http://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/22/us...ies-at-78.html

Harlon B. Carter, who became the nation's foremost opponent of gun controls in leading the National Rifle Association to its greatest expansion in membership and political influence, died Tuesday at his home in rural Green Valley, Ariz.
He was 78 years old and died of lung cancer, his family said.
In his tenure from 1977 to 1985 as executive vice president, the rifle association's chief operating position, the group's membership more than tripled, to three million, and its annual budget multiplied severalfold, to $66 million. The organization's influence with elected officials also soared, to the dismay of gun control advocates.
The association promotes a right to own and use firearms for protection, sport and hunting. Mr. Carter, adamant against restrictions, once testified before Congress that the misuse of guns was "a price we pay for freedom."

N.R.A.'s 'Fiercest Warrior'

Nelson T. Shields, a founder of an opposing organization, Handgun Control Inc., once called Mr. Carter "Mr. N.R.A." And yesterday Wayne R. LaPierre, the rifle association's current chief officer, said Mr. Carter "was our champion and fiercest warrior."

good riddance, it appears

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

good riddance, it appears

He's been dead since 1991, but in 1977 he led a leadership coup against the NRA board called the "Cincinatti Rebellion", which took up the positions held by extreme weapons enthusiasts today. So, this has been going on since the 2T. It won't be settled this 4T, but it will be one of the elements defining one particular political group. Since that group tends to get attention when someone screws up with a firearm, you can guess what the overall PR trend will be...

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

He's been dead since 1991, but in 1977 he led a leadership coup against the NRA board called the "Cincinatti Rebellion", which took up the positions held by extreme weapons enthusiasts today. So, this has been going on since the 2T. It won't be settled this 4T, but it will be one of the elements defining one particular political group. Since that group tends to get attention when someone screws up with a firearm, you can guess what the overall PR trend will be...

OK, I see.............

Originally Posted by RyanJH

... The following is not directed at M & L but more of a general observation for people interested in the topic: Please stop quoting Op Ed pieces and on-line news articles linked to low quality data. If we spent the effort in reading articles similar the above Cook and Ludwig study and/or other articles from peer reviewed sources (and the articles found in the associated bibliographies / footnotes / end notes) then we might be able to have an informed discussion on the topic.

Claiming the N.R.A. (or other bogeyman) has managed to taint / block all research and its not worth the effort is... lazy...

I guess I've been spanked. I'll make the same comment I did to Vandal-72: To me. this is not meant to be anything more than an interesting interchange of ideas. I do appreciate the dilligence, but it's not a necessity in my book. This is supplsed to be fun. If I decide to publish or take another graduate degree, I'll do better.

FWIW, I went through the research ritual when More Guns, Less Crime became prominant (in the early '00s), trying to find real data on firearms use. I found no unified database, and few databases that measured the same parameters. The Feds are forbidden to collect data directly or indirectly (this was documented at the time, and was a reference in the Op-Ed). Most though not all states had similar policies, which probably still exist given the climate of the debate. Aggregating data for mulit-variable analysis was very hard. No, that's not right. It was impossible. Lott made claims based on the not-data. I found counter arguments in the same non-information. Mike Alexander took a look at it too. We could draw no conclusions, though we did see implications, I'm virtually certain this is still true.

As long as data can not be kept or even obtained, analysis is a fools errand. I doubt the Fordham investigators got very far either. This is well documented as NRA obstruction.

I did my own analysis when more guns less crime came out. I treated the onset of right to carry laws as an experiment treatment. For example suppose I run two fermentors in the lab side by side. At X hours I add treatment Y (e.g. 2 g/L methionine addition) to one of the reactors. I do nothing to the other one. I assay the concentration of product daily over the entire course of the fermentation. I have two built-in controls. First there is the period before X for which I have duplicate data. Then there is the period after X in the fermentor to which nothing was added. Between the two I will have a decent chance of seeing an effect of treatment Y.

I did the same thing with states. I found a group of states that did not introduce RTC laws over the 1960-2001 period. This is the control group. I found another group in which RTC laws were put into place over the 1987-1991 period. Here X is the 1987-1991 period and Y is RTC law. I found another group that did the same over the 1994-96 period (X is 1994-6). For each group I summed annual violent crimes for the states and divided by the population to get the rate for that group. I then divided each series by the maximum value in the series to normalize them. Here are the results (as percent of maximum):

Year	Control	1987-91 RTC	1994-96 RTC
1960	20	17	23
1961	19	17	22
1962	20	17	22
1963	20	18	24
1964	23	23	28
1965	27	24	29
1966	30	25	32
1967	35	26	35
1968	42	32	39
1969	46	34	43
1970	51	39	47
1971	55	46	51
1972	55	48	51
1973	57	51	55
1974	63	57	59
1975	67	60	59
1976	65	56	54
1977	66	57	57
1978	68	63	60
1979	75	69	67
1980	82	77	71
1981	83	76	69
1982	78	72	71
1983	75	68	65
1984	74	70	65
1985	75	74	70
1986	83	82	79
1987	82	81	77
1988	85	88	79
1989	89	90	81
1990	97	100	92
1991	100	99	100
1992	99	99	100
1993	98	99	99
1994	92	96	96
1995	88	93	94
1996	79	93	89
1997	75	89	87
1998	70	84	81
1999	63	78	78
2000	61	76	75
2001	61	74	78

I see no effect of treatment Y. This is easier to see if you plot the data.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I guess I've been spanked. I'll make the same comment I did to Vandal-72: To me. this is not meant to be anything more than an interesting interchange of ideas. I do appreciate the dilligence, but it's not a necessity in my book. This is supplsed to be fun. If I decide to publish or take another graduate degree, I'll do better.

My apologies. I tend to appreciate evidence based ideas more, so I may come across a bit... overzealous?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

FWIW, I went through the research ritual when More Guns, Less Crime became prominant (in the early '00s), trying to find real data on firearms use. I found no unified database, and few databases that measured the same parameters.

I find this to be the norm in research, not the exception.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The Feds are forbidden to collect data directly or indirectly (this was documented at the time, and was a reference in the Op-Ed). Most though not all states had similar policies, which probably still exist given the climate of the debate.

Perhaps but...

FBI Uniform Crime Reports. In particular...
-Expanded Offense Data - Violent Crime.
-Expanded Offense Data - Violent Crime - Homicides. For example:
--Murders, by State, by type of Weapon, 2011 (link) (you can go back to other years for the same data)
--Also has trends, rates per 100,000, victim data, offender data, victim/offender relationship data, circumstance data, justifiable homicide data, etc.

FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System. In particular...
-Total NICS Checks 1998-2013.
-NICS Firearm Background Checks, by state, 1998-2012.
-Federal Denials (Reasons Why the NICS Section Denies Nov 1998 - Dec 2012.
-Active Records in the NICS Index (as of Dec 2012).

Bureau of Justice: Homicide Trends in the U.S. In particular...
-Criminal Victimization, 2009.
-Weapon Use and Violent Crime, 1993-2001.
-Firearm Injury and Death from Crime, 1993-97.
-Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008.
-Victimizations Not Reported to the Police, 2006-2010.
-Firearms Stolen during Household Burglaries and Other Property Crimes, 2005-2010.

Center for Disease Control. School Violence: Data and Statistics. In particular...
-School-Associated Student Homicides --- United States, 1992-2006.
-Source of Firearms used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths --- United States, 1992-1999.
-Percentage of Self-harm Injuries, by Age Group, Disposition, and Mechanism, United States, 2005-2009.
-Division of Violence Prevention, Annual Report, 2011. (Check out the Bibliography for additional great sources).
-First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws.

A quick check of PROQUEST or a similar research tool provides multiple peer reviewed professional journal articles on the relevant topics.

A quick run through of the various think tanks yields some non peer-reviewed research/analysis (like this article I discussed above), that while one-sided and perhaps a bit exaggerated provides worthwhile information for the debate.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Aggregating data for mulit-variable analysis was very hard. No, that's not right. It was impossible. Lott made claims based on the not-data. I found counter arguments in the same non-information. Mike Alexander took a look at it too. We could draw no conclusions, though we did see implications, I'm virtually certain this is still true.

As long as data can not be kept or even obtained, analysis is a fools errand.

I disagree, at least on the "fools errand" part. But, I might be a fool so...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I doubt the Fordham investigators got very far either. This is well documented as NRA obstruction.

There may be some N.R.A. obstruction involved. Yet there is still data (some examples listed above) for worthwhile analysis. I still think that disregarding this data as too hard, tainted by N.R.A obstruction or a "fools errand" does not advance the cause of developing effective public policies.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I did my own analysis when more guns less crime came out. I treated the onset of right to carry laws as an experiment treatment. For example suppose I run two fermentors in the lab side by side. At X hours I add treatment Y (e.g. 2 g/L methionine addition) to one of the reactors. I do nothing to the other one. I assay the concentration of product daily over the entire course of the fermentation. I have two built-in controls. First there is the period before X for which I have duplicate data. Then there is the period after X in the fermentor to which nothing was added. Between the two I will have a decent chance of seeing an effect of treatment Y.

I did the same thing with states. I found a group of states that did not introduce RTC laws over the 1960-2001 period. This is the control group. I found another group in which RTC laws were put into place over the 1987-1991 period. Here X is the 1987-1991 period and Y is RTC law. I found another group that did the same over the 1994-96 period (X is 1994-6). For each group I summed annual violent crimes for the states and divided by the population to get the rate for that group. I then divided each series by the maximum value in the series to normalize them. Here are the results (as percent of maximum):

Year	Control	1987-91 RTC	1994-96 RTC
1960	20	17	23
1961	19	17	22
1962	20	17	22
1963	20	18	24
1964	23	23	28
1965	27	24	29
1966	30	25	32
1967	35	26	35
1968	42	32	39
1969	46	34	43
1970	51	39	47
1971	55	46	51
1972	55	48	51
1973	57	51	55
1974	63	57	59
1975	67	60	59
1976	65	56	54
1977	66	57	57
1978	68	63	60
1979	75	69	67
1980	82	77	71
1981	83	76	69
1982	78	72	71
1983	75	68	65
1984	74	70	65
1985	75	74	70
1986	83	82	79
1987	82	81	77
1988	85	88	79
1989	89	90	81
1990	97	100	92
1991	100	99	100
1992	99	99	100
1993	98	99	99
1994	92	96	96
1995	88	93	94
1996	79	93	89
1997	75	89	87
1998	70	84	81
1999	63	78	78
2000	61	76	75
2001	61	74	78

I see no effect of treatment Y. This is easier to see if you plot the data.

My own research yielded similar results. More (and less) guns and more (and less) violent crime were weakly correlated - if at all.

@ Ryan Even before more guns less crime came out, the overall body of research we did for my undergrad work (which was all peer reviewed stuff, schollarly stuff) really tended towards a "gun control makes no difference to overall crime". I've somewhat stoodby that over sentiment.

However, the analysis you posted of the background check system is pretty accurate. On the whole, the NCIC system is the worst, most out of date system it could be without being completely unusable. It's the basis of every single state system on the boards. Despite numerous attempts to give it a user friendly interface, what's working under the hood is still the same terrible system that, at it's core is based off WWII teletype. That's what's powering any and all background checks, and that's just silly and long term wasteful.

Originally Posted by Kepi

@ Ryan Even before more guns less crime came out, the overall body of research we did for my undergrad work (which was all peer reviewed stuff, schollarly stuff) really tended towards a "gun control makes no difference to overall crime". I've somewhat stoodby that over sentiment.

However, the analysis you posted of the background check system is pretty accurate. On the whole, the NCIC system is the worst, most out of date system it could be without being completely unusable. It's the basis of every single state system on the boards. Despite numerous attempts to give it a user friendly interface, what's working under the hood is still the same terrible system that, at it's core is based off WWII teletype. That's what's powering any and all background checks, and that's just silly and long term wasteful.

And replacing it makes the NexGen ATC system nightmare look like a 16 bit game console upgrade. When it has been screwed up, for that long, there is a reason no one wants to take the fall for fixing it.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Right now, there are very few numbers to distort, so everything that mascarades as data or analysis is distorted by definition. This is intentional. Here's a short read on why.

I don't disagree that studies from the NRA are spun like crazy, but the Brady group and other gun control advocates will spin too. A 'conversation' where one of us quotes spun statistics to be countered by another of us responding with counter spin will get us nowhere.

Though as values are involved, we're not apt to get anywhere anyway.

I more or less trust the FBI crime data. The UN has an agency that tries to collect international data, but the countries with really bad gun violence often don't report to the UN. The UN international data base is thus very incomplete and biased against including countries with gun problems.

So it's begun with homemade bombing plans:

http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-Ne...ol-bomb-attack

So this genius failed, let's just wait 6 to 18 months for the genius that succeeds. Then it'll be 1,000 days of arguing for clorox limits and regulations, because the last thing we want to do collectively is actually understand and resolve whatever problem it is that society has that would make 16-25 yearold men predominantly from a middle class or upper middle class background want to kill a bunch of people for no gain at all. I hope we spend a month or two decrying nu jazz. I could us a good cry.

I'm starting to wonder if the dehumanized nature of Millennial Saeculum society (that was complained about a lot in the Awakening--especially over in Britain) only got worse with Boomer "Personalized" Atomization, not better.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I'm starting to wonder if the dehumanized nature of Millennial Saeculum society (that was complained about a lot in the Awakening--especially over in Britain) only got worse with Boomer "Personalized" Atomization, not better.

~Chas'88

I'd agree with that to a degree. Take a hive minded collective and separate it into individuals, and likely you'll wind up with a high rate of anomie. Anomie is an extremely dangerous scenario to create for Civics, where Nomads would thrive within it.

This is amusing:

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/o...hot-to-/nTqHY/

I haven't read this yet, but if any of you have I would be interested in your take on it.

Living with Guns: A Liberal's Case for the Second Amendment


Here is one of the Amazon.com reviews on the book...

Middle Ground in the OK Corral, December 4, 2012By
Matthew Stevenson

This review is from: Living with Guns: A Liberal's Case for the Second Amendment (Hardcover)
This is an excellent book about guns in America that searches for the middle ground between the NRA, "standing its ground," and those that would wish away the 300 million firearms that are in American hands.

A former foreign correspondent and assistant managing editor of the New York Times, Craig Whitney makes the point that gun ownership is a basic individual right, not dependent on militia service, but that with it comes a social responsibility for how weapons are bought, sold, and handled around the nation. In the early chapters he traces the constitutional right of gun ownership from English law to the Second Amendment, dwelling on the origins of the text that now allows both for unfettered gun ownership but at the same time the rights of the the federal and state governments to legislate guidelines for the ways that weapons are acquired, carried, and deployed. He agrees with the Supreme Court's Heller decision, although scoffs at how they reached the conclusion that "the right to bear arms" is an individual right. At the same time he sees no constitutional rationale for recent laws that condone Wild West "stand your ground" practices.

Among his suggestions for ways to keep guns out of the hands of those that would open fire in malls and schools are: tighter background checks for all those, even at gun shows, who want to buy and sell guns; nationwide standards to teach responsible gun handling and thus the issuance of permits for owners; better data bases to trace missing or stolen guns; harsher penalties for illegal gun use; and easier methods to trace bullets and handguns discharged in a criminal way. Perhaps the most disquieting aspect of the book are his statistics that show little correlation between murder rates and gun control, and he listens attentively while one gun advocates makes a well-reasoned argument that even more guns in the society might deter criminals from using them.

He thinks stricter background checking is the way to prevent madmen like those at Columbine and Virginia Tech from getting their weapons, but believes laws unproductive that prevent ordinary citizens from having a gun in their homes to ward off intruders. His historical argument is that guns are synonymous with the founding of the American republic and will be around as long as the country is standing, and believes that the only way to reduce gun violence is to see that firearms, like the deadly automobile, are only used in safe hands and in a responsible manner. (More Americans die on the road than in shootouts, but few want to ban the car. Nevertheless, both tallies, adding up to 70,000 deaths annually, are ghastly.)

If you love guns or hate them, this is an important book to own, read, and study. The writing is clear, dispassionate, and backed up with excellent research. It is at once historical and contemporary, and believe it or not, even-tempered enough to allow for traces of humor amidst the grim statistical roll call. A citizen-soldier, Whitney only used and carried a gun while on duty in the Vietnam War, but in his Platonic American republic, the gun lobby and the gun controllers need to find an unemotional place on which both sides can stand--and express--their grounds.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

This is amusing:

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/o...hot-to-/nTqHY/

Amusing? Not to me. Ironically tragic maybe...

Originally Posted by RyanJH

Amusing? Not to me. Ironically tragic maybe...

Sorry if you were not amused. But, here's another *gifted* individual representing Second Amendment Rights:

http://www.newsminer.com/news/alaska...a4bcf6878.html

26 years in the slam.

Gabby Giffords realized the error in her past ways, by saying "enough," and starting a pressure group for gun control with her astronaut husband, including banning assault weapons like semi-automatics with high magazine capacity.

I guess it takes getting shot to see the error of your ways in America these days.

I wonder what it will take for some people around here on this site..... quite a bit I suspect.

But one thing we can be sure of, the more we allow guns to proliferate in this society, the more of these incidents we will see, until it affects YOU.

Here is another lucid, rational advocate for Second Amendment Rights who appeared on CNN recently:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/07/us/pie...ate/index.html

Thank God for blue states! Talk about "rational advocates," thank you Gov. Cuomo. You go guy!


Breaking from Newsmax.com

Cuomo to Set Tough Gun Laws in NY

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is expected to announce tough new gun laws Wednesday that would be among the most stringent in the nation in response to continuing gun violence across the country and the massacre in Newtown, Conn., last December.

Sources told CBS New York on Tuesday that Cuomo was negotiating the regulations with members of the state Assembly and Senate that could include more stiff penalties for committing crimes with a gun and further restricting the firearms that citizens across the state can own.

please sign the petition urging the 113th Congress to immediately re-authorize the expanded version of the Violence Against Women Act, which the Senate passed with overwhelming bipartisan support last year. Click here to sign the petition.

A new year and a new Congress, but the same old War on Women. House Republicans, led by Majority Leader Eric Cantor, still don't want to support the bill because it’s been expanded to include protection for Native American, LGBT, and immigrant women.

This is disgraceful. Since it was first passed in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has funded vital resources for women, police, and organizations tasked with reducing domestic violence. It's time for Republicans to do the right thing and re-authorize legislation that has protected women and curtailed domestic violence for over 18 years.

Please, sign the petition urging members of the 113th Congress to re-authorize the expanded, bipartisan version of the Violence Against Women Act immediately.

Keep fighting,
Kaili Joy Gray, Daily Kos

current actions including the above at:
http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action/public/

Originally Posted by Public Policy Polling

National Survey Results

Q15 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion
of the National Rifle Association?

Favorable......................................... ............... 42%
Unfavorable .................................................. .. 45%
Not sure .................................................. ........ 12%

Q16 Would you support or oppose putting armed
police officers in every school in the country?

Support .................................................. ......... 41%
Oppose .................................................. ......... 50%
Not sure .................................................. ........ 9%

Q17 Would you support or oppose providing
teachers with guns?
Support .................................................. ......... 27%
Oppose .................................................. ......... 64%
Not sure .................................................. ........ 9%

Q18 Would you support or oppose Congress
passing stricter gun laws?

Support .................................................. ......... 53%
Oppose .................................................. ......... 40%
Not sure .................................................. ........ 8%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...Natl_10913.pdf

It looks as if gun control is gaining public support, as this pollster puts it:

“The more the NRA talks the less popular it becomes...”

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...Natl_10913.pdf

It looks as if gun control is gaining public support, as this pollster puts it:

“The more the NRA talks the less popular it becomes...”

Or perhaps the more the NRA talks, the more polarized opinion becomes. While I don't doubt the above poll, I also heard that NRA membership has gone up of late.

The group that seems to be losing out would be the folk in the middle.

Just bumped into a CNN article, Three areas where Biden and NRA can find common ground.

• Fully Fund the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
• Fully Fund systems tracking people with mental health problems.
• Persecute serious local gun crimes committed by felons.

Is there anyone opposed to the above?

On the other hand, the NRA opposes banning gun ownership by those on the FBI terrorists watch list. After hearing repeated stories of four year olds unable to fly with their parents as they are on the FBI terrorist watch list, I can sort of sympathize. If one is going to lose a right guaranteed to American citizens, there ought to be a level of proof somewhere in the neighborhood of probable cause to beyond a reasonable doubt. The FBI watch list is and perhaps ought to be at the 'vague suspicion' level.