News Guaranteed To Upset Antis

Can’t help but chortle when I read the news this morning.

Last year, 1,979 21-year-olds sought a license, as did 1,713 22-year-olds and 1,583 23-year-olds.

More people in their 30s generally seek their CHL than those in their 20s, and more 40-somethings appear to seek their license than 30-year-olds.

But 57-year-olds led the way in 2012, with 3,609 of them seeking a license.

They were closely followed by 64-year-olds (3,588), 53-year-olds (3,576), 54-year-olds (3,562) and 55-year-olds (3,542), the analysis shows.

The top five age groups seeking licenses in the past five years were all similar — and all featured Texans older than 51.

That’s right people; our old folks are leading the way- in record numbers.

And that was before the changes in state law this year.

Earlier this year, lawmakers passed several measures geared to give Texas gun owners more freedom — shrinking the required training time for those seeking concealed handgun licenses, letting CHL holders leave their weapons in parked vehicles on college campuses, even letting Texans renew their CHL licenses online without taking a renewal class.

Wieland said he believes the changes “will serve to increase interest and demand” in getting licenses.


Shorter class times, the ridiculous requirement regarding revolver/semi auto removed, only renewals without proficiency tests; all should make it easier for people to get and keep their licenses.


Statewide, there are more than 580,000 active licenses, with nearly 150,000 of them being issued last year, and Tarrant County has the second most active licenses, according to data from the Texas Department of Public Safety.

And historically the conviction rate of those with Concealed Handgun Licenses has been incredibly low; some where around 0.3% of all convictions — not all people. In 2011, there were 120 CHL holders convicted out of 63,679 convictions. That is with a total state population over 17 Million adults — 0.0007% of the total adult population.


Wonder how much more we have to do before the anti-rights cultists start going into fits?


A Case of Reasoned Discourse ….

…has broken out on the blog Eideard — seems the blogger couldn’t stand a few questions about the Children’s Defense Fund Report calling 19 and 20 year old adults “children”.

Yesterday I was checking new activity through WordPress — they have a nifty feature that pulls up random blogs based on a topic selected. I picked firearms and decided to check out the blog and the numbers. (Emphasis below mine)


That’s just a more dramatic way of stating an already staggering figure – 2,694 in 2010. Most of the report’s 73 following pages are devoted to restating it…

Knowing how likely anti-rights cultists and groups are likely to twist, distort or out right lie; I pulled up the numbers from the CDC Wisqars program for 2010. Visitors have to enter the data and submit themselves, can’t save a search or report unfortunately.

f a person was to go by the legal definition of a child “under 18″ – CDC reports 1,337; less than 50% of the number claimed by the Children’s Defense Fund. And that is all reasons; suicides, homicides, legal interventions, and accidents.  (Click on any image for the full sized version)

In order to come close to the numbers claimed by the CDF; ‘children’ as old as 19 have to be included –2,711.

And left a comment. It was responded to by someone not “Eideard” . Note the 3:06 P.M. time



And I had selected to be notified by email if someone replied — as you can clearly see someone did.

I posted responses to the reply; simply stating that I wonder why anti-rights cultists needed to lie about the numbers and asking if they lie about something so basic, so easily verified, what honor or integrity do they have regarding anything else. Note the 5:10 P.M. Time.



There were two or three rounds of comments made and the last one seemed to have touched a nerve. I asked if we are going to consider under 21 as “children” in this area; should we restrict their rights in others?

Should they be allowed to vote, sign contracts, have abortions. See I really don’t understand how the “medical community” can support the idea that “under 21 is a child” but support 15 to 16 year olds having access to the “Plan B” or “Morning After Pills” or full abortions without parental notification and approval.



It isn’t amazing how some People (*** cough *** Joan Peterson** cough **) keep calling for us to have a discussion but so many on the anti-rights side don’t allow comments to stick around?


Of course who ever deleted the comments was very clumsy about it –makes it seems as if “Moss” is talking to his or herself.


Although I promise I was not rude, crude or socially unacceptable in any manner; my comments were scrubbed clean. Maybe someone else could have better luck over there…have fun if you want but please be polite.

Until then I’ll end with the Question to the Antis — I’m ready to have the discussion, why aren’t you?


 Please join the discussion.



That is the LOW Number

There have been 65,376,373 background checks completed for Americans purchasing firearms since February of 2009, the first full month of Barack Obama’s presidency.

Many states, like Texas, allow those with a Concealed Handgun License to skip the background check process. Plus, there are checks where multiple firearms are being purchased at one time and remember “40% of all firearm sales” don’t have a background check.

Now the antis would have you believe that only people who already own guns are buying all these firearms.   :)  Aren’t they in for a shock when they stop denying reality.


Gun Buy Backs and Defensive Gun Use Numbers

This will come as no surprise to many people:

College Parks is a deeply ailing community, ravaged by a sustained business exodus and white exurban flight. Crime is high and jobs are few, but a gun buyback will do little to overhaul the structural root of the city’s decline and crime.

Federal studies show these programs earn only the participation of law-abiding working class poor, for whom $100 would go a long way in diapers and groceries. Meanwhile, still-armed criminals rule the slumburb.

This is the first I’ve heard of “slumburb” but it is appropriate and is very descriptive.

In a 2004 report, the National Research Council, the analytical arm of the National Academy of Sciences, criticized the theoretical underpinning of buybacks–a necessary consequence of fewer guns is fewer gun-related crimes–“badly flawed” and among the least effective vehicles to stem gun violence.

Empirical evidenced gleaned from buyback programs across the country indicated reclaimed weapons fell into two categories: malfunctioning firearms and inherited weapons from disinterested owners. By contrast, researchers said those gun owners who acquired weapons, either legally or by theft, with the intent of engaging in criminal activity were wholly unlikely to participate.

Wait A Minute here….everyone hold up! You mean actual research has been done and determined that ‘gun buy backs’ are among the least effective method to reduce gun violence. Well call me unsurprised. People who actually study ‘gun control’ issues knew this and have said it for many years.

The report (link here) spells out why gun buy backs are ineffective

The theory on which gun buy-back programs is based is flawed in three respects. First, the guns that are typically surrendered in gun buy-backs are those that are least likely to be used in criminal activities. Typically, the guns turned in tend to be of two types: (1) old, malfunctioning guns whose resale value is less than the reward offered in buy-back programs or (2) guns owned by individuals who derive little value from the possession of the guns (e.g., those who have inherited guns). The Police Executive Research Forum (1996) found this in their analysis of the differences between weapons handed in and those used in crimes. In contrast, those who are either using guns to carry out crimes or as protection in the course of engaging in other illegal activities, such as drug selling, have actively acquired their guns and are unlikely to want to participate in such programs.

Second, because replacement guns are relatively easily obtained, the actual decline in the number of guns on the street may be smaller than the number of guns that are turned in. Third, the likelihood that any particular gun will be used in a crime in a given year is low. In 1999, approximately 6,500 homicides were committed with handguns. There are approximately 70 million handguns in the United States. Thus, if a different handgun were used in each homicide, the likelihood that a particular handgun would be

used to kill an individual in a particular year is 1 in 10,000. The typical gun buy-back program yields less than 1,000 guns. Even ignoring the first two points made above (the guns turned in are unlikely to be used by criminals and may be replaced by purchases of new guns), one would expect a reduction of less than one-tenth of one homicide per year in response to such a gun buy-back program. The program might be cost-effective if those were the correct parameters, but the small scale makes it highly unlikely that its effects would be detected.

In light of the weakness in the theory underlying gun buy-backs, it is not surprising that research evaluations of U.S. efforts have consistently failed to document any link between such programs and reductions in gun violence (Callahan et al., 1994; Police Executive Research Forum, 1996; Rosenfeld, 1996). (emphasis mine)

That report is very interesting to read.  Chapter 5 about Defensive Gun Uses has this to say:

How many times each year do civilians use firearms defensively? The answers provided to this seemingly simple question have been confusing. Consider the findings from two of the most widely cited studies in the field: McDowall et al. (1998), using the data from 1992 and 1994 waves of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), found roughly 116,000 defensive gun uses per year, and Kleck and Gertz (1995), using data from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (NSDS), found around 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.

Many other surveys provide information on the prevalence of defensive gun use. Using the original National Crime Survey, McDowall and Wiersema (1994) estimate 64,615 annual incidents from 1987 to 1990. At least 19 other surveys have resulted in estimated numbers of defensive gun uses that are similar (i.e., statistically indistinguishable) to the results founds by Kleck and Gertz. No other surveys have found numbers consistent with the NCVS (other gun use surveys are reviewed in Kleck and Gertz, 1995, and Kleck, 2001a).

Even at the lowest rate (64,615 per year) that is 12  defensive gun uses per day. But the real shocker is the last two lines.

At least 19 other surveys have resulted in estimated numbers of defensive gun uses that are similar (i.e., statistically indistinguishable) to the results founds by Kleck and Gertz. No other surveys have found numbers consistent with the NCVS

19 other surveys have found results statistically indistinguishable to the Kleck & Gertz study — 19! And not one has found numbers as low as the NCVS!

That means there are around 6,800 defensive gun uses per day folks!!

Wonder what other great nuggets of information are to be found — good thing I can sign in as a guest and download it for free.

Please join the discussion.


Antis, please stop & consider

the numbers.

There were 13.7 million hunters in the United States over age 16 — 12.7 million of whom used rifles, shotguns or handguns for hunting, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

That is quite a few people with proficiency and experience, right?

That means hunters constituted only 15.9 to 18.1 percent of the estimated 70-80 million gun owners in the U.S. in 2011 — the latest year for which statistics are available.

In a Dec. 28 national report, USF&W said 13.7 million individuals over age 16 self-identified as hunters, and that 12.7 million used guns (shotguns, rifles or handguns) while hunting.

Another 2.9 million hunters used antique muzzleloaders to hunt, but according to USF&W, there is overlap between this figure and other figures due to self-reporting.

Around 4.5 million hunted with bows and arrows

But it is just a minor part of the total picture regarding gun ownership.
60 million or more people who own firearms but don’t call themselves hunters; think carefully before you keep saying those people own firearm only good for one thing.

Think carefully before you call the firearms they own “weapons of war”  lest you wish something into existence.

Context is Important

Arguing with the single digit IQ denizens folks over at OneUtah again, where Richard cited study ” Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and
Gun Violence, 1994-2003” (PDF alert).

After using several sections of that report to show the Assault Weapon Ban wasn’t as effective as he claimed, I noticed this part.

Nonetheless, reducing criminal use of AWs and especially LCMs could have nontrivial effects on gunshot victimizations. The few available studies suggest that attacks with semiautomatics – including AWs and other semiautomatics equipped with LCMs – result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more wounds inflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms.

I thought that was really damaging to the pro-gun side of the argument.  But then I kept reading.

Further, a study of handgun attacks in one city found that 3% of the gunfire incidents resulted in more than 10 shots fired, and those attacks produced almost 5% of the gunshot victims.

Yep, 3% of the gunfire attacks with handguns resulted in more then “10 shots fired” - just 3%!

Because offenders can substitute non-banned guns and small magazines for banned AWs and LCMs, there is not a clear rationale for expecting the ban to reduce  assaults and robberies with guns.

Oh, what did that say? No clear rationale for expecting the ban to reduce the number of assaults and robberies — isn’t the Assault weapon ban being sold as a ‘crime control’ measure?

And this might interest those folks in New York State

The few available studies on shots fired show that assailants fire less than four shots on average (see sources in Table 9-1 and Goehl, 1993), a number well within the 10-round magazine limit imposed by the AW-LCM ban, but these studies have not usually presented the full distribution of shots fired for all cases, so it is usually unclear how many cases, if any, involved more than 10

And that is well within the 7 shot capacity limits being pushed now.

Time and time again, we see evidence that the gun control law will not work as they are designed. They will not make a difference enough to justify the restriction on our rights.

Please join the discussion.


Gun Control Theory

Let’s talk about “Universal Background Checks” for a moment. It is one of the most sought after ‘gun control’ laws; requiring everyone who sells a firearm  to get a licensed dealer to run a check through the N.I.C.S.

The anti-rights cultists claim it will reduce the number of firearms in the hands of criminals.

However, McCarthy acknowledged aiming at assault weapons misses the mark when dealing with Chicago’s gang violence. The weapon used is generally a handgun and rarely is it purchased through legal channels. McCarthy wants to target straw purchasing, which is when legal gun buyers will purchase a weapon and then let it loose in the illegal market.

Guess it is like the Underpants Gnome Theory of Profit

But instead of profit we have ‘reduced gun crime’.  The truth is even the anti-rights cultists know it will not stop criminals from getting firearms. In the State of Illinois, there is a de facto universal background check requirement in the form of their Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card.  Of course it doesn’t stop criminals, even the antis admit it.

“You buy ten 9 millimeters, then you walk out the door and you give them to whoever you want,” McCarthy said. “There is no accountability. Then, in a year, we recover your gun in a shooting, you say, ‘well I lost it.’ … That’s the end of it. There’s nothing we can do about it.

That behavior won’t change for those already breaking the law by making a straw purchase. That should be obvious ! And it is to all those not lying to themselves and to America.

The F.B.I. reports there were N.I.C.S. reports there was a record number of background checks last year. How many?


Just in 2012; 19.5 MILLION. I know that number does not represent the actual number of firearms sold* but let’s just use it as a base line for now. And yet less than 8,600 homicides involved firearms. That is 0.044% of total number of checks performed in 1 year.

Since 1998, there have been nearly 120 Million checks (PDF alert) performed through the N.I.C.S. system; that is after taking out administrative checks, checks for carry permits, etc.

So, how does doubling, tripling or more the number of checks stop some thug from getting a firearm?

The truth is it doesn’t. The anti-rights cultists should stop saying it will. There are many things we can do to lower the crime rate. Calling for something that increases costs, hassle and won’t work shouldn’t be one of them.

Please join the discussion.




*Some states require private sales to be approved through the system reducing the number of new firearms on one hand. On the other hand, purchases of multiple firearms can be approved by one check and in some states (such as Texas) those with a license to carry are not required to undergo a N.I.C.S. approval process – so the number is probably low.