Kind of a theme today, kicked off my
Hannah Cox on Twitter.
Democrats want to do to AR15s what they did to drugs.— Hannah Cox (@HannahCox7) March 24, 2021
Which is to create black markets for them, increase crime, empower cartels/gangs & make criminals out of nonviolent people - the process of which costs our justice system billions & prevents real crime from being solved.
An impressive list. Could have been longer, but Twitter. Additional misfeatures left as an exercise for the reader.
(I'd only quibble about Democrats being responsible for the "War on Drugs". Clearly bipartisan.)
Also, Let's Kinda Hope So. David Harsanyi asks and answers:
Is It Easier to Buy a Gun Than Vote? Let's Find Out.
Barack Obama used to claim, absurdly, that it was easier for a kid to buy a “Glock than get his hands on a computer, or even a book.” Contemporary liberals have updated this talking point with more recent legislative obsessions.
“Activists have pointed out that in Georgia, for instance, it’s easier to buy a gun than to register to vote,” one reporter noted, without a hint of journalistic skepticism, yesterday. “This says a lot about where America is headed in 2021.”
“In a majority of states, new voters are able to obtain a rifle quicker than they’re able to cast their first ballot,” argued California’s Senator Padilla. “It seems to me we have our priorities entirely backwards when it comes to this — when we make it easier to buy a gun than we do to cast a ballot.”
These are not only category errors, they are highly misleading. Then again, even if they weren’t, this wouldn’t be as jarring an assertion as many people imagine. First, a citizen’s ability to exercise his Second Amendment rights should require as few impediments as voting — if not fewer. And second, despite the fantastical assertion of many Democrats, voting is already extraordinarily easy — it takes minutes to register and you can do it online — whereas buying a “Glock” in places such as New York, Maryland, California, or Washington D.C., is rendered prohibitively difficult as part of a deliberate effort to dissuade and, indeed, suppress law-abiding Americans from using their rights.
Even Politifact (back in 2016) thought Obama was "mostly false" on this. It hasn't gotten any truer since, but good luck getting the MSM to debunk "activists" and politicians who keep trotting out this talking point.
Another Good Question.
Asked by Michael Graham:
If Guns Cause Crime, Why Is New Hampshire So Safe?.
New Hampshire has among the highest rates of gun ownership in the country– the second-highest number of guns per capita according to one survey.
It’s also a relatively easy place to buy and own guns. While seven states have bans on so-called “assault weapons” — including nearby Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York — New Hampshire is the only New England state in the top 25 rankings for gun rights. Guns and Ammo ranks the Granite State number 17 on their Best States for Gun Owners list, ahead of Alabama, South Carolina, and Florida.
The one area where New Hampshire lags when it comes to guns? Crime.
In five of the nine years between 2010-2019, New Hampshire had the lowest murder rate in the nation. (The 2020 numbers haven’t been released.) According to U.S. News & World Report, in 2020 New Hampshire had the second-lowest rates of property crimes and violent crime in the country, trailing only Maine.
Of course, we have our own gun-grabbers in New Hampshire. So far, ineffectual.
Moral Panics Make People (More) Stupid.
Kevin D Williamson (in an NRPLUS article, sorry, but subscribe already) looks at
Mass Shootings & Logical Fallacies: How the Left Views Voter Fraud & Gun Violence. Hilarity from the get-go:
If you have ever had a conversation with a Democrat friend about election fraud, you know how it goes:
Caitlyn Moonbeam-D’Vegan: “There isn’t any election fraud.”
Scrooge McJudgy: “Of course there is. A Philadelphia judge of elections just went to jail for rigging an election in exchange for a bribe of $300, which isn’t very much money, even in Philadelphia.”
Caitlyn Moonbeam-D’Vegan: “I never said there wasn’t any election fraud.”
Scrooge McJudgy: “. . .”
Caitlyn Moonbeam-D’Vegan: “But it isn’t widespread.”
Scrooge McJudgy: “Well, it fits the most common definition of ‘widespread,’ inasmuch as it has happened in a lot of elections in a lot of different jurisdictions. We’ve had convictions from Maine to Hawaii — more than 1,000 of them, in fact. And that’s just the ones that result in criminal convictions. So, I think ‘widespread’ is fair.”
Caitlyn Moonbeam-D’Vegan: “I never said it wasn’t widespread.”
Scrooge McJudgy: “. . .”
Caitlyn Moonbeam-D’Vegan: “But it hasn’t actually changed the results of any elections.”
Scrooge McJudgy: “I assume that those Philadelphia Democrats were bribing the judge of elections to stuff ballot boxes because they wanted to change outcomes, rather than simply inflate their margins. And we’ve seen cases where fraud has unquestionably changed outcomes. We’ve seen elections thrown out by courts because of fraud. Al Franken probably won his first Senate election on the strength of illicit votes.”
Caitlyn Moonbeam-D’Vegan: “I never said it hasn’t changed the results of any elections.”
Scrooge McJudgy: “. . .”
Caitlyn Moonbeam-D’Vegan: “It hasn’t changed the results of a presidential race.”
Scrooge McJudgy: “Probably not. Maybe in 1960, but, probably not. Still, wouldn’t you feel better if there were more reliable oversight in place?”
Caitlyn Moonbeam-D’Vegan: “Sedition! Sedition! Sedition!”
I'm sorry, that was a very long excerpt, but where was I going to stop?
And then KDW plays the gun-control script. Did I mention you should do the right thing and subscribe?
And Now For Something Completely Different…
At the WSJ, Phil Gramm and John Early need a microscope to find the
Incredible Shrinking Income Inequality.
The refrain is all too familiar: Widening income inequality is a fatal flaw in capitalism and an “existential” threat to democracy. From 1967 to 2017, income inequality in the U.S. spiked 21.4%, and everyone from U.S. senators to the pope says it’s an urgent problem. Yet the data upon which claims about income inequality are based are profoundly flawed.
We have shown on these pages that Census Bureau income data fail to count two-thirds of all government transfer payments—including Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and some 100 other government transfer payments—as income to the recipients. Furthermore, census data fail to count taxes paid as income lost to the taxpayer. When official government data are used to correct these deficiencies—when income is defined the way people actually define it—“income inequality” is reduced dramatically.
Gramm and Early show their work, and the bottom line is: "income inequality is lower than it was 50 years ago." Graphically:
[The actual graphic at the WSJ is more dynamic. You should subscribe.]
As measured by the Gini coefficient, anyway. I've never been convinced that is something to be concerned about. Is there a "right" Gini coefficient? Is there some argument that says it shouldn't get above X? (Or below Y?)