Reasoned Discourse: Actual Solutions

I've been active over in the comments at Common Gunsense, a blog run by Joan Peterson, Brady Campaign Board Member. This thread got a bit interesting down in the comments.

At one point, Joan threw this out there:

Come up with some better solutions [to the gun violence problem]. I still haven't heard them.

This was my reply. I thought it was fairly respectful and serious. I am attempting to think seriously about the issue that she poses and engage in some actual discussion.

Then you haven't been listening. I'll spell out some ideas loud and clear:
Crime, suicide, and accident prevention.

CRIME

Stiffer sentences for violent criminals. The majority of your violent crime is committed by a relatively small number of repeat offenders. So, put violent criminals into jails for a long time. Cut back on parole opportunities. It is absurd that in many states, murderers can get out on parole with less than a dozen years served. It is also absurd that in some states, "juvelines" (talking gang-banging 16 year old teenagers who certainly can be responsible for their actions) who commit extremely violent crimes including murder are sometimes treated in the juvenile justice system then
released onto the public to kill again when they turn 18. This proposal works, has a proven track record, and is argueably cheaper than letting the felons back out onto the streets (at least according to the DOJ).

Corollary to Above: Using a Firearm in a Crime is an Aggravating Offense. If you use a firearm to commit a violent crime (actus rea) with criminal intent (mens rea), then the offense automatically bumps up at least one category. A minor misdemeanor goes to a gross misdemeanor. Gross misdemeanors go to felonies. Low-grade felonies become major felonies. Put the violent offenders who use firearms to commit their crimes into prison.

Eliminate mandatory sentences for non-violent crimes. Much of this is related to the "war on drugs." It is crazy that we're filling up our prisons with non-violent offenders that smoked a little weed and paroling violent rapists and murderers.

Legalize marijuana. Much of the violence is related to trafficking in drugs. The fact is that contraband is expensive because it is contraband; as long as the demand exists then if you squeeze the supply it just increases prices and value and thus the lengths that dealers are willing to go to in order to protect their trade. If you
legalized marijunana then it takes a large number of drug users out of the illegal street corner market and puts them into CVS drugstores where they no longer associated with criminal gangs and dealers. Legalization also would bring down prices and move things into legitimate distribution channels which would likely reduce violence. Think about it: during prohibition, gangsters killed lots of people to protect their illegal trafficking in booze. As soon as prohibition was over, alcohol-trade related slayings dropped.

Tax legal marijuana sales and use the proceeds for drug cessation programs. This strategy has worked very effectively with tobacco to reduce smoking. Legalize it, tax it, regulate it, and then educate the people to reduce demand.

Eliminate Criminal Penalties for Laws which have no Mens Rea component. Treat them as Civil cases. If there is no guilty mind (criminal intent), then criminal charges are not necessarily appropriate. Again, we fill up our prisons
with offenders who did not knowingly commit any sort of crime. Civil penalties are more appropriate in this case; you can still get justice with steep fines and other civil penalties without clogging up the prisons.

Consider downgrading many non-violent offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. Right now, it is a felony to mail certain types of flowers, to transport lobsters without the right kind of bag, or to lie to or otherwise hinder the official duties of a federal agent without being under oath (so why do we have perjury, then?). Why are these felonies? Why do many of them apply towards "three strikes and you're out" laws intended to put habitual violent offenders into an already overcrowded prison system?

SUICIDE
- Consider ways to expand Mental Health Services in Stressed Communities. This is getting into the suicide prevention category. You don't prevent suicides by taking away guns (and ropes, and cliffs, and medicine, and knives...). You prevent suicides by providing effective mental health intervention and community support to people who need it. I don't know exactly how to do this as I also have trouble with providing "free" services to everyone (someone has to pay), but I think we can agree on the goal even if the path to get there is unclear.

Encourage Positive Institutions. Strengthening communities, enhancing social capital, and encouraging responsible community institutions like PTAs, faith groups, and others to put down roots should be helpful. I really suggest the book "bowling alone" (Putnam). It highlights the dearth of social connections in many American communities. Social capital (or a lack thereof), unsurprisingly, has a direct link to suicide rates.

Television. One of the biggest killers of social capital is the TV. I don't know how to address media influences, and I'm leery of stepping on the 1A, but the fact remains that TV is often a pernicious influence. I think the real blame lies with ineffective
or absent parenting strategies more than the media but there has got to be some
way to think about addressing media's effects.

ACCIDENTS

Firearms accidents are rare and the numbers are decreasing so this is my last area of concern. I'd prefer to focus on the real problem areas (violent crimes and suicide) first.

I think that education is the best approach to prevent accidents. Why don't we talk about basic firearms safety in public schools, just like the DARE program or driver's ed? I know that you hate Eddie Eagle because the NRA runs it. Fine. Don't use Eddie Eagle. Use another program run by a less divisive organization that has a similar message. How can you go wrong with telling young children:"Stop, don't touch, leave the area, tell an adult?" I mean, you can shoot the messenger (pun intended) but the message seems fairly "common sense" to me. What would you prefer to tell young children? "Pick guns up and play with them while running in traffic?" How about, "Stop, don't touch, hang around and call your friends over to look at it?"

Likewise, for adults, education is still important. Back when we had conscription, many young adults probably got this training in the armed forces but wtih an all-volunteer force, there is no such broad based education regime in place. In high school you could certainly address a few key rules of firearm safety and that would be one way to address the deficiency. Another way would be through hunter's education programs (already done), but those only reach a small audience. Community Policing could be an effective forum; local police officers could teach, support, or sponsor gun safety classes.

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK

Joan's reply was in three parts. I think I'm on thin ice over at her blog, probably close to being banned as was Sean D. Sorrentino, so I'm going to comment her, at my place. After all, it is her blog, her "virtual house," and if she doesn't like the discussion then it is rude to press my point in that particular forum.

Part #1: Happy New Year, Chris. I am not in the mood for your treatise. But thanks anyway. Nothing satisfies you guys. Go enjoy yourself on New Year's Eve as I intend to do and stop thinking about guns as I intend to do.

Interestingly, her most recent post (Dec 31) is this:

On this New Year's Eve, I will be thinking about all of those who have lost
their lives to bullets in the last year. I will also be thinking of New Year's
Eve pasts when people I know or knew lost their lives or their health to
bullets.

So, evidentially her idea of not thinking about guns is to think about people who died because they were shot. Mmmmk.

Part #2: P.S. Chris- are you overthinking everything? For goodness sake. This can be simple. You just seem to have to write volumes about everything and you are one
upping me for every word I say. That does not bode well for future "discussions"
No one wants a smart ^%$$ outdoing them whenever they open their mouth or write what they are thinking. I am a pretty sincere person and I'm here to write for
more people than just you. Your tendency is to dominate the conversation and
kill the topic with way too much information. Keep it simple.

Her criticism here is justified in that my response was fairly thorough and verbose. I clocked it in at just over 1000 words, which is about two pages of single spaced text. A decent sized essay. In my defense, I did break things out into categories with simple, bolded headers so if you wanted to, you could just skim the highlights.

Because she has asked me to, I'll try to be more concise in the future. However, "too much information" is not a bad thing. She is frequently misinformed at best and simply wrong often on many points, including laws which are already in effect (including her group's signature legislation!) and well-known and publicized crime data. She wins if she is allowed to reduce issues to sound bytes ("Evil assault rifles are scary and make people kill cops!") based on information that is simply false. If we can move the discussion to a rational basis grounded in common law and/or criminology statistics, we will win every time.

Unfortuanetly, this makes me a smart ass in her book. Probably grounds for a banning. It is just plain mean to tell someone if they're wrong. If someone consistently says that 1+1 = 3, the sky is orange (not blue), etc, is it really compromise to correct them on the first point then accept the second falsehood?

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Part #3: Again, Chris, to your suggestion ( since I am not publishing
your treatise here) " I think that education is the best approach to prevent
accidents. Why don't we talk about basic firearms safety in public schools,
just like the DARE program or driver's ed? I know that you hate Eddie Eagle
because the NRA runs it. Fine. Don't use Eddie Eagle. Use another program
run by a less divisive organization that has a similar message. How can you
go wrong with telling young children:" We've done that and we do that. What
do you guys think we are doing out there? We often work with other
organizations on the issues you suggest. I remind you again, however, that I
am blogging about and putting my focus on gun injuries and deaths. There are
all kinds or other areas to address. Many groups are out there working on
them and we work with many of them. Just because you don't see it happening
doesn't mean it isn't.

The first chunk there is a quote from me. I'm really confused on this point. Joan is claiming that "we" (the Brady Campaign? Gun Control advocates?) have in the past and currently in the present support accident prevention education campaigns.

However, in the past, on her own blog, she has admitted that she has no interest or expertise in running gun safety classes. The Brady Campaign website has no educational materials for firearms safety; they maintain no instructors that are qualified to teach firearms safety. In fact, the Brady Campaign has looked at Eddie Eagle and his message and found him to be a "Joe Camel with Feathers." They think that the message is ineffective, based on one study from a medical journal. The Brady Campaign then suggests alternative methods to keep kids from getting into accidents with guns:

The cartoon bird provides a kid-friendly excuse to oppose stronger laws that
would keep guns away from children — laws requiring adults to safely store their
firearms out of the reach of children, for example... [The burden should
be on] adults or parents to keep guns out of reach, or on manufacturers to make
sure children can’t fire their weapons...

Children in the United States die from gunfire at a higher rate than in any
other industrialized nation, underscoring the need for gun safety education. But
the responsibility for protecting children from these lethal weapons should not
be dumped on already overburdened teachers and fiscally-strapped school
districts that have limited instruction time. The responsibility belongs to
parents, gun owners, and gun manufacturers.

The Brady Campaign wants safe storage laws -- laws which are ineffective at reducing accidents, unfortuanetly, according to many sources, including pro-gun control research groups. They also want magic technology that doesn't really exist, is unreliable, or is incredibly expensive such as fingerprint recognition on guns to prevent unauthorized users from firing them. They say that we need gun safety education but are refusing to support any sort of meaningful education efforts. Their criticisms are largely unfounded, especially given that the NRA provides grants to provide the program materials and instructors for free; local law enforcement officers wear the Eddie Eagle suit and I really doubt that they are charging for their appearance. There is no burden on schools or other youth groups other than time (admittedly valuable).

The study that "Half Truth" Helmke quotes did find that the Eddie Eagle students still played with guns if exposed to them. However, read their full results summary (emphasis mine):

On the interview assessments, students who received the Eddie Eagle training or the behavioral skills training (BST) performed significantly better than did control students. There was no significant difference between the performance of Eddie Eagle training students and behavioral skills training students.

On the role-play assessment, the behavior skills training students performed significantly better than did the Eddie Eagle training students, who in turn performed better than the control students.

On the in situ assessment, the three groups did not perform significantly differently.

These results indicate that the Eddie Eagle training program and the behavioral skills training program were equally successful in teaching young children how to describe the ideal response to finding a firearm, but that the Eddie Eagle training program was less successful than the behavioral skills training program at teaching young children how to act out this response. However, neither program was successful at teaching young children to use these skills in real-life scenarios.

What this tells me is that at least the Eddie Eagle program is more effective than nothing. It may not be the silver bullet but it certainly doesn't hurt. We also know of at least some anecdotal saves.

The conclusions: Existing programs are insufficient for teaching gun-safety skills to children. Programs that use active learning strategies (modeling, rehearsal, and feedback) are more effective for teaching gun-safety skills as assessed by supervised role plays but still failed to teach the children to use the skills outside the context of the training session. More research is needed to determine the most effective way to promote the use of the skills outside the training session.

So, they have ONE study (and some VPC "Google Research"). What does Eddie Eagle tout to its credit? The NRA website lists accolades. Endorsements by the National Sheriff's Association. SUpport from tens of thousands of law enforcement officers. Favorable reviews from peer reviewed studies. A favorable endorsement from the Clinton BOJ. Endorsed by the Association of American Educators.

So here we have a program that at best is effective and at worst may help a little and certainly does not hurt. Of course, the Brady Campaign hates it. However, Joan's assertion that her group is actively involved in gun safety training is simply not true as far as I can tell. I cannot find a single gun-safety education initiative sponsored by the Brady Campaign. They do not field a single instructor, donate a single dollar to education initiatives, or even speak fondly of any of the many well-regarded firearms training programs in the country. All that I've seen is legislative proposals trying to mandate mandatory adult education prior to even owning guns which is really intended as a barrier to ownership, not as an actual safety measure.

If it weren't for the fact that we're apparently dealing with someone who is handicapped I would be more frustrated. As it is I am kind of befuddled and sad that her reality is so different from mine, and that she apparently lives in such constant fear of police officers and her neighbors. Unfortuanetly her misunderstandings (at best) and blatant falsehoods (worst interpretation) are read and believed by others, and that is the reason I address them. I'm giving up hope that she ever intends to find common ground. That is not her purpose or intent.

The Citizen and the State

In discussing the ATF's latest power-grab -- argueably illegal -- in forcing registration for gun owners in SW states, I kept pounding against a brick wall with Joan Peterson. She is hesitant to admit that the ATF doesn't have the statutory authority to do this, even when confronted with the relevant US Code; in any event, she doesn't care, because she thinks that the executive branch should be able to do whatever it wants on her issue. She fails to see how it is similar at all to GW Bush's warrantless wiretapping (conducted without congressional approval or oversight, argueably in violation of US statutes) or other "excesses" of executive power.

I think this highlights a basic disconnect between her and me.

In my opinion, the citizen is free to do whatever they desire as long as it is not prohibited or evil/infringing on the rights of others. The state, however, may only do what it is permitted.

Apparently many others reverse that and feel that the citizen may only do what is permitted, but the state may do what is not prohibited (and may even do what is prohibited if they really really want to).

In Joan's world is there any check on executive authority other than ever-malleable "common sense?"

Ooops -- Flying with Firearms Fail

A man has been arrested after FBI and TSA officials said his luggage contained volatile gun parts, which caused his bag to explode Tuesday just before it was about to be loaded on a plane.

He was flying with hundreds of primers. That is already illegal, because they are a hazmat substance. It is totally different from flying with complete, loaded ammo which poses very little danger.

What do you bet that this makes good hay for someone who wants to make life more difficult for gun owners to fly, though?

LAPG After XMas Sale

LAPG is having a post-XMas sale with 15% off of everything. There are a bunch of other promos. We managed to swing free shipping on our order as well.

We took advantage of the opportunity to stock up on holsters, a Surefire for the M&P, and some other odds and ends.

I don't have an affiliate relationship or anything with LAPG. I've just been happy with their service in the past. Their prices are competitive (especially if you shop the closeouts) and they have some rocking deals from time to time.

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas everyone!

Over the holidays we are taking a break from blogging. I've turned on all comment moderation for the duration of the holidays. We are going to be travelling a lot, going on some outdoors adventure, and spending time together. There may be a few auto-scheduled posts that go up but expect things to remain slow through the New Year.

Please take a few moments over the holidays to think of those who can't be with their loved ones, whether due to sickness, duty, loss, or any other reason.

Sporting Goods Store Christmas Party

We just found another reason to love Alaska. One of our local sporting goods stores threw a Christmas Eve party. There were platters of munchies including wild game sausages and chili (moose, 'bou, and deer). Delicious! They also broke out the beer and liquor. The place was packed.

Of course, it would make some people faint to think of a sporting goods store full of families including children with booze and shotguns on the racks in close proximity. Heather and I thought it was pretty awesome. Yummy wild critter sausage...

I'd give the store credit but I don't know if they had a food & liquor license so I'll let them remain anonymous. Still, they'll be getting more of my business.

Personal Finance 101: Short Term Savings

Earlier this year I wrote about a simple strategy to stop the bleeding if you are in a bad place financially. As a note, if you like this stuff, I think CNBC's show "Until Debt do We Part" is pretty entertaining. I can't even imagine how some of the people on that show get into the hole that you do...

In any event, today I want to briefly touch upon your short term savings. It is the end of the year and that means that it is a good time to look at your financial situation. DW and I had a "money date" the other day ourselves to look at this. I'm going to assume that you've done some of the stuff I talked about earlier like controlling cash flow and establishing an emergency fund. At this point, you should be sitting on at least 3 months of emergency funds, and maybe 6-12. The question arises: what to do with it?

The goal of your short-term savings should be something like this:
Minimize risks to your capital as well as the risk of inflation while maintaining maximum liquidity.

First, you need liquidity. The entire point of an emergency fund is that you may need to drop $10K on an emergency in a hurry. Next, you're not looking so much for rate of return as much as you're looking for safety of your principal. Your emergency fund does you no good if it is wiped out. If possible, trying to protect your buying power for inflation is good if you can do it.

So, what are your options?

• Checking Account: Ensure that you get free checking. These days that means carrying some sort of minimum balance in most cases. I like to keep at least 2 months of expenses here. That ensures that you never, ever bounce a check, come up short at bill time, and so on. Your principle is FDIC-insured, but usually interest is very poor.
  
• Savings Account: Savings accounts are good for additional months of money. If you can link it to your checking account for overdraft protection that isn't a bad idea. Your principal is FDIC-insured and interest rates are a bit better than checking accounts, which is nice to protect you a bit from inflation. Check to see if you get paid a higher interest rate for having a certain balance and keep your balance above that line. If interest rates are very poor and you are willing to accept some risk (you have adequate insurance, no mortgage, good job security, etc) then you could move some of the money out of savings and into another vehicle.
  
• Separate Account: I keep one month of living expenses in a separate bank account, totally aside from our day to day stuff. This is for me while I travel on the road. If I ever need to tap some funds I can do so here and know that the account hasn't been touched otherwise. This also ensures that if our primary bank has any sort of hiccup then we have some money elsewhere.
  
• Laddered CDs: A CD pays higher interest rates than a savings account but locks up your money for a set period of time. Withdrawing the money often incurs some sort of penalty, like forfeiture of some interest. We personally have four one-year CDs with around a month's living expenses in each. They are staggered so that one CD comes due every quarter. They automatically renew unless we need the money. If we had a drawn out personal financially emergency, then we could just not renew these and use the money to restock our checking/savings accounts. In a sudden emergency, we could break the CD, give up a few months interest, and access the money. This is a great way to get a big higher interest rate while leaving everything on "auto-pilot." CDs are also FDIC insured.
  
• Cash: It isn't a bad idea to keep some cash on hand. Balance the convenience of cash against the risk of loss in the event of a fire, theft, etc. Most insurance policies do not cover large amounts of cash over ~$200-400.
  

Not-So-Good-Options:

• Money Market: These accounts theoretically pay a higher interest rate. However, these days they are not paying more than most savings accounts. They are also not FDIC-insured. I keep one open as a "slush fund" that is used to hold money before transferring it into mutual funds but I think it is a poor place for your emergency fund given today's market conditions. If interest rates opened up then money markets might be a better deal and it could be worthwhile to slide some money from savings or CDs into a money market.
  
• Short Term Bonds: A fund such as Vanguard's Short Term Bond Index is in theory less subject to the impact of changing interest rates. High quality bonds are also less volatile than stocks. However, given the low rate of return in bonds these days and the principal risk incurred, I don't like these for emergency funds either. They may have a part in your investment portfolio but I don't think they are good for your 100% safe stash.
• Precious Metals: Precious metals are not liquid. They also have downsides in an inflationary situation; any sort of paper gains that are due only to inflation will be taxed at the very high "collectibles" capital gains rate. Poor liquidity plus poor performance in inflationary situations make these less than ideal for most typical emergency funds.
• T-Bills or State Bonds: Similar to bonds. These may be advantageous if you live in a high-tax state because the interest is tax deductible.
• I-Bonds: I-Bonds or TIPS are treasury securities that are indexed to inflation. They theoretically provide great protection against inflation and good preservation of principal. They are somewhat less liquid than a traditional savings account though. You must hold them for a year, and if you hold them for less than five years you pay a 3-month interest penalty. If you could set up a ladder as with CDs they might work out ok.
  

To summarize, personally, I think you can feel pretty good dropping your dough like this:

• Everyday Free Checking: 2 months expenses
  
• Linked Savings: 2-5 months depending on interest paid and if bonus interest is paid for higher amounts
  
• Separate checking/savings accounts at different institution: 1 month
• Four laddered 1 year CDs coming due quarterly: 1 month
• Cash: 1/4 to 1/2 month

That gives you 9-12 months of emergency money which is fairly accessible. About 1/2 is available on very short notice. If necessary, you can break the CDs to get access to the whole thing all at once. Everything is FDIC insured except for the cash. The laddered CDs do a good job of mitigating inflation risk because they're basically dollar cost averaging an investment at a higher rate than your savings account will pay. If I was in a high tax state I'd consider swapping the CDs for state or muni bonds that paid out tax free interest.

The bottom line is that if all your emergency funds are sitting in a checking account, you may want to reconsider how you have them set up.

Happy holidays!

Quote of the Day - Mass Shootings a la Joan Peterson

I maintain- this is an opinion- that a shooter doesn't much pay attention to whether or not there are armed people in the place of their shooting destination.

One paragraph later:
So perhaps it is true that most mass shootings happen where guns are not allowed. To me that does not matter.

So... To follow Joan's logic, the shooters don't care where they go. They select their targets irrationally. However, for some reason, most mass shootings happen in places where guns are not allowed. How is that possible? Are places where guns not allowed for some reason more likely to be high-crime locations that mass murderers go to anyways? If that is the case, why are similar facilities in places with different gun laws prone to different degrees of mass shootings?

For example, there aren't many mass shootings in schools in Israel. Why do multiple victim shootings go down in states that pass concealed carry laws? Why isn't there blood in the streets (well, Chilis and Red Lobsters) of states that pass restaurant carry?

Her tortured logic is honestly difficult for me to follow. Try restating her argument in a different context.

I maintain- this is an opinion- that a drunk driver doesn't much pay attention to whether or not there are traffic cops in the place of their driving destination.

One paragraph later:
So perhaps it is true that most drunk driving happens where traffic cops don't patrol. To me that does not matter.

Interestingly, she also notes that mass shooters are not going to be deterred by any law. So why pass them if they only affect people that do not intend to commit crimes?

A Conversation about Hunting

Tonight I had dinner with someone from Europe and a vegetarian. At one point during the evening, hunting came up. I didn't bring it up -- although I did mention fishing -- because it isn't polite to bring up contentious, disagreeable subjects.

The European -- who had just enjoyed a nice big Factory Farm hamburger -- basically said, "I don't like hunting. I saw it on TV and immediately changed the channel. It was ok when we needed to hunt for food but not anymore." I just replied, "When my wife and I hunt we use all of the animal. We cook all the meat and then turn the bones into stock for soup. Heather has made jewelry out of the fur and feathers."

The European initially didn't believe this was possible. Interestingly, when I pointed out that it was the law in Alaska to salvage all the meat, they were more ok with the idea (as if the law and the State's approbation is more important than the ethic or the actual behavior...). I kept trying to change the subject to something more polite and was allowed to after also pointing out that we like to use fresh, local ingredients whenever possible instead of buying expensive imported food that's raised in terrible conditions and transported enormous distances to eventually show up on our shelves in Alaska.

I think that most people are aware on some level about how ugly factory farming is but they don't like to acknowledge it. They don't want to think about where their food comes from, period. When most people want to not think about something as fundamental to daily life as the origin of their daily bread that makes you wonder... I still enjoy a good hamburger myself but I know full well where it is coming from and I'm definitely of mixed feelings about its pedigree.

Not posting much

Posting has been light lately. I've been crazy busy at work, travelling, and we're getting ready for Xmas with all the holiday shopping and wrapping and mailing. Plus, given that we're involved in the arts, the holiday season brings lots of concerts to attend and such.

Plus we're trying to find some time for fun in the snow. Went snowshowing for snowshoe hares recently. It was my first time on snowshoes and I really enjoyed it. Looking forward to a longer trip soon. Also looking forward to ski season!

Most of my blogging energy has been tied up arguing with Joan Peterson over at Common Gunsense. I'm really heartened by the fact that she is one of the sharpest minds the Brady Campaign has. Her lack of knowledge about her group's signature initiatives, issues, and legislation is staggering. She really doesn't even understand the Brady Law (named after her group). It makes me feel better that she is the best they've got.

Guam & Guns

Here's some info on Guam & Firearms. I looked into it a bit while I was there for a few months. I had thought about bringing a rifle to do some hog hunting but it was too much trouble. This started out as a response to Brent over at JaPete's blog but I moved it over here.

The Organic Act

Regarding Guam, you can start your search wtih the Organic Act (http://www.justice.gov.gu/compileroflaws/GCA/OrganicAct/Organic%20Act.PDF).

This is the law that transferred the island from status as essentially a colony of the US Navy to the Department of the Interior. It grants some limited self-governance rights. Unlike the US States, which are theoretically sovereign, equal partners, and guaranteed rights under the Constitution, Guam and its residents derive their protections only from US code (i.e. some elements of the Constitution don't apply). It is telling that the Organic Act includes a bill of rights with freedom of speech, quartering of soldiers, and so on. The only major right missing is any sort of Right to Bear Arms.

Prior to the Organic Act: Life Under the US Navy

Before the Organic Act, when Guam was essentially run by a US Navy Commander/Governor, private firearm ownership was verboten. I remember going to the Nat'l Park Service WW2 museum on the island. They had a display that pointed out how difficult it was to arm a spur-of-the-moment militia of Guam-anians on the eve of the Japanese invasion in 1941.

The Guam defenders’ total arsenal were three machine guns, four Thompson submachine guns, six Browning automatic pistols, fifty .30 caliber pistols, a dozen .22 caliber regulation rifles, and eighty-five Springfield rifles. Most of the weapons were of World War I vintage. Imprinted on the Springfield rifles were labels with the following notation: Training Purposes Only
http://guampedia.com/wwii-from-occupation-to-liberation/

Why have so few arms on such a strategic patch of real estate? I think that this policy makes sense. Before WW2, the indigenous people of Guam weren't thrilled to be ruled by an autocratic military governor from far-away America. How does a small military force which is culturally and ethnically different from the local residents maintain order and ensure compliance? Hint: it is not by encouraging the locals to own lots of firearms! If you're trying to run a colony, then it is usually best for the Governor and his forces to have a monopoly on effective weaponry.

Modern Times

Guam's current laws are pretty strict. Owners are licensed ($52 every three years). Guns are registered ($40/each). I didn't really feel like paying a hundred bucks to go hunting with a gun I already owned.

The registration requirement is kind of a joke though as they give you a 30-day grace period after arriving on the island to register the gun. Before you do so, all they know is what is on your customs form. I guess it makes the government feel better that they Know where all the guns are but it seems trivially easily to traffick the gun in that 30 day period.

The violent crime rate on the island is something like ~2500 per 100,000 residents (i.e. way higher than the national average in the US mainland). The Street Violence Task Force seizes around 30 illegal guns per year, but they say, "fragmented intelligence information supports the view that guns are being illegally transshipped from Guam to foreign countries." I.E., they know they're not interdicting all of the guns smuggled in.

Interestingly, there are a ton of (overpriced) shooting ranges that cater to Japanese tourists. Japan has very strict gun control and the tourists apparently get a kick out of shooting at the range.

I didn't investigate the firearms crime rate or sources or anything. I don't live there and didn't bring a gun once I figured out how much it would cost. I really found the origins of the gun control policies on the island to be most interesting; I was a history major so I spent a lot of time trolling around the WW2 sites and museum.

It was not a promising test case for the License & Register argument, though, IMHO, although I admit that is based more on subjectively looking at the police blotter in the Sunday paper than on breaking down the statistics.

Connecticut: Law Abiding CCW Permit Holders?

I've been commenting over at Joan Peterson's blog a lot lately. I keep coming up against a brick wall with them over the issue of concealed carry permit carriers and their likelihood of committing crime. I often hear that "we don't have any data because the NRA conceals it," and if there is data, it is "not enough." Even though we have decades worth of data from many states published on the internet, and every other state has a FOIA law on the books so you can ask for aggregate statistics...

Every single state I've looked at shows that CCW permit holders are somewhere about 1/15 to 1/5 as likely to commit a violent crime as the average citizen of that state. These are back of the envelope calculations meant to get a handle on the scope of the issue -- for example, I usually use the total population of the state rather than just the population over the age of 21, and I don't control for gender or other potentially significant variables. However, those biases would work in favor of my argument, i.e., if I calculated the average state's crime rate using a smaller pool of just adults it would make CCW permit holders even more law abiding by comparison.

Thought Experiment for those who don't believe me:
A town has 4000 people, 3000 of whom are adults. 10 violent crimes occur there. 10 / 4000 = .0025 crimes per resident. 10 / 3000 = .0033 crimes per adult. This known bias in the numbers just helps me make my case...

I just found one state with extremely high revocation CCW rates: Connecticut. They revoke about 10% of their permits every year. Connecticut is known as a "reasonable" may issue state, meaning that authorities may deny or revoke a permit for essentially arbitrary reasons. It is also a drawn out process taking ~60+ days to get one. Here's the data.

I thought that 10% was very high so I started digging. The top reasons for revocation were related to domestic violence, crimes, and "unsuitability." Let's investigate, shall we?

• Domestic Violence: About 2/3 of the permits are revoked because a restraining or protective order has been issued. In Connecticut, a restraining order can be issued by a judge based solely on an application. No arrest needs to happen and no crime needs to occur. This local newspaper article talks about how restraining orders are on the rise for frivolous things like preventing the in laws from visiting. The CT post concludes that most are thrown out:

Between Jan. 1 and March 31 of this year there were 2,079 applications for restraining orders statewide, but only 261 applications were granted following a hearing.

Unfortunately, the post didn't look at how many restraining orders are handed out ex parte, i.e., without a hearing. Out of 2,079 applications, 261 were issued after hearings and 1,085 issued without hearings. This seems to be a trend; in all of FY09, 7519 applications were placed, 5,190 issued ex parte, and only 2803 after hearings. The state has identified this as a trend in the past. The Connecticut Judicial Branch writes:

According to the Judicial Department’s legislative liaison Stephen Ment, nothing is being done to stop frivolous requests for restraining orders. Courts rely on the application for an order and the testimony of the parties involved when determining whether to issue it.

In any event, the number of restraining orders issued in Connecticut is on the order of 7500 per year. There are 2,709,082 individuals over the age of 18 in CT. That gives a rate of 277 restraining orders per 100,000 adults. Compare that to the rate among CCW permit holders (172 / 44,912): 383 per 100,00. Higher, but in the same ballpark (i.e., not an order of magnitude off). I have a feeling that once you adjust for gender -- most CCW permit carriers tend to be male, after all -- then the numbers will be similar. They certainly aren't orders of magnitude off!

• PROTECTIVE ORDERS: In CT, Protective Orders are stricter versions of restraining orders that can be issued by a judge after an arrest. So, the legal standard raises from "your application makes sense to a judge" to "probable cause," which is what is required for an arrest. This is actually the largest category of CCW revocations, 535 in 2009 for a rate of 1191 per 100,000 CCW permitees. In the general population there were around 29,005 such orders issued in a year, for a rate of 824 per 100,000 adults. Again, slightly higher than the "typical" adult, but definitely not off by an order of magnitude or more.
  
  
• UNSUITABILITY: This is the third largest category for revocations. It basically means, "any local official felt that you didn't need a permit for any reason." I can't really think of a category to compare permitees to in the regular population, as there aren't statistics kept for "individuals who don't suck up to the local selectman." I haven't been able to find any sort of strict legal standard for what defines "unsuitability."
  
  
• CRIMINAL CHARGES: The smallest major category for revocations account for around 20% is pending criminal charges. In the last five years, the highest number of revocations for this reason was 231 in 2006 for a rate of 514 charges filed per 100,000 CCW permit holders.
  
  How many of the crimes involve firearms?
  
  Interestingly, CT does not break out the type of criminal charges filed or whether a gun was used in the commission of a crime. Luckily, there are some figures from a 2009 OLR study. I counted the following crimes which involved permittees. The first number is the number of convictions + plea bargains; the second number is the number of charges brought; the third is the percentage of convictions. I added all the data from 2002 to 2007 then divided by 6 years to get an average; most of the categories have very low crime rates so the year-to-year numbers can swing wildly, unlike the other figures I've pulled from larger pools.
  
  - Violate Pistol Permitting Requirements (0.8333 / 4.3 = 19%)
  - FAIL TO SURRENDER REVOKED PERMIT TO CARRY PISTOL OR REVOLVER (0.166 / 0.5 = 33%)
  - FAILURE TO CARRY PISTOL PERMIT (1.33 / 6.333 = 21%)
  
  There are many other offenses which may or may not involve permit holders. For example, it is impossible to know from the statistics I've found how many of the 34 charges for carrying while intoxicated (6 guilty, all others not guilty...) were CCW permit holders. In any event, the guilty conviction/plea rates are all quite low, less than 1/3 in almost every category. For the sake of argument though, and to get some sort of number, let's look at the number of A, B, and C felonies committed with a firearm:
  
  - USE FIREARM TO COMMIT A CLASS A, B, OR C FELONY (CGS § 53-202k) (6.33 / 27 = 23%).
  
  If we assume the absolute worst case, that 100% of these felonies were committed by CCW carriers, we get a crime rate of 12 felonies involving firearms per 100,000 CCW permit holders. That compares to 273 violent crimes per 100,000 people. In fact, I think that at least some and probably the majority of those 12/100,000 gun felonies involve unlicensed carriers; "carrying pistol without permit" is one of the most common gun crimes listed, actually.
  
  The conclusion that I would draw is that almost none of the charges filed against permit holders are probably not for violent felonies involving firearms.
  
  If we assume a conviction rate of 50% (pretty high), then the crime rate could be as high as 257 crimes per 100,000 permittees.
  
  How does this number compare to the average population?
  
  Reminder -- 514 charges filed per 100,000 CCW permitees; Less than 12 violent felonies per 100,000 CCW permitees (probably significantly less)
  
  I couldn't find a good number for the number of charges filed in CT in a given year. I was able to find these numbers, however:
  2005 Total Offenses Reported per 100,000 Pop (Bureau of Justice): 2852 (includes property crime)
  2005 Violent Crime Reported per 100,000 Pop (IBID): 273
  2005 CT Crime Index, including violent crime and serious property crime per 100,000 population: 2914
  2009 CT Number of Arrests, All, per 100,000 population: 3942
  
  
  

CONCLUSIONS

The first thing that jumps to mind is: "Why is CT's revocation rate so high?" A revocation of 10% is literally a hundred or a thousand times greater than observed in other states. I tried to break down the data to answer that question.

Permit holders are issued restraining and protective orders at rates slightly higher than the average adult in CT (approximately 20% greater). However, I was unable to control for gender. Given that permit holders tend to be male, and males are more likely to be issued restraining orders, if you could control for gender the difference would probably become insignificant.

Opponents of "shall issue" must grapple with a two-pronged dilemna here:
- Case 1: CCW Permitees are more likely to be issued a restraining order than their peers. In this case, one must ask why the restrictive and selective "may issue" regime in CT is so ineffective at weeding out possible abusers. You must either think that Connecticut gun owners are unusually predisposed to domestic violence compared to their peers in other states and that the selective permitting process is holding back a flood that would otherwise be disastrous... or you must find that the "may issue" permitting process doesn't do much to weed out abusers.
- Case 2: CCW Permitees are as likely or slightly less likely to be issued a restraining order than their peers. In this case, then you can say that CCW permitees appear to be no more abusive than the average and are possibly even better behaved.

I think that the high revocations due to restraining/protective orders has more to do with how CT handles this than anything else. The standard for issuing a restraining order is very low, requiring nothing more than an uncontested application by the plaintiff and a judge's concurrence (which is usually given ex parte). Likewise, for a protective order, all that is required is probable cause, which is also a low burden. Because police are allowed to seize firearms in the home and revoke CCW permits when an arrest for domestic violence occurs, and because they know who the gun owners are, they may even be more likely to err on the side of putting someone into custody so as to be able to seize the guns.

As far as criminal charges go, the record is clearer. First off, very few of the protective orders -- derived from arrests -- appear to lead to any sort of criminal charges. In fact, the total rate of criminal charges filed against gun owners is much lower than the average statewide crime rates. Admittedly, I could not easily compare oranges to oranges; conviction rates for the gun owners were not readily available. But an estimated rate of less than 257/100,000 convictions for the CCW'ers compared to almost 3000/100,000 pop looks pretty good!

Finally, I think that "unsuitability" is unassessable as it is based on the arbitrary whims of unaccountable local officials. Who knows what permits are being revoked for.


SOURCES:

http://www.jud.ct.gov/statistics/prot_restrain/Prot_Restrain_Order.pdf
Domestic Violence in CT (Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Library)
The Protection Order Registry: A LEO Guide
CT Uniform Crime Report
US Census Bureau

Not Pets

When animals lurk in the daylight and start carrying off pets in broad daylight maybe it is time to remember that we're tool using monkeys.