Cityfox: I'm not sure where to begin. You say, " We study the sex lives of fruit flies because it helps farmers who feed us", yet in truth there isn't a movement to ban fruit flies. Unfortunately, the movement to ban guns is quite happy to manipulate data to produce its desired results. (You didn't address any of the points I made about this "research," by the way.)
As for the number of gun-related deaths in the U.S. in 2015, it is a standard trick of the gun ban movement to combine deaths of different intentionalities in order to inflate the perception of the problem. How many were suicides, for which substitution of other methods is common if guns are unavailable? More importantly, how many are justifiable homicides in which innocents are saved?
To the gun ban movement, saving an innocent life in a defensive gun use is just "gun violence."
It's a pity I didn't see the email asking for an interview for this piece, since either through ignorance or deliberate omission, the piece fails to mention why Congress defunded gun-related “research” by the CDC’s “National Center for Injury Prevention and Control” in the first place.
For reference, I suggest “Guns And Public Health: Epidemic Of Violence Or Pandemic Of Propaganda?” (http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.ht…), originally published in the Tennessee Law Review in 1994 and written by NCSU biostatistician Henry Schaffer, John K. Lattimer, M.D. (Columbia Medical School), George B. Murray, M.D. (Harvard Medical School), Edwin H. Cassem, M.D. (also of Harvard Medical School), and noted attorney/public policy researcher Don B. Kates.
The authors documented how then-CDC director Mark Rosenburg admitted an agenda to make the public perception of firearms “dirty, deadly, and banned.” They also documented not only the extreme methodological flaws but even outright mendacity in gun-related research by Arthur Kellerman, Garen Wintemute, our own Phil Cook and Jens Ludwig (Duke University) and others like them.
Indeed, the authors concluded: “…the anti-gun health advocacy literature is a ‘sagecraft’ literature in which partisan academic ‘sages’ prostitute scholarship, systematically inventing, misinterpreting, selecting, or otherwise manipulating data to validate preordained political conclusions.”
That is exactly the sort of faux “research” being conducted at the Johns Hopkins Michael Bloomberg School of Public Health (funded, of course, by rabidly anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg), and is exactly what Barack Obama and others have in mind – all paid for by your tax dollars.
F. Paul Valone
President, Grass Roots North Carolina
William Campbell: You asked for it, you got it:
"An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates." Mark Guis, Quinnipiac University, Applied Economics Letters, 2014
Vol. 21, No. 4, 265–267, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2013.85…
Although Guis' literature review includes a few studies that postulate increasing violence with gun ownership, Florida State University researcher Gary Kleck's extensive review of such literature concludes:
"To summarize, the only prior research that supports the hypothesis that higher gun ownership rates cause higher crime rates is research that makes at least one, and usually all of, the three fundamental methodological errors identified here. Conversely, research that avoids or
minimizes these flaws consistently finds no support for the hypothesis." (In non-academic terms, that means the researchers supporting gun control often "cook the books." Phil Cook at Duke is a prime example.)
"The Impact of Gun Ownership Rates on Crime Rates: A Methodological
Review of the Evidence," Gary Kleck, Journal of Criminal Justice 43 (2015) 40–48, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.…
While you are quite right in saying that correlation does not imply causation, their is plenty of controlled, multi-variate research to support the hypothesis that gun ownership in general and concealed handguns in particular deter violent crime.
Nice try, but not exactly. It is correct that there is a " general rule that anyone with a permit 'may carry a concealed handgun unless otherwise specifically prohibited by law.'" However, that rule does not derive from HB 937, passed in 2013, but rather from HB 90, our original concealed handgun bill, passed in 1995. I was party to drafting that bill back in 1995, and the language in question comes from NCGS 14-415.23 ("Statewide Uniformity") -- language which became law when *Democrats* controlled the NC Senate under Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight. All HB 937 did was to reduce the number of restricted areas.
Sorry, but you can't blame Republicans for this one.
A couple of corrections to the original article: First, GRNC did not "threaten" to sue Winston-Salem. We filed the suit. It is Childs v. Winston-Salem, CASE NO. 13 CVS 83. After Oct. 1, Winston-Salem recanted and passed conforming legislation, after which we have filed for voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
Second is this gem: "Pre-Oct. 1, it was very clear that you couldn't carry a firearm on a bus in Chapel Hill," said Chapel Hill Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt. "Since Oct. 1, we just don't know if that's true anymore."
And this from a lawyer? It has not been legal to ban concealed carry on public transportation since the law passed in 1995. In its original version, N.C.G.S. 14-415.23(a) said: A unit of local government may adopt an ordinance to permit the posting of a prohibition against carrying a concealed handgun, in accordance with G.S. 14-415.11(c), on local government buildings and their appurtenant premises and parks." In 2011 and 2013, we passed changes which limited their ability to ban concealed handguns in parks.
You will notice, however, that nowhere in either the original language or the revisions in recent years does it list public transportation. Welcome to yet another example of leftists making up the rules as they go along.
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation