard-to-find essentials — of illness-related disruptions in the grocery supply chain — with angry have-nots out to steal from the haves.

From the Washington Post . . .

Speaking to the Charlotte Observer, a North Carolina [firearms retailer] said, “Our new motto is, ‘Dedicated to helping you protect your toilet paper.’”

The coronavirus, supply chain disruptions, social unrest, federal economic stimulus, and a lockdown-fueled spike in durable goods spending caused unprecedented demand for guns. FBI mandatory background check records dating back to 1998 show that 2020 and 2021 saw eight of the ten busiest days for background checks and nine of the ten busiest weeks. More than 5 million Americans became first-time gun owners between January 2020 and April 2021.

While some supply chains would have buckled under such pressure — particularly during a global pandemic — the American firearms supply chain performed fairly well. Prices rose, but that was inevitable given record demand. And though some retailers experienced stockouts of popular models, they were often able to offer satisfactory alternatives from various domestic and foreign manufacturers. The robust secondary market for used guns acted as a final backstop for buyers.

Ammunition

While consumers were able to buy guns without too much hassle, finding ammunition proved far more difficult. This is a classic example of how fluctuations can be magnified through a supply chain.

Changes in firearm demand cause even larger changes in ammunition sales. Firearms are durable goods that can be passed down for generations if correctly maintained. And though ammunition has a long shelf life if properly stored, a marksman may go through hundreds of rounds with a single gun during a visit to the range, so each gun sale causes demand for many more bullets.

As new and longtime gun owners reacted to the pandemic’s uncertainty by stocking up on hundreds or thousands of rounds — and media reports about bare gun store shelves fanned the flames — ammunition manufacturers could not meet the demand.

Several factors contributed to the ammunition shortage. For example, while there are dozens of American ammo manufacturers, only four produced primers when the pandemic began. With domestic primer production capacity stretched to its limits and a primer shortage serving as a bottleneck to ammo production, some manufacturers began the lengthy process of sourcing and importing European and Asian-manufactured primers.

Manufacturing and shipping disruptions also interrupted the flow of foreign-made ammunition into the country. And while imports of Russian ammo helped mitigate the shortage early on, the Biden administration restricted those imports in September 2021 as part of its sanctions against Russia for the poisoning of Alexei Navalny, a vocal critic of Vladimir Putin.

While the shortage affected all types of ammunition, eventually popular calibers like 9mm handgun bullets and .223 rifle cartridges were easier to find than some of their more obscure counterparts.

This reduction in product variety (so-called “SKU reduction”) is a typical coping mechanism for stressed supply chains. Managers allocate scarce production capacity to their most popular offerings. You have probably noticed this in your local grocery store: while your favorite brands are still on the shelf, fewer sizes or flavors are available.

The shortage was amplified by ammunition manufacturers’ reluctance to invest too heavily in new productive capacity to meet record demand that will eventually wane. Firms in other industries made similar calculations during the pandemic, but few industries have experienced the severe “boom or bust” cycles ammo companies have seen in recent decades.

Executives who saw massive demand during Barack Obama’s presidency give way to a four-year long “Trump slump” know full well that this too shall pass.

Additionally, it is not too conspiratorial to fault big business collusion for the shortage. Two entities — Olin Corporation and Vista Outdoor — own most major American ammunition companies, so it was fairly easy to unify the industry in choosing “market stability” (and high prices) over new and risky investment in production capacity.

Supply Chain Principles for Gun Owners

The pandemic has dramatically raised public awareness that supply chains exist and can be disrupted. While that was not news to longtime gun enthusiasts who have experienced previous ammunition shortages, we will highlight a few core principles of supply chain management that should help all gun owners weather the next shortage, whenever it may come.

  • Flexibility – When the pandemic began, companies who were able to quickly adjust their manufacturing, sourcing, product development, and shipping plans fared much better than their inflexible competitors. During an ammunition shortage, those who own guns of various calibers and those who have firearms with interchangeable barrels that can accept multiple kinds of ammunition are much better positioned than those who rely on a single type of ammo.
  • Demand Forecasting – Retailers and manufacturers plan their yearly operations using demand data from recent years (though that historical data had little value during what will hopefully be a once-in-a-century pandemic). Once the current shortage ends, recent history suggests that demand will go up when a Democrat is president and down when a Republican is in office. Given ammunition’s long shelf life, it makes sense to stock up when low demand drives down prices.
  • Inventory Management – Just-in-time inventory management is a thing of beauty when it works well, as it generally did during the three decades preceding the pandemic. But recent supply chain disruptions have led some firms to take more of a just-in-case inventory approach that involves holding more safety stock. Gun owners may be wise to follow this trend as well, and keep a bit of extra ammo on hand just-in-case.
  • Procurement Diversity – The pandemic has shown companies the dangers of relying on one region, country, or factory to provide key inputs. Similarly, the ammunition shortage shows that it is important for gun owners to build relationships with fellow enthusiasts and multiple shop owners whom they can rely upon when the next shortage hits.

A final principle for gun owners is to adopt a strategy of total quality management—of pursuing excellence at each stage of the supply chain, from gun and ammunition purchase to firearm cleaning and maintenance after a day at the range.

In the end, the purpose of the firearms supply chain is “rounds on target.” This requires excellence in marksmanship, which in turn requires excellence in training and equipment. Higher-order competence in “delivery” cannot exist without competence in the earlier stages of the supply chain: procurement, and inventory management.

Andrew Balthrop is a research assistant at the University of Arkansas Sam M. Walton College of Business. Ron Gordon is a Supply Chain Communications Specialist at the University of Arkansas Sam M. Walton College of Business. Doug Voss is a Professor of Logistics and Supply Chain Management at the University of Central Arkansas.