Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

Welcome to the June 28th edition of the Weekly Check on media issues regarding guns and the 2nd Amendment.

While the "New Media" (meaning bloggers) might not fully drive MSM (Mainstream Media) yet, certainly many TV and newspaper headlines are effected by the big guys such as Matt Drudge. Yesterday he had a pair of headlines that showed the futility of modern crime-fighting when the public isn't involved. First we had this ABC TV Chicago report:

The police are watching. And in Chicago, they're listening, too.

City officials are using new technology that recognizes the sound of a gunshot within a two-block radius, pinpoints the source, turns a surveillance camera toward the shooter and places a 911 call. Officials can then track the shooter and dispatch officers to the scene.

Welcome to crime-fighting in the 21st century.

The second headline came from the Chicago Sun-Times:

Nearly 24 people shot in less than 12 hours

Shots rang out across the city Saturday night and Sunday morning -- from the Far North Side to the Far South Side -- with preliminary reports of nearly two dozen people shot.

The overnight tally -- which is unofficial -- included two shootings on the same corner, a fatal shooting near the Taste of Chicago and several on the West Side, where detectives were swamped.

"We're just spinning up here,'' one detective said.

While it is not this writer's wish [meaning me, I'm trying to sound fancy] to discourage new technology that could help catch the mutants that plague our cities, do you notice anything wrong with the Chicago equation? Anecdotally, crime is down a bit in the Windy City but then it's down almost everywhere. Chicago is still the "murder capital of the US". I'll get back to that "equation" in a moment but let me point out that Chicago is not the only city using these gunshot recognition systems.

Perhaps spurred by Drudge, there were other stories today about the technology such as this one from Myrtle Beach Online:

CHARLESTON - For two years, the ShotSpotter system has provided police in two Lowcountry cities key evidence in shooting cases and has resulted in less gunfire in some areas where the system is used.

Also during the period, the number of gun assaults has remained relatively stable in Charleston and North Charleston.

The system uses acoustic sensors linked by phone lines to a computer to tell dispatchers where guns are fired. It lets officers to get to the scene quickly, allowing them to preserve evidence and helping get guns off the streets.

[...]

About a dozen cities nationwide use ShotSpotter.

Since 2002, neither Charleston nor North Charleston has seen a substantial decrease in gun violence, but the numbers have not increased either and have remained relatively steady.

So gun violence has not decreased but it hasn't increased either, therefore ShotSpotter is worth the money. Whatever. Again, no quibble with anything that helps cops solve crime but here's what I think is wrong with the concept: It's "reactive" rather than preventive. That is, the crooks and gangbangers doen't seem to care that they might be caught on camera. Why would they when they don't even fear the punishments meted out if they're arrested? Short of murder (which might bring 7 years in prison, it's doubtful they'll do any hard time at all. So, the "box" hears a shot. So what; The shot has already been fired. The crime has already happened.

In Chicago (24 shot in 12 hours) the law-abiding citizen isn't allowed to defend himself; handgun ownership is forbidden by law. You can't have one in your home and you can't carry one for personal protection. Some thug can accost you because he knows you aren't armed. He can shoot you and while a ShotSpotter box atop a lightpole rotates around to try to film you and then "dial 911", you're already a statistic.

In most areas, the cops are not there to prevent crime, they're there to investigate the crime scene. If the chalk outline is of you, too bad. ShotSpotter didn't prevent the crime; it merrily reported it. Since Chicago and Washington DC both forbid gun ownership and both lead the nation in gun crime, the equation doesn't work. It doesn't work in Britain or Australia either. San Francisco take note!

Why is it important that folks be able to defend themselves? From Click 2 Houston:

One man died and another was hospitalized after a family caught several men invading their northeast Houston home Monday morning, police told Local 2.

Police said four men tried to break into the home on Lakewood and Jensen drives when the homeowner and his family arrived at about 1:30 a.m.

Investigators said a gun battle broke out between the family and the group of intruders.

Authorities said the intruders fled to a home on Willie and Terrell, where one of the men died from a gunshot wound. Another man was transported to Ben Taub Hospital. His condition was not released.

While short on details, it's obvious that ShotSpotter would have been useless in the above situation. The first line of defense for anyone is always themselves.

Last week I reported on a now widely syndicated story debating the end of the AWB. It starts off:

It's been 10 months since the federal assault weapons ban expired, and for an idea of what's happened since then, pick up a copy of a gun magazine.

There you will find advertisements for semiautomatic rifles and pistols looking like something out of a war zone, with ammunition clips holding 30 or 40 bullets -- many features that 11 months ago, U.S. manufacturers could not make and gun stores could not sell.

"Since the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire, it has been open season for criminals who want the most dangerous types of military-style assault weapons," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who in March introduced legislation to revive the old ban.

Feinstein said that the expiration of the ban she fought hard to get in 1994 "will have deadly consequences on the streets of America."

The writer, David Whitney of the Sacramento Bee makes it rather obvious where he comes down on "the debate". Fortunately, gun magazine ads really don't drive the debate; statistics do. And while there are plenty of quotes from anti-gunners such as:

Eric Howard, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said that just because there are no statistics to prove it does not mean the expiration of the ban has been a big so-what.

"Now manufacturers are kicking it up, and we're seeing things like fingerprint proof-resistant grips," he said.

"That's clearly to attract a niche that's not your regular duck hunter."

I'm not sure exactly what "fingerprint proof resistant grips" ARE, unless Whitney is referring to grips that have checkering or other features designed to facilitate a better grip on a firearm. Indeed, as one reader commented in my original post, all the criminal need do is wear gloves!

The silliest quote by Brady Bunch spokesman Howard was that "just because there are no statistics" to prove that the end of the AWB has led to an increase in crime doesn't mean it hasn't been "a big so-what." Somehow, that reminded me of an editorial by the brilliant Jonah Goldberg of NRO regarding accusations that President Bush had forwarning of 9/11. Specifically, about Rep. Cynthia McKinney:

When confronted, McKinney backpedaled a few millimeters. In a statement she explained: "I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case."

I see. Well, just let me just say that I am not aware of any evidence that Ms. McKinney has murdered several children or that she personally profited from sleeping with the entire defensive squad of the Atlanta Falcons. However, a complete investigation might reveal that to be the case.

Regarding the end of the "assault weapons" ban, there actually ARE some statistics and scholar John Lott, Jr. provides them in today's LA Times:

This wasn't supposed to happen. When the federal assault weapons ban ended on Sept. 13, 2004, gun crimes and police killings were predicted to surge. Instead, they have declined.

For a decade, the ban was a cornerstone of the gun control movement. Sarah Brady, one of the nation's leading gun control advocates, warned that "our streets are going to be filled with AK-47s and Uzis." Life without the ban would mean rampant murder and bloodshed.

Well, more than nine months have passed and the first crime numbers are in. Last week, the FBI announced that the number of murders nationwide fell by 3.6% last year, the first drop since 1999. The trend was consistent; murders kept on declining after the assault weapons ban ended.

Even more interesting, the seven states that have their own assault weapons bans saw a smaller drop in murders than the 43 states without such laws, suggesting that doing away with the ban actually reduced crime. (States with bans averaged a 2.4% decline in murders; in three states with bans, the number of murders rose. States without bans saw murders fall by more than 4%.)

And the drop was not just limited to murder. Overall, violent crime also declined last year, according to the FBI, and the complete statistics carry another surprise for gun control advocates. Guns are used in murder and robbery more frequently then in rapes and aggravated assaults, but after the assault weapons ban ended, the number of murders and robberies fell more than the number of rapes and aggravated assaults.

Read the whole thing. Plainly, the end of the AWB has led to no increase in crime anymore than the advent of the ShotSpotter has led to a decrease. John Lott has already shown that when the law-abiding citizen is allowed to conceal-carry, crime drops! Suddenly, the true equation becomes clear: The areas of the country that prohibit or make it exceedingly difficult to own a handgun have seen less of a drop in crime (if any) than those states or municipalities that encourage or at least allow ownership of a firearm for personal defense. That is the first line of crime prevention. Cameras and sound detectors on lightpoles only report crime. Concealed-carry and general ownership PREVENTS crime. John Lott knew the equation: More Guns = Less Crime. At least if those guns are in the hands of the law-abiding.

Update: Last month I mentioned that the San Diego Fair wouldn't allow off-duty police to carry their guns within the fair grounds because:

Linda Zweig, fairgrounds spokeswoman, said Thursday that the 2004 fair "came off as a model of a safe and secure public event," because of stepped-up security measures such as video cameras and metal detectors, as well as a "substantial and highly visible security force."

"Our incident rate at the fairgrounds is low," Zweig said, explaining the ban on off-duty officers carrying guns. "We want to provide a safe venue."

Apparently the organizers didn't trust even cops to conceal-carry. Yesterday a judge ruled in favor of the police. From NBC San Diego TV:

Off-duty law officers will be able to bring their guns to the San Diego County Fair, a federal judge ruled Monday.

Fair officials had prohibited firearms at the fair, but the Deputy Sheriff's Association of San Diego went to court to contest the ban.

Judge Irma Gonzalez ruled that the officers have a legal right to carry their weapons to public events on public property while they are off-duty. Gonzalez granted the officers a temporary restraining order blocking fair officials from enforcing the ban.

At least there's one judge showing some common sense.

Update 2:
The Brady Bunch has just put out a press release attempting to discredit John Lott. I'll ignore the personal attacks and focus on one statement:

Let's review Mr. Lott's credentials.

He's Been Discredited By Scholars

"A good scientist needs to use reliable data and appropriate models and to present findings fairly and accurately. All scientists make mistakes, but one widely cited gun proponent, John Lott Jr., all too often presents inaccurate information, uses inappropriate data and models, and obtains questionable results. He then publicizes them extensively." (Private Guns, Public Health, David Hemenway, Professor of Public Health, Harvard School of Public Health. University of Michigan Press, 2004)

"In at least eight published articles, more than a dozen academics have found enough serious flaws in Lott's model to discount his findings.... The general consensus among those who have seriously analyzed the results is that any "inference that is based on the Lott and Mustard models is inappropriate, and their results cannot be used responsibly to formulate public policy"..." (Private Guns, Public Health)

For the record, Hemenway himself has been attacked for his research. Read this, too:

It is obvious to us that David Hemenway (H) had no intention of producing a balanced, intellectually serious assessment of our estimates of defensive gun use (DGU). Instead, his critique serves the narrow political purpose of "getting the estimate down," for the sake of advancing the gun control cause. An honest, scientifically based critique would have given balanced consideration to flaws that tend to make the estimate too low (e.g., people concealing DGUs because they involved unlawful behavior, and our failure to count any DGUs by adolescents), as well as those that contribute to making them too high. Equally important, it would have given greatest weight to relevant empirical evidence, and little or no weight to idle speculation about possible flaws. H's approach is precisely the opposite--one-sided and almost entirely speculative. Readers who have any doubts about the degree to which H's paper is imbalanced might carry out a simple exercise to assess our claim¾ count the number of lines H devotes to flaws tending to make the estimate too high and the number devoted to flaws making the estimate too low. We submit that the ratio is over 100-to-1, i.e., almost entirely devoted to speculations about why the estimate is too high.

Actually, it's a rare scholar who doesn't come under some sort of attack for his findings although the Brady Bunch seem bent on only quoting studies funded by anti-gun groups. For that matter, a simple search reveals lies by the Brady Bunch themselves!

So the Brady Bunch have found a few "experts" who dispute John Lott's figures. Here's a news flash: There are quite a few "experts" who dispute the Theory of Evolution and still more who claim the earth is only four thousand years old. I guess we'll all have to just keep shouting at each other. Alphecca is MY megaphone.

For those of you who don't stop by that often, remember that I cover media stories like this all week long. You might want to browse the site. And as long as I'm tooting my own horn, my Taurus Fund has $61 bucks in it. Cool. If you'd like to contribute towards my acquisition of this pistol, head to my home page and hit the gun graphic on the right...

Here's what's happening at some other pro-2A bloggers' sites:

Kim du Toit has more citizen disarmament in Africa. So does Say Uncle.

Irons in the Fire writes about the well-dressed cowboy.

Les Jones as a range report on the Armalite AR-7.

mASS Backwards shows what happens when folks don't follow gun safety rules.

Countertop Chronicles has just the thing to perk up your, er, week.

Carnaby Fudge had a multi-cultural range trip. With pictures. And in case you're wondering why I don't have one this week, it's because there ARE no pictures of the ShotSpotter.

Cowboy Blog has a range report, too. Home, home on the range...

In a rambling post, The Ten Ring mentions a new pro-2A Democrat site. We'll see...

Also, NZ Bear and Say Uncle have a Gun blogger's community page where you can catch the latest stuff from blatherers like me... It's nifty, swift & bitchen'!

Time to get this posted. I'll be on Cam's Corner later this afternoon and until then, thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at June 28, 2005 09:21 AM