Canales News Briefs

May 27, 2003

“…1 Witch. Thrice the brinded cat hath

mewed.

2 Witch. Thrice and once the hedge pig

whined.

3 Witch. Harpier cries:--‘Tis time, ‘tis time.

1 Witch. Round about the cauldron go:

In the poisoned entrails throw.

Toad, that under cold stone

Days and nights has thirty-one.

Sweltered venom sleeping got,

Boil thou first i’ th’ charmed pot!

ALL. Double, double toil and trouble;

Fire burn and cauldron bubble.

2 Witch. Fillet of a fenny snake,

In the cauldron boil and bake:

Eye of newt and toe of frog,

Wool of bat and tongue of dog,

Adder’s fork and blind-worm’s

sting,

Lizard’s leg and howlet’s wing,

For a charm of powerful trouble,

Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

ALL. Double, double toil and trouble;

Fire burn and cauldron bubble…”

-Lines from Act 4, Scene I,

from Shakespeare’s

Macbeth

To All,

In truth, it Takes A Village Coven so that Hillary!’s “autobiography” can finally make it to the printer’s, what with the announcement by Matt Drudge today that the Junior Senator from New York had a little help at the word processor.

In other news:

New Math:

Well, it seems that the Violence Prevention Research Group at the UCLA School of Public Health has lobbed another study over the proverbial castle wall recently.

In a study by Dr. Douglas J. Wiebe, of the Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Wiebe summarizes the following in the Annals of Emergency Medicine (June 2003, Volume 41, Number 6):

“…In summary, on the basis of national

samples drawn in the early 1990’s, adults

who have a gun or guns in their home

appear at risk to be shot fatally (gun

homicide) or to take their own life with

a firearm. Physicians should continue

to discuss these implications with

patients who own guns or have guns

at home and to consider how patients

might make their environment safer…”.

Dr. Wiebe’s study involves the use of case control methods apparently derived from the 1993 National Mortality Followback Survey. Interestingly enough, Dr. Wiebe claims a response rate of 83% out of the randomly selected subjects culled from the NMFS survey (the homicide subject sample was reported as 1,720, with an additional 8,084 control subjects reported as responsive. It might be interesting to question Dr. Wiebe’s staff as to their technique, since an 83% response rate to a phone survey is extra-ordinary, to say the least). Dr. Wiebe also examines responses related to firearms-related suicides, and examines responses from some 1,959 case subjects (survivors and relatives of the deceased) and some 13, 535 control subjects.

By way of comparison, the CDC reports that there were some 2,268,553 deaths, from all causes, registered in the United States in 1993. (Note: Those of the pro-life persuasion would probably adjust these numbers by approximately 1.3 million additional “fatalities”, which would constitute an approximation of the number of legal abortions carried out in the country annually.). Of these, some 26,009 were homicides, of which some 71% are noted by the CDC as firearms-related (These numbers usually include the category of “lawful interventions”, which seem to include law enforcement and lawful civilian uses of a firearm). The CDC also notes that the 1992-1994 time period was that of a decrease of homicide rates, as compared to the 1985-1991 period being that of general increase.

Dr. Wiebe’s study also notes various comparisons that, to other observers, may seem overly broad. For example, Dr. Wiebe notes that some 43% of all homicides and suicides happen in a home (Though whether this is the home that the gun “belongs” to is not addressed. If a home invasion robber brings a gun into a home where the owners do not have a gun, this still may constitute a “home with a gun” in Dr. Wiebe’s study).

Also, Dr. Wiebe’s study questioned survivors and relatives simply as to whether there was a firearm in the household during the last year of the victim’s life. But Dr. Wiebe’s study may not sufficiently control for whether the firearm kept in the house was the very same murder/suicide weapon (Dr. Wiebe notes that the data do not indicate that the gun belonged to the particular abode, but that the issue was “informed by examining whether the victim had a gun in his or her home that matched the type of gun used fatally”. Since the statistics usually only differentiate between shotguns, pistols, and rifles, this may be a point of contention when reviewing the homicide statistics at least).

One aspect that does speak well of Dr. Wiebe’s study is that he notes that, overall, firearms were “slightly more common in the homes of control subjects than case subjects”. Whether this might hint at the Lott Hypothesis (More Guns Equals Less Crime) may require additional scholarship and review. Also, Dr. Wiebe admits to the existence of “confounders” that were insufficiently addressed in his methods. These apparently include locality (urban versus rural crime), mental illness, history of violence, illicit drug and alcohol use, and “lifestyle” factors such as gang membership and drug dealing. Given that any comparisons of “crime-oriented” households may be significantly different from “regular” households thus may not be addressed by Dr. Wiebe.

In essence, Dr. Wiebe’s study constitutes yet another attempt to magnify the “risk” of firearms ownership, while at the same time generally discounting the risk of not having a firearm should the homeowner become a target of criminal activity. Statisticians, such as John Lott, may take issue in the Dr. Wiebe’s methods and sample selection in the near future. But Dr. Wiebe’s hypothesis surely does not test for those of us where possession of a firearm has meant in the past that a criminal assault either never took place or was thwarted. It is these real world statistics that truly matter, and not some mastication of decade-old trends that bears any further consideration.

Story elements may be found at:

http://www2.us.elsevierhealth.com/scripts/om.dll/serve?action=
searchDB&searchDBfor=art&artType=fullfree&id=amem03187

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00049117.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00040512.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00042178.htm

The Great Debate:

Robert Bluey writes today over at CNSNews.com about the continuing fracas over the extension of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban.

Bluey makes the argument that, on the whole, the Federal ban has had little impact. After all, several manufacturers were able to come up with “post-ban” models of those that were not specifically excluded from the ban (The M-1A and the Mini-14 come to mind).

But it seems that the Brady Campaign has a different idea of what has been going on out in the real world. Bluey quotes Brady Buncher Rob Wilcox as denying that the ban only dealt with cosmetic features in the following-

“…The features listed, when you look at

them, all have a specific purpose that

functions very well in the law enforce-

ment and military level, but also on the

criminal level…”.

Bluey specifically notes that “…Data on the number of crimes committed with rifle-mounted bayonets or threaded muzzles were not available…” in response to Wilcox’s claim.

Folks, the Pro-Second Amendment movement is winning. We have finally gotten to the point that the Opposition is going slowly insane, and has no grasp of reality. Still, the battle over the ban will be had over the way in which it infringes on a Constitutional guarantee, not about whether gangs are seemingly banned from the drive-by bayonet charge. And things may be made easier for the supporters of the individual right in that folks like Wilcox are asking professional politicians to “bite the bullet” over such ineffectual legislation. Given that said pols are fond of their political hides and careers, this may be one political windmill that they may just pass on tilting at.

Story may be found at:

http://www.conservativenews.org/ViewPolitics.asp?
Page=\Politics\archive\200305\POL20030527a.html

Respectfully,

Anthony Canales

SFVMC-NRA