Monday, July 16, 2018

A fact on arming women

While I reject gun control for a number of reasons, there's one fact that has always stuck with me.

In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were carried out. -U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31

This single statistic should end the debate.  I don't understand why feminists aren't serious about this one.

We know for certain that privately-held firearms do not exacerbate crime.  Dr. Gary Kleck is the most often cited researcher because although his mind has changed, he's still politically very left. As a criminologist at Florida State University, Kleck began his research as a firm believer in gun control. In a speech delivered to the National Research Council after years of studying the issue, he said while he was once "a believer in the 'anti-gun' thesis," he has now moved "beyond even the skeptic position." Dr. Kleck now says the evidence "indicates that general gun availability does not measurably increase rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U.S."

There's even growing evidence that private gun ownership actually has a very slight impact in lowering crime rates. Concealed carry laws have dropped murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them. According to a comprehensive study which studied crime statistics in all of the counties in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%.  -One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the study's findings in John R. Lott, Jr., "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000).

While anti-gun folks will dispute that last bit of research, even if we discount it entirely, we're left with two important facts:

1.  Private firearms ownership doesn't make crime worse.
2.  Women who have access to self defense tools, including guns, are victimized far less than women denied these rights.

Sunday, July 15, 2018

Michael Shellenberger: Why I changed my mind about nuclear power

I've made the case for nuclear power many times.  It turns out that a far left, super green fellow who is a self-proclaimed hippy made the case better than I ever have.

I had always thought that solar and wind power would likely be great variable output supplements to baseload energy production.  That baseload production should be nuclear.  Mr. Shellenberger changed my mind on the renewable energy sources.  I didn't know about the statistics he presents. 

Here's Michael Shellenberger:  Why I changed my mind about nuclear power

For those who would like the direct link:

Saturday, July 7, 2018

Oceanside minister supported Trump, now he faces deportation

Here's a sad story missing some critical details:  Oceanside minister supported Trump, now he faces deportation

Jorge Ramirez, an Oceanside minister and unauthorized immigrant, didn’t think he would end up in line for deportation when he encouraged his U.S. citizen daughter to vote for now-President Donald Trump.

Ramirez said he does not know why he is being targeted for removal from the U.S. The Trump administration has said that it is targeting criminals and those who have already been ordered deported. Ramirez said he falls into neither category.

“Trump said, ‘Let’s keep all the good people here and all the bad people out,’” Ramirez said.
It's an interesting read, and I agree with Ramirez.  We shouldn't deport him.  I am left with one critical question that the article doesn't answer.  It looks like more than once in life, Ramirez' legal status held him back.  Has he been working to change his immigration status?  If not, why not?

"Easier said than done" is an easy answer.  Yes, I'm aware.  My wife is an immigrant, so we've worked through the process together, and she didn't claim citizenship by marriage, or because our child was a U.S. citizen.  However, it isn't as hard as the "No borders" crowd seems to indicate, nor as expensive, and there are organizations set up to help.

I also understand the idea that legalizing the status of people here illegally can encourage more people to enter our country the wrong way.  However, the biggest problem with an influx of immigrants is trying to help them acclimate to our culture.  The reason people are coming here is that we have something that has worked really well to promote prosperity and security, and that's an important set of ideas based on personal liberty.

Folks like Jorge Ramirez and DACA recipients have acclimated.  They get our culture and most have gone to U.S. schools.  These are the folks we want to keep here.  They're not trying to turn the U.S. into the country they fled.  They're trying to be a part of the success of the system that has worked so well.

It's in the hands of judges now, but I hope this is something the Trump administration and the courts will address.