JustOneMinute

Wednesday Outrage

I guess the Dick's Sporting Goods decision to end the sale of something or other from all their stores is a big deal. Their media statement is hazy:

We will no longer sell assault-style rifles, also referred to as modern sporting rifles. 

The NY Times headline refers to assault-style rifles but the body refers to 

"all AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles"

In the specific context of Dick's Sporting Goods that may be a distinction without a difference. For comparison I checked Cabela's website - they have very few semiautomatic rifles that are not described as 'tactical'. Most of the SA rifles there have a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, so by the 2013 proposed AWB that makes them assault rifles. 

That said, this Browning BAR MK 3 DBM is neither an AR-15 nor adorned with scary military features. However, if you don't respect the firepower of a semiautomatic rifle with a ten round magazine filled with .308 Winchesters, well, you are probably an editor for the NY Times dreading the impact of a .223 round from an AR-15.

A consumer backlash is inevitable.

House Democrat Offers "Assault Weapons" Ban

The Washington Examiner is hazy on the DOA House assault weapons ban but here we go:

House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons

Misleading - the bill prohibits the sale of some cosmetically-enhanced SA weapons.

The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Again, misleading. It would be honest and clarifying if the Dems would just try to ban SA rifles and pistols. It would surely lead to staggering Dem losses across rural Blue New England and doubtless elsewhere and we could all see where the nation stands.

So yeah, but no - the actual text of the bill revives the 2013 Feinstein effort, which emphasized detachable magazines and at least one "military" feature. By way of contrast, the 1994 bill disallowed more than two features, and specifically cited bayonet mounts, which may not have been PR genius.

In any case, here is the House, 2018:

And Sen. Feinstein from 2013:

 

This has been hashed and rehashed but for what might be the last time - can some of the experts jog my memory and explain to me the possible enhanced lethality contributed by any of these cosmetic features?

I get limiting magazine capacity as a real safety issue. Obviously, one wonders about enforceability since there are plenty in circulation and a decent machinist could make more.

Let's also note that plenty of mass shootings would not have had a different outcome. For example at Va Tech (IIRC and I bet I do) the shooter used handguns with ten and fifteen round magazines; the commission concluded a magazine limit of ten would not have saved lives.

I can see where a folding or collapsible stock might aid concealment, although I can't recall a shooting where concealment was emphasized as a factor. I also read in some hunting magazine (NOT the kind of magazine we are limiting here!) that the collapsible/adjustable stock makes a rifle easy to share amongst family members of differing sizes - dad and child, hubby and wife., whatever. Or as a weapon of war!

I feel confident that banning grenade launcher mounts won't be saving lives, but do correct me as appropriate.

As to the barrel shrouds and forward grips my guess as to the added danger is that a shooter won't need to worry about grabbing a hot barrel and can re-aim the gun in a very Rambo, shoot-from-the hip fashion (Avoidance of burned hands get mentioned in the 1994 bill).

Is that a plausible thought process, or do those barrel shrouds just look too much like something from a Schwarzenegger film or Miami Vice? Couldn't a shooter who has taken the time to get a gas mask, tactical vest and multiple magazines remember to pick up a glove for his non-shooting hand? Or would that make re-loading magazines too cumbersome?

Last thought - damn, the phone rang and now I'm hoping that last thought was no big deal. Huh...

Who Would Answer The Bell?

I love Donald Trump:

President Donald Trump said Monday that he would have run into the deadly Feb. 14 Florida high school shooting "even if I didn't have a weapon."

The president again found fault with officers who didn't stop the Florida gunman who carried out the massacre earlier this month, telling 39 of the nation's governors at the White House that the deputies "weren't exactly Medal of Honor winners."

He added, "I really believe I'd run in there even if I didn't have a weapon" and vowed to turn the nation's "grief into action" following the mass school shooting that killed 17 students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

You can't say Trump lacks for confidence. But would he run to the sound of gunfire? Oddly, I was at the gym the other day pondering that very question and running down the list of Presidents and contenders in my adult lifetime. Who among them would have run into MSD HS? Let's give them something like youth (sort of 30-50 years old), a weapon, and a bit of training to prepare mentally for the effort.

My guesses:

Gerald Ford: top football player, served in the Navy, leader. Automatic.

Jimmy Carter: It's rare for me to say something nice about Mr. Peanut but he was an Annapolis grad and a Southern boy so I don't see him backing down from a scuffle.

Ronald Reagan: Former lifeguard, no real military, strong sense of showmanship - Near Automatic.

Walter Mondale: I haven't thought about him in decades and won't start now.

Bush 41: Are you kidding? Young naval aviator, shot down twice, stud athlete. Automatic.

The Duke: He was a plus athlete in high school, delayed Harvard Law School to enlist and serve in Korea, and I know some fierce Greeks. I'd bet him behind Reagan, but high.

Bill Clinton: Oh, brother. The draft dodging doesn't bother me much - why should a young man fight a war the top leadership doesn't plan to win? So, Slick's a hot-tempered Southern boy with no military or athletic resume, whose sense of duty didn't extend to keeping his hands off the interns while he pushed his political agenda. I'll score him a Definitely Maybe.

Bob Dole: The guy was a war hero with a sense of service, so I have him as Automatic.

Al Gore: Not a fan so I'll put him in the 'Who Knows?' category. (Yeah, a 1-10 scale would be easier to follow. As someone once told me, hindsight is 50/50.)

Bush 43: Grew up in Texas, good HS athlete, rugby in college, no military (OK, other than his military. Didn't the TANG come up in 2004? I'd Rather forget). He's a Bush, so the noblesse oblige is there. I'd put him up with Reagan.

John Kerry: Again, not a fan, but Waffles did not lack for physical courage in Vietnam. As long as there wasn't anyone to discuss it with and no pollsters to consult I think he would probably do the right thing.

John McCain: Are you kidding? He wouldn't need a gun. If the shooter were smart he'd throw his gun down and his hands up. Probably get a beatdown anyway. I'd bet McCain big.

Barack Obama: If there was a red line I doubt Barry would cross it; if a debating society formed outside the school as shots rang out, Barry, Waffles and Wild Bill would be in it. Yeah, with Fat Al. Put him in "Who Knows?".

Mitt Romney: Strong sense of duty, high confidence, strong leadership skills, not an athlete but still - I would be stunned if Mitt did not do the right thing. Reaganesque!

Hillary Clinton: My goodness, she tried to join the Marines and showed great courage under fire in Bosnia, so... forget it. With training and an opportunity to poll test and focus group this she might be fine but her instinct is to never do anything on anything until every angle is studied. I would not expect her to rally; she'd be outside preparing a speech on violence, gender norms, and 10,000 years of patriarchal oppression.

And finally, Donald Trump: Big guy, big talker, lots of bravado, modest athletic success as a youngster, no military. I don't see him finding his inner hero, but as with everything Trump, he is by far the least predictable of the lot so nothing would surprise me.

BEFORE YOU ASK: I am confident there are earnest libs out there who believe, with a sincerity and factual foundation equal to mine, something different. For example, that Fat Al would be as intent on saving those kids as he is on saving the planet while Mittens is only interested in counting his ill-gotten Bain fortune. I'm right and they're wrong, obviously, but keep it in mind.

The Schiff Memo

Byron York is not won over by the Democratic response to the Republican FISA allegations.

Sunday Morning

Away we go.

 

NY Times Continues The Honest National Debate On Gun Control

The flailing NY Times wonders whether the US could be more like Australia, which famously banned semiautomatic rifles in 1996:

An Australian Model on Guns? Trump and Turnbull Reject Comparisons

The Australian PM gave the safe answer:

“It’s a completely different context, historically, legally and so forth,” Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said when asked about his country’s example during a news conference. “We are very satisfied with our laws,” he added. “But we certainly don’t presume to provide policy or political advice on that matter here. You have an amendment to your Constitution that deals with gun ownership. You have a very, very different history.”

The Times then provided a bit of context:

Australia embarked on one of the world’s most expansive efforts to rid a society of gun violence after a mass shooting in the Tasmanian town of Port Arthur on April 28, 1996, left 35 dead and many other injured. At that time, it was Australia’s 13th mass shooting in less than two decades and the deadliest such incident to date in the Western world. Even in the United States since then, only two episodes have eclipsed that death toll, the massacres in an Orlando gay nightclub in 2016 and at a Las Vegas concert last year.

In response to the 1996 shooting, John Howard, then Australia’s conservative prime minister, moved quickly, introducing a federal law to officially make guns a privilege, not a right. Gun owners were forced to provide a valid reason for owning a weapon, such as farming or hunting. Licensing rules were tightened, a 28-day waiting period for gun purchases was imposed and a national gun registry was established.

Semiautomatic rifles, like the one used at Port Arthur in 1996 and in Parkland last week, were severely restricted, and Australia engaged in a buyback program that took more than 650,000 firearms off the streets and generated attention around the world.

Gun control advocates in the United States regularly point to Australia when the other side says that new laws would not make a difference. President Barack Obama cited Australia as a model after a shooting in Oregon in 2015 and Hillary Clinton, running to succeed him against Mr. Trump, said the Australian approach was “worth considering.”

13 mass shootings in less than two decades and none afterwards. OK, impressive. But left unasked and unanswered is this: in the US we have had plenty of mass shootings with handguns (e.g., Giffords, VA Tech). How did the Australian ban on rifles end those, or why do we think a ban on rifles would end mass shooting here? 

The answer is that unlike the US, Australia had very strict handgun controls for years prior to the 1996 semiautomatic rifle ban. I haven't run down all 13 mass shootings mentioned above but per Wikipeda, four infamous ones - Milperra, Hoddle Street, Queen Street, and Strathfield -  involved shotguns or rifles, not handguns. So sure, banning semiautomatic rifles would be expected to make a major impact.

But don't take my word for it! Jerry Ratcliffe is a crime prevention authority who Tweeted this last fall:

Gun crime in the UK and Australia was already low because of strict gun control. Emphasis on strict gun control, not banning. Key.

I probably shouldn't single out the NY Times. This sort of omission helps bolster their narrative but even John Lott failed to make that obvious point in a recent Fox News column titled:

US gun control advocates exaggerate benefits of Australia's gun restrictions

Well. Plenty of people on one side of the debate grasp that "assault weapons", semiautomatic rifles and pistols are all deadly and that often one could substitute for another. For example, many people believe that if Nikolas Cruz had been obliged to carry a semiautomatic rifle with a wooden stock and no mount for a bayonet or grenade launcher it would not have been a fearsome "assault rifle" but seventeen people would still be dead. On the other side of the debate are folks like the NY Times editors fulminating that since he used an "assault weapon" we need to ban those.

Now, the Las Vegas shooter was firing at long range and needed a semiautomatic rifle. Cruz, at Parkland, probably could have killed a lot of people with handguns, which also seems to be the case for most of the recent shootings. Per the Mother Jones mass shooting data base going back to 1982, of 97 incidents involving 143 weapons, over half were handguns.

Banning semiautomatic rifles, if the Times wants to back that, may well reduce the number of mass shootings and reduce the casualties. Just for example, the four shameful cops at Parkland might have entered the school with pistols drawn if they heard handgun, rather than rifle fire. However, a reduction on the number of mas shootings similar to that in Australia seems utterly implausible.

PILING ON: Slicks Versus Hicks: As an illustration of the rural/urban divide The Times says that the rifle ban "took more than 650,000 firearms off the streets", although most of those mean street were in rural areas where people were hunting.

And do note the absence of terrifying 'assault weapon' among the stacks of semiautomatic rifles turned in.

Finally, a companion piece contrasting Australia and the US also fails to note the pre-1996 handgun rules.

Trouble In My Reddish-Blue Heaven

Hmm, polling on gun control in Florida must look bleak. Or, Brian Mast, a freshmen Congressman from the 18th District is a man of honor and conviction. Or very likely both.

In any case the NY Times has found the dream advocate for some kind of assault weapons ban. The gist - Cong. Brian Mast is a heroically wounded vet, NRA lifer and nwo a gun control advocate. However, that gist does not do him justice:

I’m Republican. I Appreciate Assault Weapons. And I Support a Ban.

The most important and unregrettable time of my life was the 12 years I spent in the Army. I became a bomb technician because I wanted to save lives. I nearly gave my own life for that — I lost both my legs and a finger when a roadside bomb detonated beneath me — and have known more heroes than I can count who died defending others.

When I was with others on the battlefield and we saw a chance to save a life, we didn’t have a meeting about it; we acted immediately. I never worried about becoming a casualty myself.

Now, as a Republican congressman from Florida, I don’t fear becoming a political casualty, either. If we act now by changing laws surrounding firearms and mental illness, we too can save lives.

He's served in theater, carried an M4 carbine, hunted with grampa - it's the internet so I assume we'll see someone crazy enough to question his valor or gun background, but it surely will not be me.

His Big Finish on assault weapons, however, leaves unsquared the circle that vexes and perplexes anyone who understand the issue (i.e., few assault weapon ban advocates) - just what IS an assault weapon and what distinguishes it from a semiautomatic hinting rifle or varmint gun?

Back in 1994 Sen. Feinstein focused on detachable magazines, the pistol grip, collapsible stock, grenade launcher and bayonet mounts, and flash suppressor. Detachable magazines and their capacity can make a gun more dangerous. However, not all of us grasp the connection between lethality and bayonet mounts. On the other hand, as the NY Times explained after Newtown, even though Adam Lanza bought a weapon that complied with the original assault weapons ban (continued as CT State law), that was a matter of exploiting loopholes such as removing the bayonet mount.

In any case, here is Brian Mast today, my emphasis:

Therefore, I support the following:

Defining what constitutes an assault or tactical firearm and not allowing them for future purchase — just as we already prohibit the purchase of fully automatic firearms. The exact definition of assault weapon will need to be determined. But we should all be able to agree that the civilian version of the very deadly weapon that the Army issued to me should certainly qualify. I would not support any version of a ban that results in confiscating existing legally owned firearms.

I suppose "No confiscation" might leave room for a forced buyback, but it is only in Republican dreams that Democrats propose a full ban on semiautomatic rifles of all types. As to a meaningful definition of "assault weapons" that excludes many or most hunting and sporting rifles, while still making any sort of sense at all in terms of lethality - well, good luck.

My guess is that this is just pandering to the "Do Something" clamor. Diane Feinstein's 2013 definition remained focused on cosmetic non-issues, which is somewhat inevitable since the distinction is cosmetic.

If gun control advocates were honest they would propose a ban on all semiautomatic rifles, and endure the consequences. Just around my area they would start with losing Congressional seats all over New England, upstate New York  and Pennsylvania. As an offset they would carry the area around new York City and Philadelphia with 85% of the vote instead of just 75%, so there's that.

Well, the Dems aren't suicidal, so an honest debate won't be happening. That said, the rest of the Mast effort outlines proposals that might pass Congress:

Ensuring that every firearm purchaser has a background check. We also need to improve the background check system.

Banning the sale of accessories and add-ons that circumvent the ban on automatic firearms, and increasing the ages at which individuals can purchase various categories of firearms.

Ensuring that those who have been detained for mental illness, or have been ordered by courts to receive treatment for mental illness, cannot purchase firearms.

Ensuring that someone who is being looked at as a possible terrorist, through a system of due process, cannot purchase a firearm and that any person threatening to shoot or blow up a school, in word or on social media, is placed on an F.B.I. watch list for a long time.

Adding some judicial oversight to Obama's ludicrous "No Fly, No Buy" proposal makes it less indefensible, but I wish he would just push for the Gun Violence Restraining Order approach.

Providing behavior detection training to anyone seeking a Federal Firearms License.

Making substantial resources available to schools, at their discretion, for security measures, including the opportunity to purchase enhanced security screening, install classroom panic buttons wired directly to law enforcement and hire additional school resource officers.

Holding the F.B.I. and state agencies accountable for their failures to identify a threat like Nikolas Cruz, as well as ensuring that schools enforce basic security protocols to prevent access by unauthorized personnel.

He left out the ban on bumpstocks, which will surely pass if anything does. Raising ages just happened in Florida, normally a strong gun-rights state. I assume there will be scuffles on various points but other than the assault weapon posturing nothing on that list fazes me.

Imminent Strange New Respect For The Donald?

We are engaged in another national screamfest on guns and at Resistance HQ they turn their lonely eyes to... Trump?

Another Shooting, Another Gun Debate. Will the Outcome Be the Same?

Maybe not! Partly because rather than try to propose something specific that we can evaluate the gun control side has opted to hide behind emotional teenagers. Are we talking about banning "assault weapons", AR-15s, semiautomatic rifles, or what? Don't ask - it's for the children!

However, the Times notes that help may arrive from an unexpected source:

Another difference [in this debate] is an unpredictable president who belongs to the National Rifle Association and promotes the N.R.A.-favored solution of arming trained teachers but has also embraced a couple of modest gun control measures opposed by gun rights groups.

It's Nixon-to-China, except that Trump supported an assault weapons ban in 2000. Back to the Times, where (much later) we hear about Trump again:

In the days after the shooting, Mr. Trump consulted advisers as well as Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A.’s chief lobbyist. The president called Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the Republican whip, who was traveling in the Middle East, to discuss his bill with Mr. Murphy requiring states and federal agencies to report more often to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System offenses that would bar gun purchases.

“These kids, they’re organizing, they want action,” an aide told Mr. Trump.

“I want action, too,” he replied, according to another aide. “That’s why I ran for president.”

What about #Resist?!?

At the request of Gov. Rick Scott of Florida, Mr. Trump called a girl wounded in the attack, and afterward, the call seemed to remain on his mind, as he kept bringing it up with aides. Last Friday, he visited a Florida hospital and met victims, a visit still on his mind when he had dinner Saturday night at his Mar-a-Lago estate with his sons Donald Jr. and Eric, his daughter-in-law Lara and the Fox News commentator Geraldo Rivera.

The president noted that the injuries he saw were more grisly than those portrayed in the movies. “He was definitely horrified by the severity, the savagery of those wounds that the children suffered,” Mr. Rivera recalled. “And he kept saying, ‘How do you recover from that?’”

Mr. Trump mentioned tightening background checks. “He brought up how absurd it is that someone can buy a gun even though they’re on the no-fly list,” Mr. Rivera said. Asked for his opinion, Mr. Rivera suggested raising the minimum age to buy an assault rifle to 21 from 18.

Eric Trump, who like his brother is a big-game hunter, seemed to push back, noting that there are already more than 300 million guns in circulation in the United States, implying that new restrictions might be pointless.

But the president, in defiance of the N.R.A., has since publicly embraced the age increase and ordered the Justice Department to develop regulations to ban bump stocks.

By Thursday, Mr. Trump seemed to be following the lead of the N.R.A. again, talking enthusiastically of its proposal to arm highly trained teachers to fortify schools. Still, he has taken different views of gun laws before. In “The America We Deserve,” published in 2000 when he briefly ran for the Reform Party presidential nomination, Mr. Trump called both major parties extreme.

“The Republicans walk the N.R.A. line and refuse even limited restrictions,” he wrote. “I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun.”

Mr. Trump owns guns and has had a concealed weapon permit since 2010. When he set out to win the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, he was pressed by voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina to support gun rights, an experience that aides said hardened his views. He dropped support for an assault rifle ban. “I love the N.R.A.,” he declared. “I love the Second Amendment.”

If The Resistance has finally figured out that Trump is a sucker for praise but digs in like a mule when criticized, well, the Never-Trumpers better be ready to host a lot of new guests from the right.

Take it To Court

Per the WaPo, "assault weapons" have not fared well in the courts.

One does wonder, however - what is an assault weapon? This case caught my eye:

Another appeals court considered the issue in April 2015, when the Chicago-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld by a 3 to 2 vote an ordinance in Highland Park, Ill., that prohibited possession of assault weapons, which the law defined as “any semiautomatic gun that can accept a large-capacity magazine.”

OK, not an expert but is there some reason a conventional semiautomatic hunting rifle lacking the Federal adornments of an "assault weapon" (1994 version) would NOT be able to accept a large capacity magazine? If Highland has successfully banned ALL semiautomatic rifles, well, that goes far beyond the proposed 'assault weapon' bans kicked up in Congress from time to time.

FWIW, here is a promo piece for deer hunting with an AR-15. But NOT an assault weapon. From the Slate piece linked above, here is the 1994 version of the federal ban:

A semiautomatic rifle was considered an illicit assault weapon, for example, if it featured a detachable magazine, as well as at least two of the following five attributes: a folding or telescopic stock; a conspicuous pistol grip; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (i.e., a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher. 

People familiar with the definition, i.e., roughly zero progressives or NY Times editors, don't grasp why adding a flash suppressor and/or bayonet and grenade launcher mount makes a conventional semiautomatic rifle more lethal. But we try to live and learn.

This NY Times explainer and a whiny NY Times article illustrate that removing the cosmetic features to comply with the law is simply "exploiting loopholes". Evidently something else is making an assault rifle an assault rifle, but the best legal minds in America can't put their finger on it. Baffling.

Breaking News From 2015

The Flailing NY Times attempts another contribution to the gun debate:

The Mental Health System Can’t Stop Mass Shooters

The contributor is a mental health doctor from California and we thank her for her public service. However, she is not a lawyer and the Times editors left her out to dry.

Her guest piece bemoans shortcomings in the mental health laws that make it difficult to disarm and force into treatment potentially dangerous and erratic people. The dramatic arc builds on an incident from several years ago. All very interesting, but California passed a Gun Violence Restraining Order law in 2014 to plug what had become obvious holes in their system.

California governor signs 'gun violence restraining order' law

SACRAMENTO Calif. (Reuters) - People who fear a close relative may commit gun violence will be able to petition a judge to temporarily remove the person's firearms in California, under a bill signed into law on Tuesday by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown.

The legislation - the first such measure in the United States - was introduced after police in Isla Vista near Santa Barbara said they were unable to confiscate weapons from a man who later went on a rampage and killed six people, despite concern from his family.

The Times editors overseeing these submissions really might want to spend some time on the NY Times website, where they might have found this Reuters story:

Gun Restraining Order Might Have Thwarted Florida Shooting: Experts

(Reuters) - A few U.S. states have laws allowing police and family members to obtain orders barring people suspected of being a threat from possessing guns, but Florida does not. Some gun control proponents and legal experts said Wednesday's school shooting might have been thwarted if it had.

The WaPo had more a few days back. And I surely don't expect the Times to run a piece by David French of National Review, but we live in strange times. Let me add that Little Marco Rubio tweeted about the French piece, so think about that.

One day the Times may take up this possible solution, which now has a brief history in California (it went into effect in 2016), a much longer one (1999) in Connecticut, and is on the books in other states as well.

Jacob Sullum of Reason continues to object, suggesting a parade of horribles and noting that maybe nobody would have actually sought an order against Nikolas Cruz. Hmm - arguing that a law might not have worked so why bother may not be compelling. There are so few guarantees in life, a point understood by many.

As to the horribles, the beauty of our Federal system is that we can see just what has happened in a couple of states. Are the local gun groups experiencing ongoing outrage, or has the actual experience been somewhat sensible? The truth is out there!

ONE FOR THE LAWYERS, or, PARDON ME WHILE I'M STUCK ON DUMB:

The Reuters story linked above includes this:

A federal GVRO law was proposed last year, and its supporters in Congress on Thursday urged its passage.

...

The National Rifle Association and other groups have opposed such laws as violating gun owners' due process rights. A judge can issue an initial restraining order and confiscation of firearms without a hearing.

A federal law would empower federal judges, yes? Are Federal court orders normally enforced by local police and sheriffs departments, or would petitioners be working with, hmm, the FBI and the Marshalls Service? Or would the bill attempt to strongarm each state to pass enabling legislation, as we saw with drinking ages (linked, IIRC to highway funds) and was shot down by the Supreme Court with Medicaid and Obamacare. Or is it an incentive scheme, where federal funds go to any states that choose to play along.

Glancing at the bill, it looks like "incentive scheme" since state judges, local enforcement and state law is used, with Federal grants to help states implement the law. I oppose for now. Let's see different states try variations and generate some live experience before we try to engineer 'one size fits all' best practices from Washington.

Oh, Say Can You Un-see?

Let me go in record with this now: if Fergie threatens us with another go at The Star Spangled Banner I will be kneeling and praying for an end to the brutality.

Liberal Fascism

Andrew Ross Sorkin of the Flailing NY Times doesn't think this whole democracy experiment is working on gun control so he would like to put the Wall Street banks in charge.

Wow. Exhorting corporate America to cater to the whims of one party might seem like a good idea in the moment but I am pretty sure there are Republican ideas and companies willing to support them with which Sorkin would be uncomfortable.

As to banks specifically, it is true that the big banks are headquartered in blue coastal enclaves. The friends and neighbors of the top execs could shun them at cocktail parties and refuse to have their kids over on play dates until the big banks "got woke". But there are plenty of small banks and small customers in the nation at large that will probably get balky with this Blue State cramdown and display of Wall Street muscle. Just a guess.

 

Failure To Orient Horse And Cart

Writing in Politico Dr. Mark L. Rosenberg, who "is president emeritus of the Task Force for Global Health in Decatur, and was the founding director of CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control" tells us where the gun debate has gone awry:

What’s Missing From the Gun Debate

It’s simple: Science.

He goes on to deplore the lack of funding for basic research into effective means of reducing gun violence but of course, the lack of funding is a symptom rather than a cause. What is missing from the debate is not science, it is trust. 

Conservatives believe, on some evidence that the social sciences has become yet another bastion for academic progressives. Consequently, right-wingers believe that agenda-driven progressives will engage in agenda-driven statistical jiggery-pokery, produce papers peer-reviewed by other progressives, and come away "proving" the efficacy of the progressive agenda item du jour.

Is that distrust misplaced? Maybe! NY Times columnist and reliable lefty Nick Kristof seems to have figured out that the "assault weapons ban" is a joke. And Leah Libresco surprised herself and (I suspect) her WaPo and/or 538 editors with a piece titled 

I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

So maybe there are progressives willing to break with their team on some gun-related issues. On the other hand, Mike Bloomberg's "Everytown" isn't even aiming for credibility with their "Schools Shootings" count and don't get me started on the NY Times editors (OK, one).

Closer to home, author Dr. Rosenberg engages in a bit of, hmm, card-palming himself. Stay with me through some snippets, and I bet you'll guess where I am going:

Where does that leave us? The exact causes of America’s rise in mass shootings—and the best ways to prevent such violence—remain uncertain all these years after Columbine. Should we focus our efforts on mental health? Would a ban on semi-automatic rifles necessarily solve the problem? What if the surest bet is for schools to install metal detectors in their halls? 

...

Common sense doesn’t tell us whether a ban on semi-automatic rifles will reduce mass shootings—that question is too complicated for us to simply work out in our heads. But it’s possible a well-designed study could, and would in turn build public trust in any resulting legislation.

...

And we don’t know whether banning the sale of semi-automatic rifles will prevent mass shootings or lead to more gun deaths because there will be fewer good guys with a gun to stop the bad guys with guns. To answer the question, we also have to measure the degree to which each intervention infringes on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Only rigorous, objective and well-designed scientific research can find the answer.

...

When we ask lawmakers to make decisions without data—measures like campus carry, universal background checks, identifying individuals at high risk for violence or bans on semi-automatic rifles—we are pushing them to approve the equivalent of thalidomide for gun violence.

Four mentions of semi-automatic rifles. Mentions of "assault weapons"?  Zero. And why is that?

I don't know but... Dr. Rosenberg  is a smart guy who has surely figured out that an AR-15 or other semi-automatic platform tricked out with a black matte finish, bayonet mount, grenade launcher mount and flash suppressor to look like a prop in a Schwarzenegger film is no more deadly than a semi-automatic with a wooden stock that would be OK-ish (except for the magazine) in a John Wayne film.

 

But the national debate, as Dr. Rosenberg well knows, is not about banning semi-automatic rifles. As long as they don't look scary, progressives seem to be OK with semi-automatics rifles, for now anyway. So why is the doctor eliding the difference? Why won't he put his cards on the table and tell us that an assault weapons ban is a joke and would be about as effective as addressing our nation's alcohol problem by banning Scotch and vodka but not bourbon or gin?

 

I don't know and I would be curious to hear his explanation. But one guess many will make is that he is simply not comfortable delivering hard truths to progressives. Which kind of disqualifies him from leading the charge of "science".

 

 

Find The Fake News

At least one of these headlines looks wrong. Here is ABC News from last November:

Trump says he agrees with US intelligence community that Russia meddled in election

And from Resistance HQ:

Indictment Makes Trump's Hoax Claim Harder To Sell

Although The Resistance will remain mystified this Gordian Knot can be cut by acknowledging that Trump has (mostly) claimed that the charge of Trump collusion with Russia is a hoax; he was a reluctant convert to the Russian meddling charge. But we knew that. Here is CNBC with a litany of Trump's claims.

CUE THE WORLD'S SMALLEST VIOLIN: Here is a LOL headline from Resistance HQ:

Trump’s Conspicuous Silence Leaves a Struggle Against Russia Without a Leader

They are looking for Trump's leadership? What happened to "No Normalization" and "Resist!"?

Saturday Morning Open Thread

I bet there is new news to go with the Fake News and the old news.

The Russians Are Coming And Red Flag Waving

OK, Mueller validates his consumption of oxygen by backing our intelligence agencies and the conventional wisdom that yes, Russians tried to disrupt our political process. "Hey, dude, where's my collusion?" remains a Frequently Unanswered Question, but any day now. The Resistance is Keeping Hope Alive!

Back on the gun control debate, David French promotes the Gun Violence Restraining Order notion. I had pushed that in an earlier post where the WaPo described five states with what they called "red flag laws".

I should add that Jacob Sullum deplores this idea as an unacceptable encroachment on the right to self-defense:

One possibility touted by gun control advocates is a law like the one California enacted in 2014, which allows a police officer or an "immediate family member" to seek a "gun violence restraining order" that prohibits an individual from possessing firearms and authorizes police to seize any he currently owns. Such an order can initially be obtained without any notice or adversarial process, and it can be extended based on standards that invite abuse, especially since "immediate family members" include not just spouses, children, siblings, and parents but also domestic partners, current or former roommates, step-parents, parents-in-law, grandparents, step-grandparents, step-siblings, siblings-in-law, stepchildren, children-in-law, and grandchildren.

Well, there is the possibility for abuse and the possibility for saving lives. Since rights are not absolute and frequently end up being balanced against other rights why not, under our federal system, try it and see. Just for example, California has had the law on the books for two years - can Sullum dig up some horror stories of caprice and abuse? Can French find any evidence of Lives Saved?

And yes, I am sort of cheating - Connecticut passed a similar law in 1999 and some Duke scholars studied the impact recently. Interestingly, although the law was inspired by a ghastly workplace homicide in 1998 the application of the law has morphed towards suicide prevention. And do note that Adam Lanza of Newtown was NOT turned in by his mother, although she knew she had a troubled son. Then again, she was a gun enthusiast and the owner of the weapons he used (after killing her). In a different world she might have locked up her own guns, thrown away the key, then sought a protective order to prevent him from buying any weapons himself. Obviously, that didn't happen.

School Shootings, Gun Control, And Red Flag Laws

There are partisans on both sides of the gun control screaming match that rely on hyperbolic rhetoric to rouse their donors. To pick an example seemingly at random, people like Hillary Clinton will prefer to pander rather than lead.

However, I am feeling a mad surge of optimism today. From the right, let me single out Dan McLaughlin as a hard-headed righty who is surely not a reflexive gun grabber yet seems to be fed up with the current non-debate (OK, that may be me projecting...). A snippet:

There are only easy answers if you are willing to sacrifice rights you don't care about, and that other people do. That's never been a solution Americans could pursue without embarrassment and regret. Unless and until we can find a better, more reliable way to identify potential mass shooters early, we have to acknowledge the nature of the choice before us: Punish many innocent people or remain mostly defenseless against the malicious few.

Nobody wants to make one side of that trade. But nobody wants to face the other side either.

And on the left, Nick Kristof recycles a column where he tried to actually talk a bit of sense into his fellow lefties. Let me extract this:

Frankly, liberal opposition to guns has often been ineffective, and sometimes counterproductive. The 10-year ban on assault weapons accomplished little, partly because definitions were about cosmetic features like bayonet mounts (and partly because even before the ban, such guns were used in only 2 percent of crimes).

Whoa, say what?!? Normally libs are eager to parade their utter lack of knowledge of guns by railing about an assault weapons ban as the first order of business. That does not generally lead to a calm and productive discussion. On the other hand, the Washington Post shows signs that they are not afraid of the truth on gun control, which is a hopeful sign.

In any case, I would like to see Messrs. McLaughlin and Kristof co-chair a Pundits Panel on gun control. Their chief of staff can be Leah Libresco, author of "I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise."

My hope is that we can move beyond the famous Onion headline:

No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

A valuable suggestion: The WaPo has an article on Red Flag Laws. Sadly, a key source is the not-trustworthy Everytown site, but still, the idea can be examined independently. From the WaPo:

Five states allow guns to be seized before someone can commit violence

In the wake of massacres like Wednesday’s school shooting in Parkland, Fla., a small number of states have passed “red flag laws” that allow the seizure of guns before people can commit acts of violence.

California, Washington, Oregon, Indiana and Connecticut have statutes that can be used to temporarily take guns away from people whom a judge deems a threat to themselves or others. Lawmakers in 18 other states — including Florida — plus the District of Columbia have proposed similar measures. At the federal level, California lawmakers Rep. Salud Carbajal (D) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) introduced legislation last May that would encourage states to adopt the approach.

Mental illness, escalating threats, substance abuse and domestic violence are among the circumstances in which a judge can order weapon restrictions under the laws.

That is a court-supervised process that could be effective while preserving due process rights, unlike the absurd proposals to expand the role of the No Fly list to become a No Buy list as well.

Some of the other Kristof suggestions, such as raising the legal gun purchase age to 21, as with cigarettes and alcohol, don't faze me. I should add that he notes domestic violence restraining orders but does not expand on that to pick up the Red Flag Laws. I have no doubt he would support it, however, and yes, that gives me pause.

In any case, there are some positive steps we could take that might improve our national record on gun violence while respecting (but slightly rebalancing, under court supervision) our right of self defense. And as a matter of pure politics it might behoove the Republicans to put forward some ideas of their own rather than simply knock down the stupider ideas from the other side.

Connecticut is one of the five states with a Red Flag law. Their law, passed in 1999, did not prevent Adam Lanza of Sandy Hook horror, but with a different "See something, say something" social norm, who can say? In any case, here is a Duke study on the impact of that law.

For those who can separate citations from the source, here is an Everytown article with lots of footnotes on Red Flag laws. Distrust but verify!

 

School Shootings

Somewhat surprisingly, the WaPo debunks a widely cited nightmare stat from Mike Bloomberg's gun control group. What's next, a reality-based discussion about how to deal with gun violence?

I'll say this - sort of like Nixon-to-China, Trump will have more sway on gun control than Obama. Gun control also takes Trump back to his roots as a NYC Republican, which is to say, a liberal. In 2000 he favored an "assault weapons" ban, although that whole notion is so phony I'll allow that maybe he just got himself up to speed on that issue.

Valentine's Day Open Thread

A good day to avoid the news.

Portrait Of A Knucklehead As An Old Man

Barry lost in the weeds. Or is he waxing nostalgic for his days on the Choom Gang? Imagining himself as the First Flower Child? Tough call! Of course, his freakishly large hands are a joke that will be completed when the next portraitist, inevitable a member of The Resistance, depicts Trump's hands. As to Obama's extra finger, please - who among us does NOT want to give Barry a finger? Or perhaps this is a call-out to Oprah Three Hands, probably our next President.

Another artist has Michelle lost in the background while the eye is drawn to the First Dress and her Jacked Arms. Whatever.

Resistance Terror

This news about Vanessa Trump (wife of Donald Jr.) is appalling.

Vanessa Trump taken to hospital as precaution after white powder sent to her home

by TOM WINTER and JONATHAN DIENST

President Donald Trump's daughter-in-law was taken to a Manhattan hospital as a precaution on Monday after a suspicious letter containing an unidentified white powder was sent to her apartment, senior law enforcement and city officials told NBC News.

The letter was addressed to Vanessa Trump's husband, Donald Trump Jr., the eldest child of the president and his ex-wife Ivana.

After the letter was opened, three people at the residence were taken to New York Presbyterian-Weill Cornell Medical Center strictly as a precaution, the New York City Fire Department said.

There is no indication anyone suffered any injuries; the NYPD said the substance was deemed to be non-hazardous and was taken to a lab for further analysis.

"How disturbed must a person be to do what they did to a mother of five children?'' Michael Cohen, President Trump's personal attorney, said in a statement. "This dangerous and reckless act goes beyond political differences."

Well, it ought to go beyond political differences. We'll see.

 

A Brief return To Reality

Buzzfeed stages an intervention hoping to forestall MSNBC and the usual suspects from putting up a statue to Little Rocket Man's sister on the Washington Mall.

Winning The Gold Medal For Stupid

NBC might want to have their broadcasters do five minutes of homework before parading their ignorance.

AFTERMATH: The fellow noting the ongoing respect of Koreans for Japan will have some unexpected free time to study the history of East Asia.

OTOH, Katie Couric knows nothing about The Netherlands and is probably ineducable.

All He Was Saying Was, "Give Peace A Chance"

Obama's deal with Iran and abandonment of Syria play out with Israel.

Resistance Economics

The flailing NY Times has a new feature - Fake News in the lead which is promptly rebutted in the main text and accompanying graphics. Here we go:

Stocks Plunge as Market Enters ‘Correction’ Territory

After watching stocks march higher for nearly nine years, investors are suddenly confronting a new reality: The long, smooth ride is over. And it doesn’t feel good.

Major stock indexes suffered a steep drop in late trading on Thursday, the second-straight day that stocks dived shortly before the markets closed. The 3.75 percent decline pushed the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index down more than 10 percent from its peak in late January. That means the market is technically in correction territory — a term used to indicate that a downward trend is more severe than simply a few days of bearish trading.

“We’ve been trained that the market does nothing but go up,” Bruce McCain, chief investment strategist at Key Private Bank, said of investors. “And then suddenly, they’re anxious, they’re sitting nervously on the sidelines, and then they can’t take it anymore.”

Wait, what? Other than a quiet - too quiet - 2017 the "smooth ride" just hasn't been that smooth. Six paragraphs later the agitated authors sidle up to reality:

The market correction does not mean that the bull market in stocks — which have been roaring since March 2009 — is over. Markets also experienced a correction in early 2016 before shaking off their jitters and continuing to climb.

Wow, early 2016. Who can even remember?

And their accompanying chart shows four earlier "corrections" during this bull run, as well as two near-corrections of 9.8% and 9.9%. And perhaps to best highlight how backward-looking and meaningless this whole "correction"/"bear market" paradigm is, around the same time as the two near-corrections in 2011 and 2012 we had a near-bear market drop of 19.4%. Another 0.6% lower and all the talk about a bull run extending back to 2009 would be dated.

Of course, after the fact if the market drops 20% and then keeps dropping it is easy to say we have experienced a bear market. But if it dips 19.4% and then rebounds that is an utter nothing? Well yes, actually, just as if it dips 20.6% and then rebounds it is an exciting yet meaningless nothing. Sells papers though.

House Republicans To Build The Wall!

Lest you had a moment of hope that Washington dysfunction might be about to ebb, we are here to help you despair:

House Intel Republicans plan to wall off their aides from Democratic staffers

In a sign of increasing partisan hostilities, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee plan to construct a wall – a physical partition – separating Republican and Democratic staff members in the committee's secure spaces, according to multiple committee sources. It's expected to happen this spring.

So encouraging. What's next - formal adoption of the Talking Stick?

 

The New Eastwood Film Will Make My Day

A review of Eastwood's new film on the three Americans who thwarted a terror attack on a train in Europe. Spoiler alert - the good guys win.

Things I did not know - the three leads are played by themselves, although the supporting cast includes professional actors. Between this and Black Panther I might actually see some movies this month.

Dream On

Senate leadership has a budget deal with something for everyone except the deficit hawks and the Dreamers. McConnell has promised a separate Senate debate on immigration, although over in the House Ryan has not.

We Hear From The First Stockpicker

Accurate predictions are hard, especially about the future. Trump should avoid getting caught up in the day-to-day on Wall Street:

Trump: Stock market declines are a 'big mistake' when there's so much 'good news' about the economy

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that the stock market made a "big mistake" by declining amid "good news" about the economy.

"In the 'old days,' when good news was reported, the Stock Market would go up. Today, when good news is reported, the Stock Market goes down. Big mistake, and we have so much good (great) news about the economy!" Trump tweeted shortly after the markets opened Wednesday.

And speaking of guys who ought to keep their stock market predictions to themselves, Paul Krugman weighed in yesterday. In brief, there are some economic positives yet clouds on the horizon; the stock market may be indicating a turning point, unless its not. But regardless, Trump and his team are dreadful.

Oh, whatever - Resistance Economics is amusing but unreliable. Krugman, of course, created an Instant Classic hot take on election night:

 If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.

He has subsequently put that on his Never Mind list. Of course, his "analysis" yesterday will be recycled as "I called the market top" if the stock market is down a year from now, so he's got that pony in the race anyway.

Traditional "How 'Bout That Dow!" Open Thread

Tom Brady, Dow Jones - So much excitement!

SELL MOVIE RIGHTS, RETIRE NATIONAL DEBT: Here is a bad idea whose time is coming:

In Russia Inquiry, Lawyers Tell Trump to Refuse Mueller Interview

They're right, but who listens to lawyers?

O, Canada!

And oh my word - here is  a ghastly serial killer operating in Toronto.

Super Sunday!

It's Super Sunday! Fly, Patriots Fly! (I overheard that in a bar and may have it wrong.)

In other sports news here is perhaps the most evergreen sports headline ever:

Doping scandal hits Winter Olympics

Of course it did. Does anybody care? I find myself far less interested than in my misspent youth and I am not even a hockey fan.

Memo Saturday

Dan McLaughlin has a good discussion of the oversold Nunes memo. However, I have my reservations about this:

It focuses on a very narrow subject, the obtaining of a single FISA warrant (subsequently renewed by Trump’s own Administration) on a fringe figure (Carter Page) who by all appearances deserved to be investigated, and surveillance of whom probably didn’t uncover very much about the Trump campaign that you wouldn’t have known from watching TV. 

Let's cut to Byron York:

Put it all together, and Page was the easiest guy to go after. Plus, the wiretap would allow the FBI not just to listen to Page's phone calls but to read his emails, not only going forward from the date of the warrant, but going backward for as long as Page had kept them. If Page truly were the beating heart of a Trump-Russia conspiracy, then there would likely be email evidence the FBI could use.

The point about emails holds my attention. Page may have been cc'ed on all sorts of things going back months, so legitimate access to that may have been investigatory gold.

Please Retire To A Secure Reading Area

It's Memo Day!

Watching The Sausage Factory

Quinta Jurecic of Lawfare has gory details behind the soon-to-be-seen Republican memo on alleged FBI FISA abuse.

There is a fractal principle in play here. Washington politics looks dreadful at a distance and similarly dreadful up close.