David Hemenway curses the darkness . . . Fight the silencing of gun research – “Yet the US government, at the behest of the gun lobby, limits the collection of data, prevents researchers from obtaining much of the data that are collected and severely restricts the funds available for research on guns. I have watched this first-hand, being one of a half-dozen or so gun researchers in the United States who has continuously published in this field over the past two decades. During his presidency, Barack Obama made little headway in addressing the US gun problem. From 2013, Congress continually blocked his attempt to provide the principal public-health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), with funds to support firearms research. Overall, his accomplishments were minor — administrative tweaks to improve the background-check system used to determine whether someone is eligible to purchase a firearm, for instance.”
Buy guns over tobacco . . . Better Buy: American Outdoor Brands Corp. vs. Altria – “The alcohol, tobacco, and firearms industries often get lumped together as “sin stocks,” and both American Outdoor Brands (NASDAQ:AOBC) and Altria (NYSE:MO) have delivered solid, impressive returns for longtime shareholders. However, both companies face constant challenges from opponents of their respective products, and changing trends can push their stocks in and out of favor. For investors looking at the space now, the big question is which stock makes a smarter choice. By looking at American Outdoor Brands and Altria using a number of key metrics, you’ll get a better idea of which one you should look to add to your portfolio.”
Hornady match ammunition – “We carefully select every component to ensure uniformity, then load to exacting specifications to provide pinpoint accuracy. Each cartridge is loaded with either Hornady ELD Match, A-MAX, or our high-performance boattail hollow point bullets. Stringent quality control ensures proper bullet seating, consistent charges and pressures, optimal velocity and repeatable accuracy.”
4 children shot at north Harris County apartment complex – “Deputies were called around 10:30 p.m. to the Parkwood at Cypress Station Apartments in the 500 block of Cypress Station for reports of a shooting. Investigators said there was an argument between the group of children, ranging in age from 12 to 16, and another group. Someone pulled out a gun and started shooting, deputies said. At least 10 shots were fired, according to investigators. A 16-year-old girl was shot in the head, deputies said. She is in critical condition. Three others suffered non-life-threatening injuries, deputies said. A boy, 13, was shot in the hand. A 15-year-old boy was shot in the shoulder and a 16-year-old boy was shot in the face.”
Windy City ‘gun violence’ by the numbers . . . Inside the Algorithm That Tries to Predict Gun Violence in Chicago – “Gun violence in Chicago has surged since late 2015, and much of the news media attention on how the city plans to address this problem has focused on the Strategic Subject List, or S.S.L. The list is made by an algorithm that tries to predict who is most likely to be involved in a shooting, either as perpetrator or victim. The algorithm is not public, but the city has now placed a version of the list — without names — online through its open data portal, making it possible for the first time to see how Chicago evaluates risk.”
Docs beat GLOCKs . . . Florida declines to appeal decision striking down ‘docs versus Glocks’ law – “After six years, health care providers scored a major victory Monday when Florida officials declined to appeal a federal ruling striking down the so-called ‘docs versus Glocks’ law. In 2011, Florida lawmakers passed a bill which prevents doctors from asking patients about guns. Since then, a federal court invalidated several parts of the law. The National Rifle Association supported ‘docs versus Glocks,’ which put several restrictions on doctors and other health care professionals.”
Correlation? Causation? Both? Neither? . . . Gun violence rises in Peoria as more guns stolen and seized – “The recent uptick in gun violence on Peoria’s streets has followed a familiar trajectory: as temperatures rise, so do incidents of gunfire. But Peoria Police Chief Jerry Mitchell on Friday pointed out a different correlation during a press conference convened after the number of shooting victims reached double digits, with one fatality, in a one-week time frame. So far this year, 76 firearms have been reported stolen after residential or vehicle burglaries in the city, a roughly 27 percent increase from the average. And officers have confiscated 144 guns, more than double the number two years ago.”
Do you have the prettiest gun?
AlGORErithms in Chiraq…they were practically crowing today “violence is down”. NINE less homicides than a year ago. And it’s HOT. Pick up the dindu’s. Problem solved?
“Barack Obama made little headway in addressing the US gun problem.”
Um, what gun problem are we speaking of exactly? From my point of view, there are no gun problems. Just people problems.
Like people who want to take away our guns and/or make it impossible to acquire or use them. Or people who use guns as a tool to lord power over others and/or victimize those who are unable to defend or stand up themselves.
You know… in my head all I heard was…
“Wah wah wah, those rubes refuse to give me their tax dollars so that I can sit on my ignorant and pompous ass while “researching” shit I’m not even qualified to discuss.”
The sad part is that worthless SJW scumbags like the alleged “doctor” are sucking up grant money better spent on actual science. If we dumped all the cash we spent on watermelon “climate science” into hard physics research, we’d probably have self-sustaining fusion by now. I say defund every SJW field and make those worthless commies do some actual work for a change.
He isn’t a medical doctor, he is a PhD, some of whom insist on being addressed as “Doctor.” My father in law had a PhD as well in biostatistics, was even the dean of the School of Public Health, but he refused to allow people to address him as Doctor. So that tells us something about Hemenway and his ego.
Now on the other hand. Dr. Wintemute at U.C.Davis is an actual E.R. physician and a supposed “gun violence” researcher who just tapped the California State till for $5 million, an amount I am certain will be renewed when he spends what they’ve given him. Given his past history, he will undoubtedly recommend further restrictions on guns and gun ownership as a “public health” necessity, as he is one of those who firmly believes that “more guns leads to more gun violence.” Maybe David is jealous and thinks he should get public funding too?
So a sawbones and a commie studying criminology. How quaint.
F.Y.I. I am quite familiar with douchebag PhDs getting too big for their britches. I point out that I made more money at 25 than most of them do at 45. That, and the fact that every member of my family has a PhD, except me. I work for a living.
Hemenway is not a criminologist, he is not a psychologist, & he is not a sociologist. Hemenway’s PhD is in economics, he teaches public policy at the Harvard School of Public Health. In all of his “research” he has shown a significant level of researcher bias in his methodology and conclusions. His conclusion run counter to over 50 studies on the same subject spanning over 40 years.
Dr. Kleck’s study showed just the opposite results. Dr. Kleck teaches criminology and is is the David J. Bordua Professor of Criminology at Florida State University, started his study with the belief that guns were not useful in stopping or preventing crime. His study convinced him he was wrong. Dr. Kleck’s study was peer reviewed by Dr. Marvin Wolfgang, “who was acknowledged in 1994 by the British Journal of Criminology as ‘the most influential criminologist in the English-speaking world’, commented on Kleck’s research concerning defensive gun use: ‘I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. […] The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.’ “
If Hemenway holds a phd in econ, I’ll take that as prima facie evidence that he is more qualified to do statistical research than almost anybody who holds a degree in social science or medicine.
The fact that he doesn’t publish statistically credible research strongly implies that his research is deliberately fraudulent, not ignorant.
Claiming a PhD in economics qualifies you to research criminology is like claiming a PhD in military history qualifies you to research nuclear physics.
What’s wrong with Mr. Hemenway, did Uncle Bloomie tighten the purse strings? Or are our tax dollars “mo’ betta”?
Is it just me? The little redhead with the red lipstick really creeped me out.
Maybe parents let her wear lipstick in the effort to make her feel pretty. Pretty girls have pretty guns
You are over thinking this?
“The little redhead with the red lipstick really creeped me out.”
Same here, and then it hit me.
She’s on track to being a ‘Prosti-Tot’, a Jon Benet Ramsey clone.
I guess I’m getting old, because I think its wrong slutting up a 5-year-old child.
Sexualizing a kid that young makes me wonder what’s going on in their parent’s head.
Parents doing that to a kid that young are sending the wrong message to their kid…
Meanwhile, back in California, the Assembly passed a budget trailer bill that, among other things, increases the prohibition on the possession of firearms to people who are merely ACCUSED of felonies and disqualifying violent misdemeanors. As a trailer to the budget, it avoided the usual legislative committee process and went straight to a floor vote. The bill also adds to the prohibition on open carry to specified (and in theory small) unincorporated areas of the State. Last but not least, it includes a provision extending the time to register newly designated “assault weapons” (because the Department of Justice has been quite tardy in preparing the required regulations for the law’s implementation) and also more money to do what should be a fairly simple task–if that task hadn’t been massively complicated by the proposed regulations, regulations that far exceed those put in place when the original “assault weapons” ban and registration period went into effect 17 years ago. The bill now proceeds to the Senate, where it also faces a high probability of passage. Sadly, I don’t think that Brown has a line item veto.
“…increases the prohibition on the possession of firearms to people who are merely ACCUSED of felonies…”
Will that stand up constitutionally?
In the 9th circus? Are you kidding me? Until Trump orders most of them stood up against a wall and shot, the lefty activist judges will continue to pretend that they have authority they granted themselves.
Against wall is too good for ’em.
Wouldn’t a helicopter ride be more fun?
I wonder how much one of those big-assed Russian heavy transport helicopters rents for by the day…
EDIT – In other Russian military news, Comrade Putin is moving military gear to the North Korean border:
There were LOTS of guns bought over the last 8 years … that means there are more guns per household … and that probably means, on average, there will be more thefts of a gun per unit burglary than there were 8 years ago, simply because any given house now has better odds of having a gun in it. I wonder how well that 27% matches up.
According to the chart here (https://www.allenbwest.com/analytical-economist/these-five-charts-destroy-liberal-arguments-for-stricter-gun-control) the number of guns per person in the US went from around 1.25 in 2008 to around 1.45 in 2014. That’s an increase of around 0.033 guns per person per year (okay, who’s been slacking?) and so we would expect around 1.55 guns per person today, more or less, if the trend continues. Or, that’s an increase of – wait for it – 24% from 2008.
Depending on when that “average” came from, well, it sounds just about as one might expect to me.
Not that I care overmuch, really. I just wonder about the context of things like this.
Politicized “research” isn’t scientific at all because the very methodology that is supposed to be used in the search for truth is deformed and used for political purposes. The result is propaganda which—even when presented in the name of science—can only pretend to be science. Or to put things more bluntly: just having a bunch of letters after your name doesn’t make you a scientist.
Hemenway is not a scientist, he teaches public policy at the Harvard School of Public Health.
Back was when I was naive enough to believe some of the Democrats’ talking points, I thought the Republicans and the NRA were just afraid of what truth the CDC and other groups would uncover if they researched guns.
Now, having seen how both sides operate, I’ve changed my tune. As Hemenway himself indicates, he’s already reached his conclusions on the subject. Nothing’s stopping him or the CDC from following facts to whatever truth they might illuminate — they simply don’t want to take the chance that the result won’t support the presupplied narrative. It’s a damn good thing Congress has barred them from wasting public money on eroding the public’s civil rights.
“It’s a damn good thing Congress has barred them from wasting public money on eroding the public’s civil rights.”
You are correct here.
Most people don’t know that the CDC is allowed to, and continues to do, research on “gun violence.”
The ban is on such research geared towards gun control.
IOW, the research must be unbiased.
A-ally ways and
So if 76 is 127% of baseline, that means an increase of 16 guns stolen. If 144 is “more than double” what was previously confiscated, that’s at least 73 more guns taken off the streets. So that’s a net change of at least 57 fewer guns on the street. So they’re saying that when you take more guns off the street, crime goes up?
I’d wager that your simple math could not be done by more than 5% of journalists.
Secondly, those 5% will be too busy interviewing people about how they feelz about all those scary guns and posting it to their FB page so they can get more Likes and signal their virtue.
Of course, not all guns confiscated are stolen, so your figures aren’t right.
There are many reasons to confiscate a gun, and not all guns that are confiscated are kept or destroyed or sold by the city; many are returned after whatever problem is cleared up.
Many years ago, I had a .375 magnum “confiscated” by the Scottsdale police, after I shot a dog. It was returned the next day. (It was a “righteous” shoot, BTW)(The dog’s owner’s girlfriend thanked me for shooting the dog!)
Any algorithm trying to predict future violence that does not factor in the presence or absence of a full time father is probably ignoring the most important predictor.
Under Democratic policies in big cities over the past 50 years the presence of black fathers has declined approximately from about 80% to 20%. Oh boy what could possibly be the reason behind angry, wild, young black men?
Actually they weren’t forbidden to do research, they had their budget docked the amount of their total budgeted gun research after refusing do “sociological research” to use the Kelermann Study background data.. to ferret out who among the “relatives through aquaintances” Actually was doing the shooting and getting shot. They were wondering if as seemed likely the household knew the name of the enemy gang members sent to shoot up the household.
The CDC even continued to refuse after the NRA offered to pay for the research.
If the CDC wants to have money back all they would have to do is do the research.. even if they have to as the money to do this first.