New Jersey's Web of Injustice

NRANews.com Investigative Reporter Ginny Simone shares the story of another horror story out of New Jersey where that state's gun laws ensare honest gun owners.

From the NRANews web site:

Mia and Steve Higginbotham were planning to fly with a firearm, so they did what any law-abiding citizen would do — they looked up the rules and regulations to legally transport a gun. Unloaded? Check. Locked in a hard-sided container? Check. Stored in a checked bag? Check. Except in their case, three checks meant they were out. The Transportation Security Administration official said everything looked fine. But the New Jersey counter agent disagreed. That began a downward spiral that led to Mia being arrested in front of her four-year-old daughter. To this day, every time the toddler sees a policeman, she fears he’s coming to take her mommy away. It's another heartbreaking case in the state that leads the nation in stripping citizens of their Constitutional rights. As Mia says, she became "a check in their box … 'we got a gun owner off the street.'"

I keep saying how happy I am I live in Virginia, but if Terry McAuliffe had his way, Virginia's gun laws would be like New Jersey's.

Hat tip to NRANews' Cam and Company

Boston Globe: Gun Sports Gaining Favor Among Youths

This story from the Boston Globe is just one more in a line of stories about the growing popularity of the shooting sports among America's youth.

At a time when America’s debate about gun control is at a fever pitch, young people are learning to use firearms in ever greater numbers.

Participation in the nationwide 4-H Shooting Sports Program, which includes archery, hunting, pistol, rifle, and other firearms, has nearly tripled since 2009 and last year drew 336,558 program participants nationally. The actual number of youths involved is doubtless somewhat different than that, as some sign up for more than one offering and not all states report, but the trend is clear.

Also, after a long decline, participation in hunting in the US increased by 9 percent between 2006 and 2011, and one of the main reasons appears to be an array of youth recruitment and retention programs sponsored by local clubs and national youth organizations, according to a recent study funded by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

It was just a couple months ago this blog included a post about a Bloomberg News story that reported how schools are embracing shooting as the hot new sport.  The Globe story reported what instructors and parents of young shooters have known for years - that the demands of target practice improve a child's focus as well as a high level of personal responsibility. Additionally, the Globe noted that youth shooters are routinely asked at some clubs to bring in their report cards — good grades can be a condition of participation.

Stories like this are just one more piece of good news.  Kids don't participate in programs like this without the permission of their parents.  The more parents who have kids that participate in the shooting sports, the less likely they will support additional restrictions on our rights.

Hat tip to Bearing Arms.

Nova Firearms Facing Protests Again

You may recall that northern Virginia based NOVA Firearms attempted to move from it's McLean, Virginia location to a larger location in the People's Republic of Arlington only to have the new landlord buckle under pressure from the gun ban crowd and at the last minute have the lease voided.  The owner of the store, J.B. Gates, has found a new location about three miles from the current location that will allow him to expand and include classroom space for training.  Unfortunately, residents in the area don't think he should move his store because the new location is near an elementary school.  From WUSA9.

Fortunately for Gates, this time it appears the new landlord is standing by him.

Gun Ban Politicians Look for Creative Ways to Pass Restrictions

Last week, it was reported that the city of Missoula, Montana was trying to pass an ordinance that would require so-called "universal" background checks within the city.  Bloomberg's faux news outlet, The Trace, had a story today about how the city council may have found a way around the state's preemption law:

“I would be surprised if it didn’t draw a challenge in the courts,” says Missoula City Council member Bryan Von Lossberg, who sponsored the background check ordinance along with Marilyn Marter and Emily Bentley. Nonetheless, he’s confident his universal background check proposal will stand a fighting chance against the almost-inevitable lawsuit. Specifically, he sees justification for the proposal in a close reading of some key language in the state preemption law.

The first sentence of the relevant section of State Code says cities may not “prohibit, register, tax, license, or regulate the purchase, sale or other transfer” of weapons — except as provided in subsection 2 of the code. That subsection carves out a few small exceptions: Cities can regulate shooting guns, and carrying at public assemblies and public properties. There’s also one more provision, and it’s the one that gives Von Lossberg and his colleagues hope their proposal could survive in court. The preemption law states that for public safety purposes, cities can prevent and suppress the possession of guns by felons, those adjudicated mentally unfit, undocumented immigrants, and minors — populations that background checks screen for.

Expanded background checks are the gun ban lobby's answer to most any high profile shooting, even if the shooter passed a background check to get the gun used in the crime.

The NRA-ILA legislative liaison Brian Judy told NRANews last week that Bloomberg is behind this move in Montana and that there were three lobbyists for Bloomberg in Helena during the legislative session this year.

With Virginia's governor being so open not only to passing restrictions on our rights, but believing that Constitutional concern's are just unimportant "small ball,"  one has to wonder how long before we start seeing serious attacks on our preemption statute.

Lead Sight By Wing Shooter

When learning to shoot clay targets, or if you are teaching a young shooter to bust clays, "You have to lead your target" is something you've probably heard or said a lot. The trick is knowing how far to lead it in your sight picture. It's not easy, but I came across a device that may help get the hang of it.

The Lead Sight is a non-permanent device that attaches to the barrel of your shotgun and provides not one but four extra "beads" that swing out on hinges. Line one of these four beads up with your moving target and you are automatically "leading the target."

The Lead Sight is easy to install and is made for 12 gauge shotgun. When you're finished using it, just remove it.  It will not damage your firearm. According to Gun Digest, it's perfect for new shotgun shooters, young shotgun shooters, and for building confidence.

Hat tip to Gun Digest.

2015 VSSA Board Election Results and Raffle Winners

The 2015 VSSA Board of Directors Election results were announced during Wednesday's board meeting at the Gander Mountain in Fredericksburg, Virginia.  Members re-elected two current members and one new member to the VSSA Board.  The top three vote getters were elected for a three-year term. The winning candidates are:

Joe Primerano
Joe Turner
Jesse Lockhart

The winning tickets for this year's member raffle were also drawn.  The winners were:

1st Prize - Glock 43 G4 9mm: Kenneth M., Big Island, VA
2nd Prize - Special Edition Henry Golden Boy 22 LR: Robert R., Pawleys Island, SC (yes - we have members living out-of-state)
3rd Prize - $100: Elmer W. Jr. , Round Hill, VA

Congratulations to sitting board members Joe Primerano and Joe Turner, and a big board welcome to Jesse Lockhart whose term will begin on January 1, 2016.  And, congratulations to this year's raffle winners.  Kenneth has won himself a great handgun, Robert has the final of 10 specially manufactured rifles made especially for VSSA, and Elmer has an extra $100 that he can spend on ammo or anything else he may want.  Thanks to all of the members who participated in the raffle and made it big success.

Bart Hinkle's "Honest Talk" About Gun Control

Over the weekend, Times Dispatch columnist Bart Hinkle had a lengthy OP/Ed titled "Honest Talk About Gun Control."  There is much to like in this piece.  For instance:

After every high-profile killing, the cry goes up that America must “do something,” which is how an Aug. 26 Washington Post editorial put it. This urge is so strong that it overwhelms critical thinking. “We certainly don’t know if the gun control measures that (Virginia Gov. Terry) McAuliffe or other would-be reformers favor would have prevented Wednesday’s deadly attack,” the newspaper said. “But it doesn’t matter.” Efficacy doesn’t matter? Really?

Apparently not. The two most common proposals in the aftermath of any spree killing are universal background checks (Virginia Democrats are reviving that proposal now) and a ban on assault weapons — neither of which would have a measurable effect on spree killings.

And there is this:

Likewise, bans on assault weapons would have a vanishingly small effect on spree killings. Such bans usually define assault weapons based on cosmetic characteristics — such as a pistol grip or a flash suppressor — that have no bearing on lethality. This is one reason few public officials have tried seriously to revive the 1994 federal ban that expired in 2004.

Although there are millions of so-called assault rifles in circulation (3.3 million Colt AR-15s alone, for example), they actually are used in homicides less often than hammers and clubs. And that’s true for all rifles, not just the scary-looking kind. In 2013, FBI data show, 285 people were killed with rifles — and 428 with blunt instruments.

But Hinkle, who has in the past written strongly against gun control proposals, seems to come out in favor of so-called "Gun Violence Restraining Orders" (GVROs)  This proposal is the flavor de jour of the gun ban lobby.  It allows the courts and/or law enforcement to confiscate the firearms of individuals by showing only "reasonable grounds" that the person is dangerous.  I'm not sure where Hinkle is getting his information about GVROs that he can write with a straight face that "Laws like that rest on a clear, articulable suspicion about an individual, rather than on sweeping assumptions that, much like racial profiling, cast suspicion on the dangerous and the innocent alike."  The fact is that the low evidentiary standard and lack of a mechanism for individuals to present their own defense in the bill that became law in California fails to meet basic American standards for due process. As Robert Fargo of The Truth About Guns has written:

The restraining order's greatest danger is not its obvious unconstitutionality (trampling due process) or irrelevance (deranged individuals ignore firearms prohibitions). The main problem is the huge potential for abuse by disaffected spouses and/or angry, jealous or greedy relatives.

Even after writing supportively of GVROs, Hinkle writes that it's unlikely to cause gun homicide rates to fall by half, which is exactly what has happened over the past 20 years, even as many states have relaxed their gun restrictions.

The real problem with the gun ban lobby is that their proposals are not meant to reduce crime, it's to make it harder for people to own firearms.  We have no reason to believe they would be satisfied with so-called "universal" background checks or even GVROs, because if they were to get their way on these, they would be back for more.

Update: On Tuesday, Hinkle was on NRANews Cam and Company to discuss the article in more detail.

Media May Claim Gun Control is Winning But Facts Say Otherwise

Katie Pavlich has a great piece at Townhall pointing out how the media freely repeats Bloomberg's claim that gun control is winning at the state level but when you look at the facts, you see a completely different picture.

For instance, she points out that in 2013, 98 NRA backed pro-gun and pro-hunting bills were signed into law in 33 states while only 21 gun control bills were passed and signed into law in just 10 states. The result was much the same or better in 2014 and 2015.

Apparently, Democratic candidate Martin O'Malley is buying the line that Bloomberg is peddling, but it will likely do the same for him as it has for gun control.

The numbers are on our side.  A recent CNN poll verifies this.  That doesn't seem to stop the media from repeating the gun ban lobby's lies however.

Imagine That, Wording of Poll Questions Affects Response

I've said it more than once that the reason the gun ban lobby can claim public support of upwards of 80% for so-called "universal" background checks is because the questions used in those polls don't fully explain what such a policy would mean to gun owners.  If for instance, a pollster said something like "if you had to run a background check on your uncle, cousin, girlfriend, or best friend before you could sell or give them a firearm, would you support univeral background checks?" it is very likely support would fall exponentially.  It appears this thinking is correct.  According to this article in Bloomberg's propaganda "news" outlet The Trace, how a question is asked will affect the response:

One of the authors of the Johns Hopkins poll thinks the explanation for why CNN found less confidence in expanded background checks lies right at the beginning of its question. The poll asked (emphasis ours):

“If gun control laws were changed so that more comprehensive background checks were put in place for all gun purchases, how likely do you think it is that they would prevent those with mental health problems from buying guns? Prevent convicted criminals from buying guns?”

Beth McGinty, a professor in the Johns Hopkins Department of Health Policy and Management and co-author of the poll released this summer, says that phrases like “gun control” and “gun rights” turn questions seemingly focused on specific laws into broader referenda. Such trigger words, she says, “may evoke fears about threats to Second Amendment rights and cause respondents’ political ideology, which is closely tied to opinions about firearm policy in the U.S., to be the primary factor influencing their response.” For this reason, McGinty and her colleagues seek to construct poll questions with neutral wording that keeps the focus on policies themselves.

Here’s how the Johns Hopkins team asked respondents if they supported background checks, among many other specific policies:

“Do you favor or oppose requiring a background check system for all gun sales to make sure a purchaser is not legally prohibited from having a gun?”

In the school’s 2014 anthology on gun policy and politics, some of McGinty’s colleagues wrote that polls using the words “gun control” provide poor gauges of attitudes towards specific gun policies, and instead “likely measure a constellation of attitudes about gun ownership generally and the role of government.” While the authors addressed polls that asked very broad questions about support for any and all gun laws — not just background checks — McGinty thinks a similar dynamic could be at play in the CNN poll.

Or, put another way, try and hide what the real goal of your policy is by avoiding "trigger" words so you can show more support for your proposals.

A Message for VSSA President Ernie Padgette

VSSA Annual Membership Meeting Cancelled

Regretfully, it is necessary to cancel the 2015 VSSA Membership Meeting due to low response from the membership. We are always receiving requests from members to “bring the meeting to a location near us”. This year, we tried to do just that. Unfortunately, there is always a risk involved in moving the meeting to a location away from our main membership base; and this time the risk was validated.

Member response and reservations have been very low this year. Additionally, many members have indicated they simply were unable to make the long trip to Roanoke. Lesson learned; but we did try to respond to repeated requests from the membership to “take the show on the road.” My regrets to all VSSA Members.

The annual drawing and announcement of election results will take place at the next VSSA Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting, at 7:00 PM on September 23^rd, at Gander Mountain in Fredericksburg, VA.  The results of both will be will be announced on the VSSA website, eBullet and blog. Additionally, all VSSA BOD Meetings are open to the membership.

Finally, there is still have time to participate in the annual drawing but tickets should be mailed no later than September 19th to insure they are received in the office before the 23rd.  This year's 1st Prize is the very popular Glock 43 G4 9mm, which has received rave reviews and was NRA's Gun of the Week earlier this year.

You can download additional tickets by clicking here.  Simply print and fill out the number additional tickets you would like to purchase, and mail them along with your check to VSSA, PO Box 1258, Orange, VA. 22960.

Again, it is with deep regret that the 2015 Membership Meeting is canceled.

Thanks;

Ernie P.

Guest Post - Michael Wilburt, Candidate for VSSA Board of Directors

My name is George Michael (Mike) Wilburt.  I am a candidate for a seat on the Virginia Shooting Sports Association’s Board of Directors.  I am honored, flattered and humbled that the VSSA membership will be considering my name on their ballots later this month. Those same emotions fill me when I realize I am among the company of strong VSSA board nominees. While I hope to have your support, regardless of the outcome, please rest assured the results of this election will provide strong leadership of your VSSA.

I have been a gun owner and active shooter (primarily handguns) for nearly forty years.  I am a life member of the NRA and a longtime member of VSSA and the Virginia Citizens Defense League where I am the gun show coordinator for the Richmond area.  Like many of our members, I am NRA certified as an instructor and range safety officer. I am a past member of Cavalier Rifle and Pistol, Black Creek, and a have been a member of Colonial Shooting Academy in Richmond since its opening.

In 1999 I retired after 25 years at Circuit City holding positions as store manager, Senior National Buyer and Director of Sales Development.  At my retirement, my wife and I moved from Richmond to North Carolina moving full-time to a weekend house on Lake Gaston we had owned for several years. I immediately re-ignited a lifelong interest and involvement in politics. I wrote a political opinion column for a local paper that also frequently appeared in papers across the state.  I was elected to be the chairman of our county’s Republican Party organization.

Shortly after, I was elected to be the vice chairman of the congressional district GOP which encompassed 23 counties.  I eventually held the chairman’s role of that party organization.  I was a member of the NCGOP central and executive committees. In 2004 I was also elected to be a North Carolina Republican Presidential Elector. I did speech writing for the state party and candidates.  I wrote position papers on the size of government, taxes, national defense, Right to Life, immigration and of course, the Second Amendment. I managed state senate campaigns and served in an advisory role in two congressional campaigns.

In 2008 our youngest daughter informed us that we were going to become grandparents for the first time.  We sold the house on the lake and moved back to Richmond. Politically, however, witnessing the infighting and the “good ol’ boys” nature of the Republican Party of Virginia, I chose to not join the state GOP and have found new energy in being a staunch Constitutional Conservative, not a party tool.

I recently chose to go back to work accepting a part-time job at the very busy Town Police Supply and Gun Shop in North Chesterfield. I am inspired by the optimism of our citizens, law enforcement, first responders and military with whom I interact every day. I absolutely believe freedom loving Virginians understand their responsibility in securing and maintaining personal liberties in this environment of overarching, overbearing and overwhelming government.

The current state of our nation requires all gun owners and non-gun-owning citizens to take a stand in ensuring Americans maintain their God-Given Right of self-determination which cannot be assured without the means to defend one’s self, family, community, and country. I believe organizations like VSSA hold a critical grassroots role in supporting the defense of our liberties.

As distasteful as politics has become, political involvement cannot be ignored and an acute understanding of the mechanics of government and political leadership must be embraced by the leadership of VSSA. I believe my long hands-on experience in politics, and executive management will be an asset to your Virginia Shooting Sports Association.

On a personal note….. I am 65 years old, married to my high school sweetheart, Carolyn, for 45 years.  We have three children (children??) 42, 40, 38, and two incredible grandchildren.  We live in North Chesterfield, Virginia.

Thank you for any consideration.

Very respectfully,

Mike Wilburt

Editor's Note: This space is open for all candidates currently running for the VSSA Board of Directors to introduce themselves to members in a longer format than was allowed in the candidate bios included in the member mailing.  The views expressed are those of the author.

Department of Justice Awards NSSF 2.4 Million for Project Child Safe

The Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance has awarded the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) a cooperative agreement in the amount of $2.4 million to provide firearm safety education messaging and free gun locks through NSSF’s Project ChildSafe program.  From the NSSF press release:

We thank the Department of Justice for its recognition of this important program,” said Steve Sanetti, NSSF’s President and CEO. “We’ll work to build on previous efforts and further raise awareness of the simple precautions gun owners can take to store firearms securely when not in use.”

It's nice to see that the USDOJ has awarded taxpayer money to a group that actually knows something about outreach to gun owners.

Democrat Presidential Candidate O'Malley Calls for Sweeping Gun Control

WMUR 9 reports that Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley will roll out a sweeping gun control plan in New York today:

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley calls for universal background checks, fingerprint licensing for gun purchases and a rejection of federally mandated concealed carry in a plan he says will "prevent and reduce" gun violence.

His plan, to be unveiled at a gun safety roundtable at Boys and Girls Harbor in New York City, would also ban “assault weapons” and close loopholes he says currently make women vulnerable to gun violence."

According to WMUR, O'Malley also wants to establish a national firearms registry, a mandate that all lost or stolen firearms be reported to law enforcement and a ban on the sale and distribution of modern sporting rifles.  I guess O'Malley doesn't know that Canada, which has less people and had less firearms in the hands of the public than this country, already tried a national registry and scrapped it because of cost.

Guns Sales Surged Over Summer

Last December, Time was reporting how people "just aren't stocking up on firearms anymore."  How things can change over the course of six months.  From Outdoor Life's Gun Shots blog via Breitbart News:

According to the FBI, there were 1,580,980 background checks in May 2015, which is nearly 100,000 more than the previous record of 1,485,259 in May 2014.

The trend continued through August.

—There were 1,529,057 background checks in June, nearly 150,000 more than the previous record of 1,382,975 in June 2014.

—There were 1,600,832 background checks in July 2015, nearly 200,000 more than the previous record of 1,402,228 in July 2014.

—There were 1,745,410 background checks in August 2015, nearly 200,000 more than the previous record of 1,546,497 in August 2014.

It should be noted that the number of background checks does not necessarily equal the number of firearms sold but it is an indicator.

Hat tip to Sebastian.

McAuliffe, Warner, Join Kaine at Capitol Hill Gun Ban Rally

Yesterday, Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense of America held its “Day of Action” on Capitol Hill.   According to Robert Fargo over at The Truth About Guns, the event drew about 100 people.  Cam Edwards of NRA News noted during the program yesterday that McAuliffe said it was easier to by a gun than it is to buy a beer.

Washington's WUSA 9 footage of the rally caught U.S. Senator Mark Warner saying "enough is enough" (echoing his statement after the 2012 Newtown school shootings) and "more gun owners support background checks than the rest of the population" while Governor Terry McAuliffe said "I'm sick and tired of gutless politicians who are afraid of the NRA."

Warner voted for the Manchin/Schumer/Toomey amendment in 2013 that would have criminalized selling a firearm from your private collection unless a background check is performed.  So, it's no surprise he is supporting this renewed push for "expanded background checks" but he has pretty much stayed in the background when supporting this in the past.  Warner has carefully cultivated a "centrist" persona since running for office for the first time in 1996.  In 2001 he worked very hard to keep the NRA from endorsing his opponent in the gubernatorial election and even signed 17 pro-rights bills, including full pre-emption as governor.  He received an "A" rating from the NRA (but not the endorsement) when he ran for U.S. Senate in 2008.  However, when he ran for re-election, his rating dropped due to his vote for the Manchin/Schumer/Toomey amendment and voting for two anti-gun nominees to the Supreme Court.  Warner apparently feels somewhat liberated since he squeeked by Ed Gillespie in 2014, in a year that every endangered Democrat went down to defeat.  Warner was expected to handily win.  I guess he figures surviving that scare makes him invincible and he can go back to his pre-2001 anti-rights positions.

Tim Kaine Wants to Hold Firearm Retailers and Private Sellers Liable for the Acts of Criminals

The Roanoke Times reported on Monday that Virginia U.S. Senator Tim Kaine wants to hold firearm retailers and private individuals who sell a firearm liable for the acts of criminals that use a firearm:

“Ultimately, efforts to reduce gun violence must focus on multiple solutions,” Kaine said. “But this act is a step in the right direction.”

Kaine’s bill, the Responsible Transfer of Firearms Act, would make gun sellers criminally liable for a bad sale if they didn’t take reasonable, affirmative steps to determine the customer met federal criteria, according to a summary provided by Kaine’s office.
 

The standard would apply to both commercial dealers and private sellers.

Kaine claimed during his floor speech that current law as it pertains to firearm sales is a "no responsibility" law because a retailer or private seller can only be charged with transferring a firearm to a prohibited person if they "knowingly" do so.  What Kaine wants to do is change the law so that sellers take "reasonable" steps to insure they don't transfer to someone who is prohibited.  This is an interesting new approach to try and get so-called "universal" background checks.  You see, the only "reasonable" thing to do is run a background check on a buyer.  Retailers already do that so this is actually aimed at private sellers.

The Roanoke Times noted Kaine's bill faces an uphill battle in congress.

Hat tip to VSSA Executive Director Lu Charette for forwarding this news report.

New York Times Shills for Brady Campaign on Suicide and Guns

The New York Times has this editorial promoting a new "report" released by the Brady Campaign that claims states with higher rates of gun ownership also have a higher rate of suicide:

If it takes a sensational statistic to spur national concern about such self-destruction, consider the latest research showing that 82 percent of teenage suicides by firearms involve guns left poorly secured or foolishly unprotected by members of their families. These young lives are impulsively lost in supposedly safe home environments, where just the presence of a gun has been found to increase the risk of suicide three times, according to a new report by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun safety organization.

Violent crime has been falling now for some twenty years and at the same time six in ten Americans believe that a gun in the home makes them safer.  It seems the Times, and Brady, hope that focusing on suicide numbers will change that statistic in their favor.  But, as fellow blogger Sebastian noted yesterday in his coverage of the Brady report, saying that a gun in the home makes suicide three times more likely is like saying having alcohol in the home makes you three times more likely to die from liver disease:

There are some areas where statistical analysis is useful, but this is not one of those cases. This would be like arguing that having a gun in the home makes it three times more likely you’ll rob a bank. Or perhaps having a bottle of liquor in the home makes it three times more likely that you’ll die from cirrhosis of the liver. Could be high-speed internet links make it 3x more likely you’ll download kiddie porn. All these things may statistically be true, but they are meaningless when applied to individuals.

I am not and have never been suicidal. If you’re not a bank robber, you’re not going to suddenly decide to rob a bank just because there’s a gun around. If you’re not an alcoholic, that statistic is meaningless to you, regardless of the presence of alcohol in your home. You get the picture.

I would say if you have a tendency to be suicidal, you have a loved one with a tendency toward suicidal behavior, or is just generally troubled, you’ll want to take precautions if you own guns. Perhaps gun ownership itself isn’t a wise thing for you in some circumstances. I have no disagreement with that notion.

The Times also takes its customary swipe at the "gun lobby" and the "firearms industry" for being "engaged in a reckless campaign to have more Americans own and carry guns" without out noting that the firearms community is doing more to make sure unintended fatalities involving firearms don't occur than any other group.

Suicide is tragic, but the vast majority of gun owners and Americans do not have suicidal tendencies, so having a gun in the home will not change that fact. 

One last note, according to the World Health Organization, both Japan and France have a higher rate of suicide than the U.S. while also having much more restrictive gun laws (in fact just about every country above the U.S. has stricter gun laws).

2011 Rankings by the World Health Organization



Hat tip to Sebastian for noting Japan's higher rate of suicide.

Guest Post - Robert Melvin, Candidate for VSSA Board of Directors

My name is Robert Melvin, and I am running for the Board of Directors for the Virginia Shooting Sports Association (VSSA).  With many of you receiving and submitting your ballots, so I thought this would be a good time to provide you with some additional insight into my candidacy. 

As many of you have read on the ballot, I am a native Virginian, VSSA Life Member, a graduate of Hampden-Sydney College, and a long time advocate of our Second Amendment freedoms. I am a veteran of political campaigns for NRA-PVF endorsed candidates, not only in Virginia, but also around the country.  I got my start as the NRA-ILA Campaign Field Representative for the Hampton Roads region of Virginia, overseeing the statewide Director of Sportsmen outreach for the Scott Lingamfelter for Lt. Governor campaign, and managing the NRA-ILA’s grassroots efforts in Virginia and 14 other states. 

During my time with the NRA-ILA Grassroots Division, I secured many victories for the pro-gun community, starting with the historic 2013 Colorado Recall Election.  In addition, I oversaw the NRA-ILA’s political operations in eight states during the 2014 election—helping secure wins in U.S. Senate races in Georgia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Colorado, Montana, Nebraska and Louisiana, and changing the state Constitution of Mississippi to protect the right to hunt and fish.  During my time with the NRA-ILA, I not only handled election operations, but I also worked to educate the next generation of pro-gun activists though countless workshops and seminars.  These trainings are critical to growing our network of supporters.

While I have accomplished much during my career, it’s important that I give back to Second Amendment supporters, which is why I am running for the VSSA Board of Directors. 

If elected, I will work to foster a stronger, more vibrant network of supporters for the VSSA by building bridges to new demographics in the pro-gun community.  I want to bring a fresh perspective to the Board, and as a millennial, I know how to reach out to younger supporters. 

I am honored to have the following endorsements for the VSSA Board of Directors:

-Charles Cunningham; Special Advisor to the Executive Director of the NRA-ILA and Chairman of the Board for VA DGIF

-Delegate Michael Webert; Whip of the Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee

-Delegate Scott Lingamfelter; Chairman of the Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee

-Carrie Lightfoot: Founder and President of The Well Armed Woman (a National Female Firearms Organization)

If you have any questions pertaining to my candidacy for the VSSA Board of Directors, please do not hesitate to contact me at rbmelvin.nra@gmail.com. I look forward to earning your trust and your support.

 

Robert Melvin.

 

Editor's Note: This space is open for all candidates currently running for the VSSA Board of Directors to introduce themselves to members in a longer format than was allowed in the candidate bios included in the member mailing.  The views expressed are those of the author.

Incomplete Data Used to Claim Few People Use Guns for Self-Defense

Jacob Sullum over at Reason.com picks apart a new study by Harvard health policy professor David Hemenway and University of Vermont economist Sara Solnick that claims very few people use a firearm for defensive use:

A study in the latest issue of Preventive Medicine estimates that less than 1 percent of crime victims use guns in self-defense. The authors, Harvard health policy professor David Hemenway and University of Vermont economist Sara Solnick, find that using a gun seems to be effective at reducing property loss but "is not associated with a reduced risk of victim injury." It will surprise no one familiar with the long-running debate about defensive gun use (DGU) that the source of the data for this study is the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which consistently generates much lower DGU estimates than other surveys do. At least some of that gap can be plausibly explained by weaknesses in the NCVS that Hemenway and Solnick do not seriously address or, for the most part, even mention. 

That study is part of a special issue of Preventive Medicine titled Epidemiology and Prevention of Gun Violence where, according to the publication, "preventive medicine and health policy experts address a wide range of critical topics related to firearm violence, from the interaction of alcohol abuse with gun violence, effects of changes to gun laws in various states, how criminals obtain guns in a large US city, to how the public perceives gun violence and gun policies." 

Sullum points out that even though Hemenway and Solnick admit the data they are using can be misleading, it does not stop them from making the claim that there are very few people who use a firearm for self-defense.  Sullum says their interpretation is "too strong" because the NCVS may only represent a fraction of respondents involved in defensive gun uses, and, he points out that Florida State University criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck has more extensively addressed that point.

So what does research on the flaws in surveys of crime-related behaviors tell us? It consistently indicates that survey respondents underreport (1) crime victimization experiences, (2) gun ownership and (3) their own illegal behavior. While it is true that a few respondents overstate their crime-related experiences, they are greatly outnumbered by those who understate them, i.e. those who falsely deny having the experience when in fact they did. In sum, research tells us that surveys underestimate the frequency of crime victimizations, gun possession and self-reported illegal behavior...

So, as we have seen with other so-called studies that push gun control, this is just another example of cherry picking data in an attempt to prove a preconceived conclusion.

Virginia Democrats Trot Out Petition to Criminalize Private Sales

The Loudoun Times reports that northern Virginia  Democrats, lead by Delegate Patrick Hope, have unveiled a petition of 28,000 signatures calling for legislation that would criminalize private sales of firearms unless a background check is completed before the transfer.  The article notes that Governor Terry McAuliffe has vowed to again push for restrictions on the rights of Virginia Gun owners in next year's General Assembly.

Julie Golob on Helping Women Choose a Gun

National and World Champion Shooter Julie Golob provides helpful hints to gun owners each much via the NRA Family web site.  This month she talks about how to help a female friend or family member choose her first firearm.

Lies, Damn lies and Statistics

It almost seems like a weekly occurrence that some new academic study comes out claiming proof that guns are bad things - they either lead to more police deaths, or their easy availability leads to mass shootings.  I'm not an statistician and was never good at math so thankfully there are people smarter than me that can get into the details of studies and find out just what these so-called academics did that led to the conclusions they reached.  Such is the case with a new study by Adam Lankford, Criminal Justice Professor at The University of Alabama, that purports to show mass shootings are caused by the "easy access" to firearms.  Author and blogger James Visor explains how Lankford arrived at his conclusion:

For example, correlating gun availability with the number of mass shootings is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is like saying there is a correlation between obesity and large waist lines. In other words, it makes perfect sense that if there are more guns in circulation that there would be statistically more opportunity for a mentally ill person to buy or steal a gun and then commit a horrific crime. Let’s not forget that every mass shooter purchased their weapons legally, stole their guns or skirted the law by using a straw purchase.

Critics will jump on that previous paragraph and say “Ha! You admitted that a society with guns is more dangerous that one without them! Hypocrite!” Stay with me, folks, there’s more to this story.

Thoughtful observers know that correlation does not equal causation. Bivariate analysis, one involving only two variables, can be compelling because it offers an easy, linear way of looking at complex issues. That some difficult math is involved gives the technique an appearance of having scientific validity and objectivity. The weakness of using only two variables, however, is that the technique can oversimplify too much, and gloss over real world complexities and variables that potentially offer more explanatory power.

In other words, when the availability of firearms becomes the sole focus, it excludes all other variables, and falls back on the ideological approach of gun control.  Visor was on NRANews' Cam and Company yesterday to discuss the "study" and its flaws more in depth.

John Lott: Walmart Decision to Stop Selling Modern Sporting Rifles Hit Poor Hardest

The Crime Prevention Research Center posted this link to Dr. John Lott's latest OP/ED on Walmart's announced decision to stop selling modern sporting rifles.  In the piece, Lott writes that the retailer's decision will fall hardest on the poor:

Semiautomatic weapons such as the AR-15 don’t just make hunting easier. They also help people protect themselves. Should someone miss his first shot or be faced with multiple assailants, having to manually reload the gun could cost him his life.

There’s no evidence that banning these so-called “assault weapons” will reduce crime. Violent crime rates (including murder rates) fell after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in September 2004. In 2003, when the ban was still in place, there were 5.7 murders per 100,000 people. By 2013, the murder rate had fallen to 4.5 per 100,000.

One should also bear in mind that just 2.3% ,of all murders are committed with rifles. Not even studies funded by the Clinton administration found that the ban reduced any type of violent crime.

In the past, Wal-Mart has sometimes made the decision to stop selling guns in high-crime urban areas. Perhaps this made business sense in certain cases, but it also made it harder for vulnerable people to defend themselves.

If Wal-Mart is caving to political pressure to stop selling the country’s most popular firearms, the higher costs to poor people acquiring guns means fewer of them will be able to afford protection. Our loss will go far beyond reduced Wal-Mart profits.

When I wrote last week that I did not think the decision would have a large impact on gun owners because Wal-Mart stores in the Richmond area did not carry anything other than shotguns and some hunting rifles anyway, it was pointed out to me in the comment section that for many people, Wal-Mart is the only place to buy firearms in many areas of the country.

NPR Touts Study Claiming People More Likely to Pull Trigger if Target is Black

NPR posted this story Saturday night:

Are most people more likely to pull the trigger of a gun if the person they're shooting at is black?

A new meta-analysis set out to answer that question. Yara Mekawi of the University of Illinois and her co-author, Konrad Bresin, drew together findings from 42 different studies on trigger bias to examine whether race affects how likely a target is to be shot.

"What we found is that it does," Mekawi tells NPR's Arun Rath. "In our study we found two main things: First, people were quicker to shoot black targets with a gun, relative to white targets with a gun. And ... people were more trigger-happy when shooting black targets compared to shooting white targets."

That is, shooters weren't just faster to fire at black targets; they were also more likely to fire at a black target.

My gut told me there was something screwy about this, and it turns out my gut was right. Nick Leghorn out over on The Truth About Guns dug in to the meat of the "study" and found it did not even involve people actually shooting targets.  First, for those who are like me and are not familiar with "meta-analysis," here is Longhorn's definition:

...it's when psychology students come up with ridiculous premises for studies (typically designed to appeal to their liberal professors and get as much publicity as possible), and then professors coerce their students to participate in exchange for class credit. So right off the bat the premise of the research is fairly biased, as the entire point is to be as controversial as possible.

For this specific study no actual direct observation was done. Instead, the researchers simply gathered up about fifty different studies and directly compared their results. As the researchers themselves admit, the results weren’t always the same.

Now, to the part about not actually shooting targets, participants were placed at a computer and asked to hit two different buttons (“shoot” and “no shoot”) depending on what they saw. This begs the question, "isn't there a psychological difference between pressing a button and actually pulling a trigger?"  I did not take psychology in college but Longhorn did, and he confirms that it's the only thing he does remember, and that there is a difference, thus, there is no 1:1 correlation between what was being tested and what the “researchers” claimed:

That’s like asking someone to choose between a banana and an apple for dinner and claiming that choosing a banana proves they are a racist.

Finally, only one of the studies included in this "analysis" had an average participant age of 21 or older.  So, not only were the vast majority of the participants too young to purchase a handgun in the first place, but would also not likely be your average police officer. So, they did not even study the populations for which they were trying to draw conclusions.   It's just another example of cherry picking data and studies that align with a bias against guns and gun owners.

Gun Ban Advocates Protest Roanoke Gun Show

This past weekend, gun ban advocates protested outside a Roanoke gun show, calling for "universal background checks" and other "better laws," in the wake of the killing of two journalists last week.  WDBJ talked to the show promoter and at the end of the report noted that gun owners they spoke with believe lawmakers need to start with mental health laws.  Its not clear however how even that would have prevented the tragedy that occurred last week as there is no evidence that the shooter had been treated or referred for mental health issues.