Part I: Mental Health Checks Are Not The Answer To Gun Violence

Part II: Guns And Crazy Men

The Capital Times notes that Ann Althouse weighed in on the issue of gun violence and mental health checks.  Her blog “lights up” on this issue, according to the report.  In fact Ann does have a smart and whimsical style of writing, interspersed with humor, and so one must usually read her thoughts more than one time in order to make sure that you’re not misinterpreting her prose.

But I think I’ve got what she says this time around, and I have some difficulty with her views.

Bonavia implies that we ought to make policy based on the percentages. But then she says, make a pervasive law that applies to everyone, without mentioning the very small percentage of perpetrators of gun violence within the truly vast category of Americans who buy guns. And by the way, the category “gun violence” lumps things together. Gun control has become a hot issue because of a few massacres. If you make a category out of the set of incidents that has inflamed present-day opinion, people suffering from mental illness seem to be 100% of the perpetrators! You only get your very small percentage if you throw in other types of incidents, such as gangsters wiping each other out. Wake me up when 90% of Americans want to do something about that. And explain to me how background checks have any curative power over that problem.

The appeal to statistics and reason falls flat when you shape it to suit the policy you already want.

“Only 4 to 5 percent of violent crimes are committed by people with mental illness,” Dilip Jeste, the president of the [American Psychiatric Association], says in a statement. “About one quarter of all Americans have a mental disorder in any given year, and only a very small percentage of them will ever commit violent crimes.”See what I mean? Questions for Dr. Jeste: 1. What percentage of school shootings are committed by persons with mental illness? 2. If we cut the category “violent crimes” down to massacre-type shootings where the motive isn’t robbery and the victim isn’t someone with whom the shooter has a personal dispute, what percentage of those crimes are committed by persons with mental illness? 3. If we break the category “mental disorder” into subparts, so that depression and schizophrenia aren’t lumped together, is there any category within which you cannot say that only very small percentage will ever commit violent crimes? 4. In your effort to shield the mentally ill from unnecessary stigma, are you giving cover to a set of persons who could and should be identified as dangerous?

Ann might be affirming the consequent, where given some mental malady, since some shooter (or several shooters) commit[s] a mass killing, therefore killings will be committed only by those with the identified mental malady.  But this error in propositional logic is too fundamental and I don’t think Ann is arguing in this way.

More likely, Ann is arguing (or has argued) in a probabilistic manner herself, that the preponderance of mass shootings have been committed by those with some identified mental malady.  Therefore, prohibiting people with that specific malady from owning weapons will decrease the number of mass shootings.

If I have interpreted Ann correctly, take careful note of the unstated presuppositions in her argument.  First, she is assuming that mental health professionals can correctly identify that malady, and second, she is assuming that only persons with that specific malady (or perhaps one or two others) will commit mass shootings.

Neither appears to bear the weight of scrutiny.  The mental health professionals I cite in the earlier reports on mental health checks and gun ownership state categorically that they cannot identify illness in many circumstances.  They also state rather categorically that violence of all kinds – mass shootings or not – are not a function of specific mental illnesses.

I usually roll my eyes at the lack of scholarship and honesty when I read Huffington Post.  But today there was refreshing honesty from yet another mental health professional concerning what his own profession cannot accomplish.

As we debate the steps to reducing gun violence in the society a couple points need to be understood: 1. The link between violent crime and mental illness is weak, and 2. Mental health professionals are poor at predicting anyone’s propensity for any specific behavior, including homicide.

Although it is mass shootings, particularly the massacre of school children in Newtown, that capture our attention and have accelerated the current discussion, Americans for the most part kill each other with guns in ones and twos. Of the total number of gun deaths in this country, around 30,000 a year, the majority are not the result of mental illness, but of ordinary human emotions like anger, hate, greed, and despair. In fact, about half of all shootings are suicides.

[ … ]

The only real predictor of future violence in anyone turns out to be a past history of violent behavior. Absent this, professionals are little better than the average citizen at identifying those likely to harm others. Many people report violent fantasies (remember your reaction to the last person to cut you off in traffic); few act on them.

[ … ]

As we confront the reality of these systemic deficits, however, we ought not to do so under the illusion that we are responding to the problem of gun violence. These are separate and largely unrelated issues, both of which deserve our immediate attention and informed response.

It is true that mental health checks can be abused and thus rights denied for incorrect reasons, and it is true that mental health professionals often disagree, and it is true that given a reason to deny rights, a totalitarian state will usually find a way to use it for totalitarian purposes.  All of these things concern me and in fact militate against such checks being a necessary prerequisite for gun ownership, in my opinion (See earlier discussions of the checks we must go through in my own county to obtain a concealed handgun permit, which I do have, and also the “fitness for duty” program and managerial observation we must go through having unescorted access to nuclear power plants – both checks being pretty much worthless in my view, and yet subject to unconstitutional denial of rights).

But the objection raised by the mental health professionals goes beyond my own objections.  In every case, they are saying that there is no identity between those who commit violent crime and any specific mental malady, and beyond that, they are little better than the average person at identifying propensity to violence anyway.

Laws only imperfectly supply incentive for certain behavior and disincentive for the opposite.  But what laws cannot do is ensure that certain behavior does not obtain.  That is a burden too far for legislation and ethics.  These issues ensconce squarely in the domain of morality, and laws do not change that.  Evil cannot be legislated (or medicated) away, and the best amelioration of risk associated with gun violence is to be prepared for self defense (including elimination of gun free zones).

Similarly, mental health professionals have weighed in telling us that their profession cannot possibly hope to shoulder the burden we wish to place on it.  It’s more than simply it is subject to abuse, which it is, or that the doctor-patient relationship is invaded, which it is.  It is that the “science” – if it can be called that at all, is simply incapable of sustaining the burden of gun violence, or any other form of violence, for that matter.  They cannot prevent it, regardless how much we may wish them to.

Washington Post:

Switzerland has the world’s third-highest number of privately held guns per person, after the United States and Yemen, an outgrowth of its unique military culture. Service is mandatory for young men, though the national military is a little bit like a collection of local militias. That militia-tinged military culture blurs the line, just a bit, between an “on duty” time, when it’s normal to carry a gun, and “off-duty”; the result is that it’s not considered crazy, as it might be in the United States, for a service member to carry his or her assault rifle home.

[ … ]

Philip D. Jaffe, a forensic psychologist, said Switzerland’s military draft and annual weapons training have historically fostered national unity among the confederation’s cultural groups, which include French, German and Italian speakers. Even though the citizen militia may be outdated in modern military terms, he said in an interview in Lausanne, it has long fit in with the national image of small, self-reliant Switzerland maintaining its independence while being surrounded by much larger countries.

“They drill this into you; there’s something idealistic about it,” Jaffe said. “They hand you a big, bulky machine gun, and it’s yours. You get to keep it.”

This is all written from the perspective of someone who doesn’t believe in the unorganized militia in America.  I wouldn’t consider it “crazy” at all for unorganized militia members (such as me) to own machine guns, and I don’t believe that the notion of a citizen-militia is outdated at all.  I should be able to own the same kind of weaponry that I have to use my tax dollars to purchase our military forces.

Driving South for a few hours, the world view changes a great deal.  South Carolina is currently considering protections for the unorganized militia (via Mike Vanderboegh).

Senate Bill 247 was introduced on January 16, 2013 by state Senators Tom Corbin, Tom Davis, Kevin Bryant, and Lee Bright and sources indicate that a companion measure will soon be offered in the South Carolina House of Representatives.

The bill reads:

(A) Pursuant to the provisions of Section 25-1-60, an able-bodied citizen of this State who is over seventeen years of age and can legally purchase a firearm is deemed a member of the South Carolina Unorganized Militia, unless he is already a member of the National Guard or the organized militia not in National Guard service …

(2) A militia member, at his own expense, shall have the right to possess and keep all arms that could be legally acquired or possessed by a South Carolina citizen as of December 31, 2012. This includes shouldered rifles and shotguns, handguns, clips, magazines, and all components.

(3) The unorganized militia may not fall under any law or regulation or jurisdiction of any person or entity outside of South Carolina.

This bill seems like obvious low hanging fruit.  It should have an easy time being ushered through the legislature.  But beware, it does in fact lend protections to the unorganized militia from the intrusive federal government.  The totalitarians will be furious.

This kind of state law is a good and necessary thing only insofar as the state is willing to enforce it with the power of law enforcement and the unorganized militia themselves.  As long as the state is willing to throw agents of the federal government in state penitentiary for enforcing intrusive federal laws, the state’s word means something.  Otherwise, the state is just inviting scorn from both the federal government and its own citizens.

Federal laws concerning firearms are unconstitutional – every one of them, without exception.  State laws are too if they infringe as prohibited in the Second Amendment.  This South Carolina law places them squarely in the totalitarian line of fire coming out of Washington, D.C., and decidedly in the corner of the people.  But being righteous doesn’t end the story.  Totalitarians never decide to go away.  They must be defeated.

From Instapundit:

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY: Why Are The Feds Loading Up On So Much Ammo? “According to one estimate, just since last spring DHS has stockpiled more than 1.6 billion bullets, mainly .40 caliber and 9mm. That’s sufficient firepower to shoot every American about five times. Including illegal immigrants. To provide some perspective, experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, DHS is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war.”

Wicked fascists.  If you’re in this line of work, you ought to go home tonight, fall on your knees, beg God for forgiveness and then turn in your resignation.  You will answer for your sin of totalitarianism one day.  God does not approve of your world view, and He manages the economy of His creation by spheres of influence and authority, the Church, State and Family, all accountable to Him and none with the authority to override the other’s domain.  You have usurped God’s natural order.

Shame on you, now or in eternity.  Beware.  God will not be mocked.

Prior: So Why Does DHS Need 1.6 Billion Rounds Of Handgun Ammunition?

NYT:

In Idaho’s graceful, striated-marble Capitol, home to one of the more ardent and adamant state legislatures in the nation in standing up for the Second Amendment, lawmakers from both parties say that a torrent of public passion, even panic, about new proposed federal gun rules is pushing in only one direction: toward more guns, not fewer.

If Idahoans, like Americans in many states, have rushed to buy guns out of fear for personal safety in the aftermath of recent mass shootings, or out of fear of tighter legal controls, then democracy has already spoken, many lawmakers said. People have voted with their pocketbooks.

[ … ]

The speaker of the House, Scott Bedke, a Republican, said that he would not guess what might come from the session, but that the will of the people was clear.

“Idaho will push back,” he said, referring to federal gun control proposals. “A question that is rolling around in most Idahoan’s heads right now is, What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t they get?”

Yea, this voting with the pocketbook has been happening all over America.  I had placed my M1 Carbine on layaway several months before Christmas with Allen Arms in Greenville, S.C.  In September, Allen Arms had a copious stock of guns.  When I went to pay off my gun at Christmas there were no AR-15s, no M1 Carbines, no tactical shotguns, very few polymer frame pistols, and just a few revolvers left.  It looked like a tornado had come through the store.

I have also noted before that Hyatt Gun Shop in Charlotte was reported to have done more than one million dollars worth of business the Saturday before Christmas.  That’s one million dollars in a single day – on guns.  I went back to Hyatt just a few days ago to place another firearm on layaway with them (and buy some ammunition), and the store was as crowded as I have ever seen it.  There is no slowdown.  And this sort of thing is happening (and has happened) all over America.

Do you want another example, a little less anecdotal?

And it won’t do much good to go direct to the manufacturer for an AR type rifle. Top companies like Bushmaster, and Rock River Arms report wait times up to two years for the guns. Stag Arms, which bills itself as the “Worldwide Leader in AR Manufacturing” is so backlogged they’ve stopped answering the phone: “Please know that we are currently experiencing exceptionally high call volume due to increased demand. Current response time is anywhere from five to seven business days for all voicemail inquiries.”

Note again – a two year wait time for a Rock River Arms rifle.  These folks who have voted with their pocketbook will learn to cherish their gun collection, and they will want to bequeath it to their children and children’s children without the involvement of the federal government.

So listen, Eric and Paul.  It might be that you are listening to the “polls” in your support for universal background checks.  But I assure you, America is voting with it’s pocketbook.  The vote is overwhelming, and it is fixed.  We won’t change our minds.  You need to get with the popular crowd and drop the support for gun control as fast as you can.

Gun control is an artifact of self-serving, crusty, old rich white men, angry feminists and effeminate inner city dwellers who have never ridden a horse across a snowy mountain, sat up all night with a dog who has been bitten by a Copperhead, or plowed a row in a garden on a sunny day.  You’ll never reach the young people that way.

UPDATE: Thanks to Mike for the attention.

UPDATE #2: Thanks to David for the attention.

UPDATE #3: Thanks to Glenn for the attention.

UPDATE #4: More voting on gun control with money.

Specialized gun shops, super sporting goods stores and even big-box retailers are enduring a big-time demand for firearms ammunition as First Coast gun owners are buying up most of the bullets they can find.

“There’s a complete run on ammo and guns,” said Paul Rukab, who has owned St. Nicholas Gun & Sporting Goods on Jacksonville’s Blanding Boulevard for 22 years.

Bullets are leaving the store as soon as trucks arrive with new stock at local Walmarts and stores like Dick’s Sporting Goods and Academy Sports. Ammunition for long rifles and handguns is in highest demand.

It’s the same everywhere.

Sun Journal:

According to gun writer Chuck Hawks, the .270 made its debut in 1925 and was created to challenge the popular .30-06. (The .270 is a necked down 30-06). Famous Outdoor writer Jack O’Connor helped make the .270 popular when he recounted the .270’s lightning-quick kills at 300 yards! At that time the .270 was considered to be the flattest shooting big-game round in the world, according to Hawks. The .30-06 spits a 180 grain bullet at 2,700 feet per second. The .270 releases a 130-grain bullet at 3,140 feet per second. Equally impressive, according to the ballistics students, is the .270’s capacity to sustain its velocity down range: 130 grain bullet registers 2,320 feet per second at 300 yards!

[ … ]

I also like the .270’s relative civility when it comes to recoil. A fellow elk hunter, who hunts with a Winchester .300 Magnum, always leaves the shooting range with a bruised, tender shoulder after zeroing his cannon. He also rations his rounds due to the cost. Granted, I’ll stick with him during a grizzly-bear charge, but the rest of the time give me the .270.

I have to say that I like the “relative civility” when it comes to recoil as well (as I have written before).  The 0.270 is a sweet round.  I can shoot a 12 gauge shotgun for hours (here substitute a large game round), but then my shoulder and chest complain to me for days.

I don’t know if anyone else has problems with this, but I lift weights, and with a somewhat enlarged chest there is little real “shoulder” left in which to fit the butt of the rifle (or shotgun).  It simply sits across my chest / deltoids.  The last time I shot clays I had a bruise as straight as a board down my right pectoral (I am right handed but left eye dominant, which is yet another problem in that I still shoot with my right eye).

I like moderate recoil, which is one reason I like carbine rounds.  I consider the 0.270 to be a large game round without the kick.

Greenville News:

A New York firearms company should move to South Carolina because the Southern state is more sympathetic to gun rights, according to an Upstate congressman.

Republican Rep. Jeff Duncan of Laurens is urging the parent company of Remington Arms to move its Ilion, N.Y., plant to South Carolina to avoid “enemies” of the Second Amendment.

“In South Carolina, we believe in the right to keep and bear arms,” Duncan wrote to the chief executive officer of the Freedom Group, a North Carolina company with firearms divisions in 14 states and more than 3,000 employees.

[ … ]

He said he’s also encouraging South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley to contact gun-manufacturing facilities in other states where gun control legislation is likely.

But dislodging Remington from New York may be an uphill battle. The company’s history there goes back nearly two centuries, according to its website.

And the Republican congressman who represents Ilion says he’ll fight to keep the Remington plant where it is. The plant employs more than 1,000 people.

“Generations of expertise is in the DNA of all those who work for Remington and live in upstate New York,” Rep. Richard Hanna, R-N.Y., said Tuesday. “The Ilion plant remains highly competitive and its workers and the community are committed to the success of Remington. I look forward to working with New York state leaders to see that Remington stays here for generations to come and thrives right where it began almost 200 years ago.”

This isn’t enough.  Governor Haley is going to have to get deeply involved if she wants this industry in S.C.  As for Remington, it doesn’t matter that they have been in New York for two centuries.  The South is better.  The employees may gripe and moan, but given a few months, they’ll see the benefit themselves.  Their griping won’t last long.

Prior: It’s Time For Gun Industry To Move South

From site meter, DNC visit on Eric Cantor and universal background checks.

The communists are a hard-working bunch, no?  The GOP?  Well, they’re just a cowardly, bleeding, pitiful bunch of ne’er-do-wells who want to be loved.  And the Dems smell their blood.  Call your Congressmen.  Call your Senators.  Tell them that gun owners have a long memory, and even longer reach.  Tell them what their sell-out will cost.

Prior:

Paul Ryan Caves On Universal Background Checks

Cantor Caves On Universal Background Checks

Bless her heart.  An elderly woman uses a gun for self defense.

An 86-year-old woman grabbed a gun in self-defense when police say an intruder broke into her home. News 5 sat down with this woman today and listened to her tell about the experience.

Louise Howard lives just off a busy highway in Bulls Gap.  

She told us she’s been the victim of theft many times before, and she’s had enough and it was time to take a stand.

“I told different people if I ever catch them, I mean to kill them,” said Louise Howard.

Louise Howard may be 86 years old, but she isn’t afraid to defend her home or her life.

On Friday afternoon she was forced to do that. Howard said a young woman broke the glass on her door and forced her way inside.

“I was in shock. I didn’t know what she was going to do to me!” Howard said.

Howard immediately grabbed her gun, but the two started to struggle down the hall.

“I already had my gun in my hand, and I wouldn’t turn it loose for anything,” she explained.

Howard’s hands are proof she wasn’t letting go.

“She stuck a fingernail in there,” said Howard. “She moved her hands sort of released me a bit. I moved over like that, and I was going to shoot her in the stomach, but she took her knee and hit my elbow.”

The bullet ended up inside the wall where it still hides.

Sheriff Ronnie Lawson told us Howard was in her rights to use her gun for protection.

“All indications [were] the intruder, the female, has a wrench. It was what she used to break the window of the door so she could’ve defended herself,” Sheriff Lawson explained.

Gun = 1, Assault Wrench = 0.  The folks who suffer abuse from hammers needs to get guns too.

Washington Post:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said this week that he is open to closing the loophole that allows weapon purchases at gun shows without a background check.

In an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published Tuesday, Ryan said gun show loopholes are a “very reasonable” issue and that it’s “obvious” it should be addressed.

“I think we should look into someone who is not legally allowed to buy a gun going to (a show), buying one, and let’s figure that out,” he said. “I think we need to find out how to close these loopholes and do it in such a way that we don’t infringe on Second Amendment rights.”

You go ahead and “look into that.”  I think we should look into booting your cowardly ass out of Congress.  The phrase gun show loophole is an invention by the statists.  What they really want, and what you’re agreeing to, is universal background checks and a national gun registry.  These are evil things, and with everything I’ve got I will defend the right for grandfather to bequeath his rifle to his grandson under the Christmas tree without asking the communists in Washington about it.

I have the same counsel for you that I had for Eric Cantor.  Tread carefully, young man.  We’re watching.

I have been watching carefully as more Southern states engage in courtships with the various gun manufacturers over location.  There are too many articles to link and discuss.  But this report does a good job of summarizing what’s at stake.

Every year, New York state gives out millions in tax incentives, loans and economic development grants to the private sector. Every state does it, and New York has little choice if it wants to prevent companies from leaving, but additional attention is now being paid to the incentives going to the state’s gun industry.

In a letter sent Jan. 3 to Empire State Development President Kenneth Adams, State Senator Liz Krueger urged an end to incentives for the firearms industry. 

“I’m still awaiting a formal letter of response, but I have been assured that this was a grant made in a previous administration, not in Governor Cuomo’s administration, and the moneys that were committed have been spent,” says Krueger.

She is referring to $5.5 million that went to Remington Arms in the last five years. The incentives to Remington in New York are among $19.9 million given by nine states to makers of assault weapons in the last decade and were revealed in a list compiled by the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting.

The $5.5 million that went to Remington and its parent company, Freedom Group, led to the consolidation of manufacturing plants in Massachusetts and Connecticut to Ilion, N.Y., where Remington has manufactured firearms for nearly 200 years.

“They were down to close to 600 jobs and now they’ve more than doubled that,” says Sen. Jim Seward, Ilion’s representative in the legislature. “These are good manufacturing jobs and obviously we want them to stay.”

Seward says as many as 40 of the guns manufactured in Ilion can no longer be sold to civilians in New York.

The state’s new gun control law, known as the SAFE Act, bans semiautomatic weapons with certain design features deemed military-style, like detachable magazines or folding stocks. 

The company can still manufacture the banned guns in New York for export, but Seward says cutting off Remington from future incentives would make it even harder to keep the operation in Ilion.

“I must point out that they are being constantly recruited by other states,” says Seward. “And at some point, we hope this day does not come, but at some point, the company could say, ‘hey, well why should we remain in a state that is perceived by many as being hostile to law-abiding gun ownership?’”

Politicians in Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma and South Carolina are reportedly all trying to convince Remington to relocate.

Another manufacturer called Kimber, which makes guns that are not classified as assault weapons, received $700,000 from Empire State Development in 2009.

The move South makes sense for the gun manufacturers.  First of all, living in the upstate South Carolina area means that you’re always within one hour of some of the most beautiful mountains East of the Mississippi, and within three hours of some of’ the best beachfront on the East coast.  Second, the gun manufacturers can always rely on workers who wouldn’t be caught dead paying money to a labor union.  Third, they would be located in a state that wanted them, had laws that were amenable to their needs, and rewarded them handsomely for their industry.  Continued time spent in the Northeast is time wasted.

I think this is true of Springfield Armory and Rock River Arms in Illinois too.  Their time is limited in the North, and the move is inevitable.  As for the states from which the manufacturers relocate, I think the figure of speech is called “chickens coming home to roost.”  If New York, Massachusetts, Illinois and other Northern states decide that the jobs are too important to lose, then we have the delicious irony that these states care enough about their own citizens to protect them from these “evil” guns, but not the citizens of other states.  Making money is more important than the lives of other people.

How rich is that?