Tim Lambert takes on the myth that a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. Actually, he takes on the sloppy coverage of that myth, which is a 1986 study by Dr. Kellerman. Not to defend the sloppy work of others, but I have heard this myth repeatedly from anti-gun groups worded the exact same way. Tim seems to have comments disabled on that post and the post doesn’t look complete, so I will post my $0.02 here.

The problem with Kellerman’s study is he compares self-protection gun deaths to other gun deaths, which discounts the self-protection that does not result in the death of someone. Depending on which research you believe, the number of defensive gun uses ranges from 83,000 per year to 3.6 million. The 83,000 comes from the US DOJ and is flawed because it only counts reported instances of defensive uses. Other numbers are dubious as well, but I’ll let Tim tell you all about the problems with Lott.

The Kellerman study is a useless piece of info that is devoid of comparative context. Tim, who is a bright guy, tends to go after studies that are pro-gun while claiming not to be anti-gun. Yet, he seems to give anti-gun studies a pass.

Update: Tim’s post seems to have disappeared.

XRLQ seems to rip into the the LA Times for their inability to read long amendments.

The AP:

President Bush’s campaign asked a court Wednesday to force the Federal Election Commission to act on its complaints against anti-Bush groups spending millions of dollars in the presidential race, arguing that the FEC is failing to do its job.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, the campaign argued that the FEC is taking too long to address what the campaign calls illegal spending of corporate, union and big individual donations to influence the presidential race. Its lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction that would force the commission to act on its March complaint within 30 days. After that, the campaign could sue to block the groups’ activities through court action rather than relying on the FEC.

“To prevent these 527s from continuing to violate federal election laws, we have asked the federal court to step in and order the FEC to act,” said Tom Josefiak, general counsel for the Bush-Cheney campaign.

The Kerry camp did the same thing. The message from our politicos is you can’t criticize them when they’re running for office.

Mostly Cajun has moved.

The Republican platform is out. I’m skimming now. A few things leapt out at me:

Private Property Rights

The core of ownership in America has always been ownership of private property that a citizen can call his or her own. Republicans respect this tradition. For reasons both Constitutional and environmental, therefore, President Bush and the Republican Congress will safeguard private property rights by enforcing the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and by providing just compensation whenever private property is needed to achieve a compelling public purpose. We oppose efforts to diminish the rights of private citizens to the land they own.

Good. Maybe we can get some eminent domain reform. And:

Fiscal Discipline and Government Reform

It is important to view the size of the deficit in relation to the size of the nation’s economy. By that measure, today’s deficit, although unwelcome, is well within historical ranges. A deficit that is 3.8 percent of GDP, as is now projected for this year, would be smaller than the deficits in nine of the last 25 years, and far below the peak deficit figure of 6 percent of GDP reached in 1983. This deficit is also in line with what other industrialized nations are facing today. The U.S. deficit matches the average deficit within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and is below the levels of France, Germany, and Japan.

Much more importantly, because the President and Congress enacted pro-growth economic policies, the deficit is headed strongly in the right direction. Next year’s projected deficit, at 2.7 percent of GDP, would be smaller than those in 14 of the last 25 years. As Republicans in Congress work with the President to restrain spending and strengthen economic growth, the federal deficit will fall to 1.5 percent of the nation’s economic output in 2009 – well below the 2.2 percent average of the last 40 years.

Fiscal responsibility? Your record on it hasn’t been so good. And, of course, guns:

Protecting Our Rights, Fighting Criminals, and Supporting Victims Republicans and President Bush strongly support an individual right to own guns, which is explicitly protected by the Constitution’s Second Amendment. Our Party honors the great American tradition of hunting and we applaud efforts by the Bush Administration to make more public lands available to hunters, to increase access to hunting clinics and safety programs for children and adults, and to improve opportunities for hunting for Americans with disabilities.

We believe the Second Amendment and all of the rights guaranteed by it should enable law-abiding citizens throughout the country to own firearms in their homes for self-defense. To protect the rights and safety of law-abiding citizens, the Congress passed and President Bush signed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which allows active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed guns in public while off-duty. We support efforts by the Administration and Congress to enhance the instant background check system for gun purchases and to ensure that records of lawful transactions are destroyed in a timely manner. We applaud Congressional Republicans for seeking to stop frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, which is a transparent attempt to deprive citizens of their Second Amendment rights. We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as a violation of the Second Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens.

We agree that the best way to deter crime is to enforce existing laws and hand down tough penalties against anyone who commits a crime with a gun. This approach is working. Since Project Safe Neighborhoods was instituted in 2001, hundreds of new federal, state, and local prosecutors have been hired to target criminals who use guns. Prosecutions are up 68 percent, and the violent crime victimization rate is down 21 percent. The Republican Party and President Bush support a federal Constitutional amendment for victims of violent crime that would provide specific rights for victims protected under the U.S. Constitution. We support courts having the option to impose the death penalty in capital murder cases. We praise President Bush and Republicans in Congress for the measures they have taken to protect pregnant women from violent crime by passing Laci and Conner’s law, which recognizes the common-sense proposition that when a crime of violence against a pregnant woman kills or injures her unborn child, there are two victims and two offenses that should be punished.

No mention of the assault weapons ban, which is good. On paper, their gun stuff sounds good. We’ll know if they mean it on September 14, 2004.

Oh, and tax cuts.

You mean there are Republicans that aren’t white?

While it’s truly abysmal, it did make me laugh:

“I felt most elected officials wanted to know what their constituents think and how they feel, so I wrote a letter which I sent to all 17 county commissioners,” says Shirlee Grabko, Union County taxpayer.

Shirlee Grabko was thrilled when one actually responded to her concerns, until she opened the envelope.

‘You need to take you letter and wipe you ass with it,” Shirlee reads the letter she received from County Commissioner Charlie Cox.’

Charlie Cox also hasn’t paid property taxes.

Well, not this sheriff in Washington:

Dave Reichert, King County sheriff and Republican congressional candidate, recently told a group of Second Amendment advocates that he supports letting the federal ban on assault weapons expire.

His position shocked community activists with whom he had worked closely in the past to establish and promote gun-violence prevention programs. It is also at odds with a wide segment of law enforcement officials, including Seattle police Chief Gil Kerlikowske.

But Reichert said yesterday his statement should not come as a surprise to anyone.

“I’ve never changed my position,” Reichert said. “My whole point has always been holding gun owners responsible and accountable and always focusing on those people who were committing crimes with guns. … I’ve never felt that the banning of certain weapons has really done anything at all.”

JoinTogether:

Aside from strong criticisms from gun-control advocates, there is little public outcry over the refusal of Congress to renew the federal assault-weapons ban, which expires Sept. 13, the Buffalo News reported Aug. 26.

In 1994 when crimes involving assault weapons were at their highest, the ban was passed by Congress to curb violence. Since then, crime has substantially declined nationwide.

“I don’t think there’s any question that the ban contributed to the drop in the crime rate,” said U.S. Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), who supports the ban.

The CDC and NIJ both disagree with you. Each stated that ban has been shown to have no effect on crime.

According to federal statistics, 1.2 percent of guns used in crime in 2002 were assault weapons, a decline from 3.6 percent in 1995.

There’s that lie again. It’s not percent of guns used in crime that makes up the figure. It’s percent of gun traces performed, which does not necessarily denote a crime. The ATF has said that figure is useless as a crime tracking statistic.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), who voted for the assault weapons ban in 1994 and against it in 2004:

(I) voted against the extension of the assault weapons ban because the 10-year trial period showed the law to be arbitrary and only symbolic.

Good for Russ.

Ontario is considering a breed ban. The ban’s opponents have responded:

The Canada Safety Council has slammed the idea of a ban on pit bulls in Ontario, saying it won’t be effective in reducing dog attacks.

“Breed bans are a reactionary measure,” council president Emile Therien said today. “Good animal control bylaws, well-enforced, are part of the solution.”

Therien said the council opposes a breed-specific ban as a quick fix because it blurs the real issues: responsible owners, good breeders and municipal government action.

“Animal control has just not been a community priority,” he said. “Let’s face it, municipal governments have dropped the ball on it. We need to make it a priority like drunk driving is. Owners must be held accountable.”

Aaron Campbell, who has raised pit bull terriers for a few years, also wants to see the onus placed on the owners, not the dogs.

“It is unfair to target a specific breed,” he said. “The owners are to blame if their dog attacks someone, and they should be criminally prosecuted. Owners will be more cautious when they are faced with paying a $5,000 fine to the victim.”

A ban would be largely ineffective in controlling the proliferation of aggressive animals on the street, Campbell said.

“Dog owners will just breed bigger, meaner dogs in place of the pit bulls,” he said.

Susan Lavictoire of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association agrees.

“Dangerous dogs can exist in every breed and cross-breed,” she said. “In fact, any dog can be raised to be aggressive.”

In Memphis, the request for using eminent domain to take expensive downtown property to give to developers is becoming an issue. The paper’s editorial on it contains this:

Some developers have complained that Downtown land costs too much. They want the city to use its power of eminent domain to seize property and then turn it over to them.

This is a power that’s best used sparingly, for a number of reasons.

Seizing a private property owner’s land should only be done in cases in which there’s a clear public benefit.

Indeed.