U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights to hold hearing on Stand Your Ground Laws

From Roll Call:

Trayvon Martin’s mother will be a featured witness at a Senate hearing on “stand your ground” laws next week. . . .
Martin’s mother Sybrina Fulton is scheduled to testify along with Lucia McBath. Her son, Jordan Davis, was shot and killed last year in the parking lot of a gas station in Jacksonville, Fla. . . .
[Other witnesses include]
William Meggs, State Attorney, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, Fla.
Ronald Sullivan, Clinical Professor of Law, Director of the Criminal Justice Institute, Harvard Law School
John Lott, President, Crime Prevention Research Center
Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow, CATO Institute

Read More

This is pretty scary: In Australia police will soon be able to search for guns without a search warrant

Well, if they really "know" who are the bad guys, it would seem easy to get the warrants that they want.  From the Sidney Morning Herald:

NSW Police will be able to stop and search people, cars, bikie clubhouses and "criminal dens" for guns, without a warrant, under legislation to be introduced into parliament this week. 

Under the changes, police would be able to stop and search anyone who had been banned from owning guns without a warrant, even if there was no cause for suspicion, Premier Barry O'Farrell said. "The changes mean officers can also search their cars and their premises for firearms." 

Fewer than 70 people in NSW are subject to a firearm ban but the new laws would make it easier to increase the number, Mr O'Farrell said. Penalties will rise from 10 to 14 years for possession or supply of illegal weapons. 

Police Minister Michael Gallacher said the laws would enable police to target known people. "It will give police the ability to target people they know are involved. . . .

Read More

Chicago ends gun registry, some notes on the debate and what the registry achieved

Something no one addresses is how many crimes have actually been solved as a result of the registry.  When I was in Chicago I couldn't get to the police department to point to a single example where the registry had solved a crime.  From the New York Times:

. . . Chicago’s City Council voted to make the change on Wednesday, modifying the municipal code to comply with a new state law that will make Illinois the last in the nation to allow people to carry concealed weapons in public. While the city’s strict bans on assault weapons and gun dealers remain, the loss of control over its own registry, in effect since 1968, was another setback for gun control proponents — this time in President Obama’s hometown, in a state run by Democrats. 

“This is an ongoing battle and struggle to make sure our laws reflect the safety our residents need,” Mayor Rahm Emanuel said at a news conference on Wednesday, expressing disappointment with the “concealed carry” state law. . . . 

the gun registry database in Chicago, which contains more than 8,000 gun owners and about 22,000 firearms . . . . 

In the end, legislators enacted a law that gives full control of gun licensing to the Illinois State Police, abolishing Chicago’s gun registration and firearm permit requirements. Other changes included a block on new assault weapons bans, though Chicago was one of a dozen cities and villages to tighten restrictions during a 10-day grace period. 

Richard A. Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said Chicago’s gun registry was unnecessary, nothing more than a bureaucratic headache for residents who wanted to protect themselves. . . .

I have no trust in the University of Chicago Crime Lab, but here is a little more detail from the Chicago Tribune.

There are now about 8,650 Chicago firearms permit holders who have registered around 22,000 firearms, according to Mayor Rahm Emanuel's office. That's compared with the roughly 150,000 Chicago households the University of Chicago Crime Lab estimates currently have guns. . . .

If just 5.8% of households that have guns have them legally in Chicago, how do we make sense of this statement in the New York Times piece?

“There’s no scenario where this makes the jobs of police easier,” said Jens Ludwig, director of the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab, about having to repeal the registry. . . .

Here is another discussion on the recent changes in Chicago's laws.  From the Chicago Tribune:

. . . The latest changes also would eliminate the requirement that guns in a home be locked up or secured with child-safety locks. But remaining in place is a requirement that those steps be taken when someone younger than 18 is in the home, unless the owner is carrying the weapon. 

Vandermyde took issue with that too, saying state law requires those steps only when a child younger than 14 is in the home. He also said state prosecution can occur when the gun is accessed by the minor and great bodily harm or death occurs, while city ordinances allow prosecution just for not securing the weapon. 

Another point of contention, albeit one that is unlikely to come up much in the city, is the distance from a dwelling unit where hunting can take place. In state law, it's 300 feet. In the city, it's 750 feet. 

The city had modified its gun registry three years ago to require that all handgun owners get a permit. That move followed a U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the city's handgun ban, which had in place since 1982. 

Also Monday, the council's Public Safety Committee endorsed a measure that would toughen penalties for the illegal possession of a firearm within 100 feet of transportation facilities. A first offense would carry a minimum $1,000 fine and up to six months in jail. . . . .

Read More

More on Wikipedia's errors/biases, an example of how the discussion on Alawites is apparently biased for political reasons?

My friend David Friedman has a new post on his website that notes:

The Wikipedia page says that they "follow a branch of the Twelver school of Shia Islam," and goes on to add that "Alawite beliefs are kept secret for outsiders, even for non initiated Alawites. Therefore many rumours about their religious beliefs have arisen," but says nothing about what those beliefs are.  

With a little searching, however, I found quite a detailed account on another web page. I do not know  if it is accurate, although my guess on internal evidence is that it probably is. If so, it sounds as though their beliefs deviate from Islamic orthodoxy as much as Muslim beliefs deviate from Christianity and probably more than Muslim beliefs deviate from Judaism. They apparently believe that Ali was some sort of incarnation of God, reject the Koran, and believe in reincarnation for males but not females. 

Which makes me wonder whether the absence of information in the Wikipedia page reflects a successful attempt to defend the identification of Alawites as Shia in support of Assad's alliance with (twelver Shia) Iran. . . .

At the very least, it is additional evidence that one should be very careful before trusting anything on Wikipedia.

Read More

Remember Paul Krugman's attacks on Germany's economic policy, comparing it to Germany in the early 30s? Now read this

Remember Paul Krugman's attacks on German "austerity" in his pieces in 2010 and later?  Well, fortunately, Germany didn't take his attacks seriously.  Now with Germany's elections approaching, we see stories in places such as the Washington Post noting this:

Merkel, who is favored to win a third four-year term next week, has benefited from Germany’s strong economy and low unemployment.
That’s even truer in Bavaria, the tradition-minded homeland of retired Pope Benedict XVI and also a high-tech and industrial center, where nearly 9.5 million people are eligible to vote. Its jobless rate is just 3.8 percent, the lowest of any German state and well below the national average of 6.8 percent.
At his pre-election rallies, Seehofer has described Bavaria as “the gateway to paradise.” . . .

Read More

Talk at "Lincoln/Reagan Dinner to be held Sept. 25" in Carroll County, Maryland

It should be a fun talk.  

The Lincoln/Reagan Dinner, hosted by the Carroll County Republican Central Committee, will be held at 6 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 25, at Martin's West, Jermor Lane, Westminster.
The speaker will be John Lott, author of "MORE GUNS LESS CRIME." The cost is $80 per person or two for $150. Reservations are required.
For information/reservations, call James E. Reter at 443-985-6361; 410-875-2748 or email jreter0155@aol.com.

Read More

Major problem solved by Obama: He moves to end outrageous discrimination by movie theaters against blind and deaf

It is about time.  I don't know how previous presidents let this go on without ending outrageous discrimination against the blind by movie theaters.  Surprise, some movies theaters will probably be put out of business.  From The Hill newspaper:

The Obama administration is nearing completion of a proposal to require that movie theaters offer technology so blind and deaf people can go to the cinema. 

The draft rule, which is part of a decades-long effort by advocates for people with disabilities, would likely require thousands of movie theaters across the country to offer devices that display closed captioning and provide audio narration of what’s happening onscreen. 

Disability associations say that the new regulation will make sure that blind and deaf people can appreciate the latest blockbuster just like everyone else. 

But theater owners worry that a federal mandate will force small, rural and struggling theaters to close given the costs associated with the rule. . . .

The upcoming proposal from the Justice Department is expected to require that a certain percentage of the more than 40,000 movie screens across the country offer headsets that provide a running commentary of visual action for the blind, glasses that display closed captioning for the deaf or other devices to explain what’s happening onscreen. . . . 

By definition this fails the cost-benefit test.  The question is what the blind would have been willing to pay and whether that would have been larger than the cost of providing these services.  If they were willing to pay enough, we would see these services.  Since none exist, they must not be willing to pay enough. 

Here is another way of thinking about it.  Suppose you gave all blind people an amount of money equal to cost of providing this service.  What are the odds they would spend it on going to movie theaters?  My guess is that only a small number of recipients would spend it on movies.

Read More

Seriously? The "Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder"

I have gotten a number of emails about a study in the American Journal of Public Health entitled: "The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010." 

I don't have time to do more than glance at this paper, but here are some very superficial initial thoughts.

1) Using state level data the study claims a positive relationship between the percentage of suicides committed with guns (they call this the gun ownership rate rather than what it actually is) and the firearm homicide rate.  The big problem with their measure of gun ownership is that it picks up a lot of demographic information that may itself be related to homicide and to crime.  

2) Do we care about total murders or murders involving guns?

3) "None of the existing panel studies examined data more recent than 1999."  Presumably this is what is causing some left wing outlets to claim "Largest Gun Study Ever" (at last glance the link to that article was retweeted 1,077 times).  The authors seem completely unaware of the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime that looked at data up through 2005 -- six years longer than they claim.  Of course, my research also started with 1977, not 1981 as they did.  Of course, I have also used county and city level data and have many more observations than they have.  My research has run regressions with up to 96 times more observations that the 1,000 that they point to in this paper.  While I account for hundreds of factors, these guys account for almost none (6 in their final reported model (23 unreported in bivariate estimates -- meaning just running one of these variables at a time in explaining firearm murder rates).   It would be nice if Mr. Zack Beauchamp was notified that these authors are apparently unaware of any of my research since "1988" [sic] (they couldn't even get the year right for my first edition of MGLC).

4) No explanation is offered for why they leave Washington, DC out of their regressions.  I can offer one: it weakens their results.

5) Only a very small percentage of the prison population are there for murder.  Possibly a percent or two in any given year.  Do changes in the share of the prison population for larceny or burglary really help explain a lot of the variation in murder rates?  A more direct measure would be the arrest rate for murder and/or the number of people in prison for murder and/or the death penalty execution rate.

6) "To develop a final, more parsimonious model, we first entered all variables found to be significant in bivariate analyses (we used a Wald test at a significance level of .10) into 1 model. We then deleted variables found not to be significant in the presence of the other variables, assessing the significance of each variable with a Wald test at a significance level of .05."  -- The problem here is that the resulting statistical significance levels don't mean what these authors seem to think that that do.  The levels of significance for a regression assume a random draw.  If you 23 specifications and then pick the variables that are significant, the variables that you are picking were picked in a biased manner.

7) Six variables is what they finally include in their "Final Model."  Leaving out variables that affect the murder rate will cause the other variables to act as a proxy for these left out variables.  This gets back to my point (1).

8) Even if all these issues were dealt with, they have completely ignored the issue of causation.  Is it increased crime that results in more guns or the reverse?

Read More

Unions to meet with Obama today to push for changes in Obamacare

The big question is whether Obama will use taxpayer funds to bailout the unions.  From Fox News:

President Obama plans to meet face-to-face with labor leaders Friday to try and quell their opposition to Obamacare, as Republicans warn that the administration might offer a sweetheart deal to give their workers extra health care subsidies.
But while labor leaders hear out the White House, state-level union bosses are on their way back from the national conference of the AFL-CIO, and they've got a message for state lawmakers and Congress:
"We want changes to Obamacare."
At this week's national conference of the AFL-CIO, an umbrella group for dozens of labor unions, union leaders approved a resolution formally calling for changes to the Affordable Care Act. The AFL-CIO said it's concerned about the affordability and accessibility of health insurance under Obamacare, and also worries that workers' hours may be cut back as an unintended consequence of the law.
In short, the AFL-CIO shares many of the same concerns opponents of the health care law have been raising for a long time.
But the AFL-CIO . . . was among the biggest advocates for the ACA when it passed Congress in March 2010. . . .

Read More

What those who put out salary data for college graduates don't tell you

Are the higher salaries for people from the Naval and Military Academies due to the quality of the schools or the quality of the students?  For example, might it be that the students who go to those schools are driven to work harder or is it because they are smarter?  Indeed, that point applies to salaries for all these top schools.  Often it is only those students who are driven who can make it into these top schools, but that extra drive might help them earn more anyway.  Unfortunately, the type of numbers shown below don't deal with those issues.  From the Wall Street Journal:

Top Schools, Median Starting Salary 

1. U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis ($77,100) 

2. U.S. Military Academy at West Point ($74,000) 

3. Harvey Mudd College ($73,300) 

4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology ($68,600) 

5. California Institute of Technology ($68,400) 

6. Colorado School of Mines ($66,700) 

7. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology ($65,100) 

8. Stevens Institute of Technology ($64,900) * 

8. U.S. Air Force Academy ($64,900) * 

10. Thomas Jefferson University ($64,400) 

Top Schools, Median Mid-Career Salary 

1. Harvey Mudd College($143,000) 

2. U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis ($131,000) 

3. California Institute of Technology ($124,000) ** 

3. Stevens Institute of Technology ($124,000) ** 

5. Babson College ($123,000) 

6. Princeton University ($121,000) 

7. U.S. Military Academy at West Point (120,000) 

8. Brown University ($119,000) + 

8. Harvard University ($119,000) + 

8. Stanford University ($119,000) +

Read More

Jay Leno on Syria and the REAL reason the unemployment rate has fallen

Leno's discussion about the reason for the drop in the unemployment rate is right on.

Read More

Corruption: Hillary Clinton's 2008 got secret $608,000 donation from man connected with another corruption case

Thompson is deeply involved in the same type of scandal in DC in which he funneled under the table large amounts of money to Vincent Gray's DC Mayor campaign.  From the Washington Post:

Thompson allegedly paid Troy White, a New York marketing executive, more than $608,000 to hire “street teams” to distribute posters, stickers and yard signs beginning in February 2008 to help raise Clinton’s profile during her primary battle with then-Sen. Barack Obama, according to the documents and interviews with several people familiar with the investigation. 

A search of federal campaign records found no evidence that Thompson or White disclosed the alleged expenditures or activities to the Federal Election Commission, as required by campaign finance laws. 

The new accusations came to light when White pleaded guilty Wednesday to a misdemeanor tax charge, becoming the latest Thompson associate implicated in a far-reaching investigation that has explored the businessman’s alleged secret role in funding political campaigns. . . .

Read More

So much for Arctic being ice-free in summer by 2013

From the UK Daily Mail:

A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent. 

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013. 

Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores. . . .

Read More

"Chicago bans [permitted concealed handguns] guns in restaurants that sell liquor," why their concerns are misplaced

Chicago wants to make it very difficult for people to use guns defensively.  By limiting where people are able to carry their guns, they hope to prevent people from being able to carry generally.

Below is a map that will soon be out dated.  Illinois and North Carolina will soon allow concealed carry in restaurants that serve alcohol.  But with all these states that allow concealed carry in restaurants, can anyone point to real problems any place?  No.

From Fox News:

Forced to weaken one of the nation's toughest gun-control laws, the Chicago City Council clearly signaled it wasn't backing down on Wednesday by banning concealed weapons in all bars and restaurants that sell liquor -- and noting that attorneys were ready to fight the anticipated legal challenges. 

State legislators were forced by a federal appeals court in July to adopt a law allowing residents to carry concealed weapons in Illinois, the only state that still banned the practice. The resulting state law largely stripped city and county officials of their authority to regulate guns, which especially irked officials in Chicago, where residents had to apply for concealed-carry permits through the police chief. 

Aldermen reluctantly watered down that ordinance on Wednesday, but then approved the gun ban for bars and restaurants. They took turns defending the new ban and issued a lightly veiled challenge to gun-rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association. 

"Bullets and booze don't mix," said Alderman Edward Burke, one of the sponsors of the ordinance. "For those of you who might be worried about the expense of defending this when the NRA sues, as they've threatened to do, (a Chicago law firm) has agreed to represent the city to defend this matter on a pro bono basis." . . .

Read More

Obama's CEA hides impact of the Affordable Care Act on part-time workers by looking at wrong time period

Betsey Stevenson, who is with the Obama's Council of Economic Advisors and also Justin Wolfers' wife, has this claim:

New data out today in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Monthly Employment Report show that of the increase in employment since the Affordable Care Act became law, more than 9 out of 10 positions have been full-time. . . .

So how is this consistent with my previous post that "96 percent of net jobs added this year have been part-time jobs"?  There is a simple explanation.  They are looking at the change in jobs since March 2010.  My discussion was clearly only about the changes that have occurred this year.  To me it doesn't make much sense to look at the change over the entire period because many of the regulations didn't start for years.  For example, what if that the change was due to the employer mandate?  But that regulation was not supposed to go into effect until the end of this year.  Given that firms apparently preferred full-time workers for these jobs, there is no reason to expect them changing the jobs from full-time to part-time so far in advance.  Obama's economists don't really explain why they expect noticeable changes to occur 3.75 years before the employer mandate.

Just to remind people of the pattern in full-time and part-time jobs this year.

Read More

Newest piece from National Review Online: "Democrats knew what they wanted in Colorado, but they overreached"

From the beginning of my piece:

Two weeks ago, the Washington Post declared the recall elections of two powerful state senators in Colorado a national “referendum on guns.” Indeed, the defeat of state-senate president John Morse and fellow state senator Angela Giron will cause some Democrats to rethink their push on gun control. 

But of course, many Democrats have reacted by shrugging off the results. Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has dismissed the losses as the result of “voter suppression, pure and simple” (orchestrated by the National Rifle Association and the Koch brothers, of course). Mark Glaze, executive director of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, predicted that the victory by gun owners would be short-lived at best and that gun-control legislators would take comfort in knowing that his group “will have their back.” 

In reality, it is hard not to appreciate what was accomplished. The difficulties facing the recall were overwhelming: . . .

UPDATE: Even the some people who support gun ownership at the Daily Kos have a useful discussion of some of the false claims about the recall election.

UPDATE: Here is Angela Giron's continued attempt to claim that she lost because of voter suppression (available here)

Read More

New piece at the Daily Caller: "No, Obama’s judicial nominees don’t have unusually long confirmation times"

My piece starts this way:

Sparks will likely fly today during Robert Wilkins confirmation hearing to the prestigious D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, or as President Obama calls it, “the second highest court in the country.“ Adding fuel to the fire, when Wilkins was nominated in June President Obama claimed that Republicans were “cynically” engaging in “unprecedented“ obstruction of judicial nominations. Further, Democrats keep threatening to change Senate rules, doing away with the filibuster for judicial nominations, if they don’t get their way. 

Obama is hardly the first president to complain that his nominees are discriminated against. During the Clinton administration, Attorney General Janet Reno accused the Republican-controlled Senate of an “unprecedented slowdown” in confirming new federal judges. During George W. Bush’s first term in office, Republicans, such as Senator Orrin Hatch, complained of “inexcusable” delays. . . .

Read More

France: Trying to figure out a way of exempting soccer clubs from having to pay the 75% income tax for their best players

The UK telegraph has the back-and-forth on how to get around the tax for the soccer teams available here.  The funny thing is that everyone in France understands how the high tax will drive out the best soccer players, but they seem unwilling to accept that it will drive away the best businessmen.  

Pierre Moscovici spoke after warnings from the head of France'sprofessional football league, Frédéric Thiriez that the "crazy tax" would see France "lose its best players" and cost first division teams 182 million euros (£154 million).
"We are looking at different views on this issue, but it's true that we have football clubs which are in a fragile financial state," he said.
The 75 per cent tax – a key electoral promise of President François Hollande – has already sent several Gallic public figures, including star actor Gérard Depardieu, running for fiscal cover. . . .

Read More

Liberal Democrats Amazed by the contradictions in Obama's Foreign Policy

My favorite contradiction was that we should not be the world's policeman, but that we have to do something and can't look away.  Dana Milbank at the Washington Post:

He promised that it would be “a limited strike” without troops on the ground or a long air campaign, yet he argued that it was the sort of blow that “no other nation can deliver.” He argued that “we should not be the world’s policeman” while also saying that because of our “belief in freedom and dignity for all people,” we cannot “look the other way.” He asserted that what Bashar al-Assad did is “a danger to our security” while also saying that “the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military.” . . .

John Harris at Politico:

This led to perhaps the most disingenuous line uttered by either Zig or Zag in the 16-minute speech, with the president claiming that he had asked Congress to postpone the vote that he earlier requested authorizing use of military force in Syria in order to let the latest diplomatic moves play out. But just a minute earlier he had asserted that a main reason diplomacy was gaining traction was because of the “credible threat of U.S. military action.” Presumably, any further diplomacy would be even more effective if Congress sent a message that it was giving Obama all options to act if the talks fail. The more plausible rationale for congressional delay is that the administration would lose the vote if it took place now. . . .

Read More

13 School Districts in Arkansas had been using to employ teachers, administrators and staff as armed security guards

The Arkansas Board of Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies will hopefully receive some feedback from the citizens of Arkansas regarding their meeting today (501-618-8600).  From Fox News:

 A state board is to consider whether to permanently revoke licenses that some Arkansas school districts had been using to employ teachers, administrators and staff as armed security guards. 

The Arkansas Board of Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies on Wednesday is scheduled to review the licenses that had been issued to 13 school districts classifying them as private security firms.  

The panel in August had suspended the licenses after a legal opinion was issued by the state's attorney general that the schools could not use the licensing law to arm staff. . . .

Read More