Yes, well compare who’s running Congress and the White House now to who was in control after Newtown . . . Gun stocks decouple from gun massacres
Gun stocks often rise on the heels of well-publicized gun violence, but it isn’t happening after yesterday’s horrific events in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Shares of such companies as Sturm Ruger, American Outdoor Brands and Vista Outdoor all are down in Monday’s mid-day trading.
Keep pushing the rock up that hill . . . Why Congress Has Done Nothing on Guns
(Representative Charlie) Dent, who is retiring at the end of next year, said that he’s still committed to bump-stock legislation even if his more conservative colleagues are not. “There are just a lot of members who believe that any change to the law as it relates to firearms is tantamount to allowing the camel’s nose under the tent,” he told me. “I don’t abide by that.” Dent said he believes the majority of his constituents support the ban, even though they don’t contact him in the same numbers.
Ultimately, that dynamic—the disparity between the number of Americans who support more regulations and the number who lobby Congress and base their votes on limiting regulations—is what advocates of gun control are trying to flip. “We know that we have the vast majority of Americans on our side on this issue,” Brown said. “What has to happen, though, is they need to become as vocal about this issue and as active on this issue as the small minority is on the other side.”
How many more would Kelley have killed if Stephen Willeford hadn’t shot him? . . . The ‘Good Guy With a Gun’ Is a Useless Myth
First things first: the “good guy with a gun” narrative, at least as the facts currently stand, doesn’t seem to fit here. The deadly shooting at the church was already over. A staggering 7% of the tiny community’s population had been either killed or wounded, and the gunman was leaving the church when the resident grabbed his own rifle to fight back. There’s no telling what Kelley’s further plans were, but our hero Texan was, unfortunately, too late to do much good for those in the church.
More broadly, as Stanford researchers reviewing nearly four decades of crime data found in a study published in June, the myth of a good guy with a gun stepping up in a moment of crisis doesn’t hold water. Over time, more people carrying guns has just meant more gun crime.
Criminals always find a way . . . Trump says extreme vetting on guns wouldn’t stop mass shootings
President Donald Trump said Tuesday that extreme vetting of U.S. gun owners would have made “no difference” to the Texas church shooting.
Speaking at a joint press conference alongside South Korean President Moon Jae-in in Seoul, Trump was asked by a reporter whether he had considered extreme vetting for U.S. citizens seeking to buy a gun. He replied: “If you did what you are suggesting, there would have been no difference three days ago.”
No. Next question . . . Is Gun Violence Contagious?
“We found that a substantial fraction of the gun violence was better characterized as this endemic, non-random clustering rather than as an epidemic, contagious, diffusing process,” he says.
Effective use of this information requires implementing problem-solving tactics with a better chance for success, place-based interventions that target features of a neighborhood rather than those aimed at individuals or groups, the researchers say. For instance, the greening of vacant lots or hotspot policing that puts resources toward watching crime clusters rather than toward a generic patrol.
Right now, the researchers don’t know whether the results hold up for other locales, but say they plan to find out.
America’s gun homicide rate was 33 per million people in 2009, far exceeding the average among developed countries. In Canada and Britain, it was 5 per million and 0.7 per million, respectively, which also corresponds with differences in gun ownership.
Americans sometimes see this as an expression of deeper problems with crime, a notion ingrained, in part, by a series of films portraying urban gang violence in the early 1990s. But the United States is not actually more prone to crime than other developed countries, according to a landmark 1999 study by Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins of the University of California, Berkeley.
Rather, they found, in data that has since been repeatedly confirmed, that American crime is simply more lethal. A New Yorker is just as likely to be robbed as a Londoner, for instance, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to be killed in the process.
Works better than Ambien:
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) November 6, 2017