All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/

Concealed carry permit holders commit fewer crimes than police officers

A message from Females with Firearms
A message from Females with Firearms

A new report was reported on at the Daily Signal.

Excerpt:

Concealed-carry permit holders are nearly the most law-abiding demographic of Americans, a new report by the Crime Prevention Research Center says—comparing the permit holders foremost with police.

“Indeed, it is impossible to think of any other group in the U.S. that is anywhere near as law-abiding,” says the report, titled “Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States 2016.”

From 2007 through 2015, permits issued by state and local governments increased by 215 percent, to more than 14 million Americans, according to the data.

The study compared permit holders to police, who committed 703 crimes from 2005 to 2007, and 113 of those were firearm violations.

[…]The study refers to Texas and Florida, which it says mirror most other states, to compare permit holders with police and the overall population. It used data from 1987 through 2015.

“We find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers,” the report says. “Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10. That is just one-seventh of the rate for police officers.”

Did you know that? It is very difficult to get a concealed carry permit, and the people who get them don’t want to lose them, because they’d be losing their ability to defend themselves. That’s why they are so informed about how to use their firearms safely in a law-abiding manner.

Although there is opposition to gun ownership in certain circles, the academic literature is quite clear and decisive. Legal ownership of firearms reduces rates of violent crime. Whenever laws that allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense, violent crime rates decrease. Whenever laws are passed that restrict law-abiding citizens from owning and carrying firearms for self-defense, violent crime rates increase.

The peer-reviewed research

Whenever I get into discussions about gun control, I always mention two academic books by John R. Lott and Joyce Lee Malcolm.

Here is a paper by Dr. Malcolm that summarizes one of the key points of her book.

Excerpt:

Tracing the history of gun control in the United Kingdom since the late 19th century, this article details how the government has arrogated to itself a monopoly on the right to use force. The consequence has been a tremendous increase in violent crime, and harsh punishment for crime victims who dare to fight back. The article is based on the author’s most recent book, Guns and Violence: The English Experience (Harvard University Press, 2002). Joyce Malcom is professor of history at Bentley College, in Waltham, Massachusetts. She is also author of To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an AngloAmerican Right (Harvard University Press, 1994).

Upon the passage of The Firearms Act (No. 2) in 1997, British Deputy Home Secretary Alun Michael boasted: “Britain now has some of the toughest gun laws in the world.” The Act was second handgun control measure passed that year, imposed a near-complete ban on private ownership of handguns, capping nearly eighty years of increasing firearms restrictions. Driven by an intense public campaign in the wake of the shooting of schoolchildren in Dunblane, Scotland, Parliament had been so zealous to outlaw all privately owned handguns that it rejected proposals to exempt Britain’s Olympic target-shooting team and handicapped target-shooters from the ban.

And the result of the 1997 gun ban:

The result of the ban has been costly. Thousands of weapons were confiscated at great financial cost to the public. Hundreds of thousands of police hours were devoted to the task. But in the six years since the 1997 handgun ban, crimes with the very weapons banned have more than doubled, and firearm crime has increased markedly. In 2002, for the fourth consecutive year, gun crime in England and Wales rose—by 35 percent for all firearms, and by a whopping 46 percent for the banned handguns. Nearly 10,000 firearms offences were committed.

[…]According to Scotland Yard, in the four years from 1991 to 1995 crimes against the person in England‟s inner cities increased by 91 percent. In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. The UK murder rate for 2002 was the highest for a century.

I think that peer-reviewed studies – from Harvard University, no less – should be useful to those of us who believe in the right of self-defense for law-abiding people. The book by economist John Lott, linked above,compares the crime rates of all U.S. states that have enacted concealed carry laws, and concludes that violent crime rates dropped after law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry legally-owned firearms. That’s the mirror image of Dr. Malcolm’s Harvard study, but both studies affirm the same conclusion – more legal firearm ownership means less crime.

Obama’s Department of Justice shuts down FBI investigation of Clinton Foundation

Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help
Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help

The Federalist reported on the latest revelation from the Clinton e-mail investigation:

Newly released emails reveal President Obama’s Justice Department rejected the FBI’s request to investigate the Clinton Foundation’s relationship with the State Department.

The FBI asked the DOJ to open an investigation into a potential pay-for-play relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation, which spends a very small fraction of its funds on actual charity work, but the DOJ wasn’t interested — saying it had tried and failed to probe the organization in 2015, CNN reports.

Earlier this week, Judicial Watch, a non-profit integrity group,released a batch of emails revealing that top State Department aides did favors for Clinton Foundation bigwigs during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of State.

[…]The DOJ’s refusal to probe the Clinton Foundation’s use of the State Department seems to be more than just a lack of evidence at hand, as U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch has a special relationship with the Clintons.

Hillary Clinton is reportedly planning to keep Lynch as attorney general, if Clinton wins the election. In late June, Bill Clinton secretly met with Lynch aboard a private plane on the tarmac of a Phoenix airport just before she announced the DOJ wouldn’t press charges against Clinton for using a private, unsecured email server while serving as secretary of State. The curious timing of these developments led many to believe there is an underlying conflict of interest at play.

The Daily Wire explains what there is to investigate:

The State Department and Clinton Foundation clearly colluded. The Clintons used Teneo, an advisory business, as a go-between; the firm hired Huma Abedin even as Abedin worked at the State Department. Teneo’s Chief Executive Declan Kelly worked as a special envoy for Hillary at the State Department. Former Clinton Foundation head Doug Band “formed the Teneo consulting firm” in June 2011, with “Bill Clinton as the paid honorary chairman.”

And, of course, the Clinton Foundation had corrupt dealings with countries and figures all over the world, trading favors from Hillary Clinton’s State Department for cash donations and speaking fees for Bill.

The New York Post concludes:

Hillary Clinton put the State Department up for sale, with top aides pulling strings and doing favors for fat-cat donors to the Clinton Foundation — including a shady billionaire, according to smoking-gun emails released Tuesday.

The stunning revelations include how wealthy contributors seeking influence or prestigious government gigs could fork over piles of cash to get access to Clinton’s inner circle, including top aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.

It’s pretty clear what needs to be investigated, but I noticed that the mainstream media is studiously ignoring the Clinton scandals in order to cover Donald Trump’s stupidity. They’re not lying, they’re just choosing not to cover anything that makes Clinton look bad, and everything that makes Trump look bad.

Newsbusters explains:

The liberal “Big Three” networks seemed to try everything in their power to not mention Hillary Clinton’s latest e-mail controversy Wednesday. Throughout all of their news programs, both morning and evening, they gave the e-mails a total of 6 minutes 59 seconds. In stark contrast, they dragged out Trump’s “Second Amendment people” comment with a whopping 25 minutes 54 seconds of coverage. “One day after Donald Trump used the second amendment to shoot himself in the foot, Hillary Clinton used her first amendment right to speak out against him,” touted anchor Scott Pelley on CBS Evening News.

ABC’s World News Tonight had the largest disparity in coverage of the two stories Wednesday evening. The network dedicated a mere 38 seconds to the e-mail controversy, as they mixed it in with other coverage of Clinton.  “Today, the Clinton campaign saying, “Hillary Clinton never took actions as Secretary of State because of donations to the Clinton Foundation,” reported Cecilia Vega, “But Trump says the e-mails exposed pay for play connections.” ABC gave Trump’s comment 3 minutes 24 seconds that evening.

38 seconds.

That’s why nobody trusts the mainstream media to report accurately on politics. They have their candidate, and they are backing her all the way to the White House.

Stephen C. Meyer: does the Big Bang cosmology disprove the existence of God?

Christianity and the progress of science
Christianity and the progress of science

Here’s the 66-minute video featuring Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, who holds the Ph.D in philosophy of science from Cambridge University, and other degrees in the hard sciences.

The lecture starts really, really slowly. You can just fast-forward to the 12 minute mark, or you might die of boredom.

Topics:

  • Up until the the last 100 years or so, everyone agreed that the universe was eternal
  • This is at odds with the traditional Christian view that God created the universe
  • Materialism, the view that matter is all there is, requires eternally existing matter
  • Discovery #1: Hubble discovers that the universe is expanding (redshift observation)
  • The expanding universe was resisted by proponents of the eternal universe, like Einstein
  • Some naturalists even proposed speculative static models like the steady-state model
  • However, not of the speculative models fit with observations and experimental results
  • Discovery #2: Penzias and Wilson discover the cosmic microwave background radiation
  • Measurements of this background radiation confirmed a prediction of the Big Bang theory
  • The steady-state theory was falsified of by the discovery of this background radiation
  • The oscillating model was proposed to prevent the need for an absolute beginning
  • But the oscillating model is not eternal, it loses energy on each “bounce”
  • A paper by Alan Guth and Marc Sher from 1982 proved that our universe will not bounce
  • In addition, experiments reveal that the universe will expand forever, and not contract
  • The beginning of the universe is more at home in a theistic worldview than an atheistic one
  • The beginning of the universe fits in well with the Bible, e.g. – Genesis 1, Titus 1, etc.

In case you are wondering about what the evidence is for the Big Bang, here are 3 of the evidences that are most commonly offered:

Three main observational results over the past century led astronomers to become certain that the universe began with the big bang. First, they found out that the universe is expanding—meaning that the separations between galaxies are becoming larger and larger. This led them to deduce that everything used to be extremely close together before some kind of explosion. Second, the big bang perfectly explains the abundance of helium and other nuclei like deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) in the universe. A hot, dense, and expanding environment at the beginning could produce these nuclei in the abundance we observe today. Third, astronomers could actually observe the cosmic background radiation—the afterglow of the explosion—from every direction in the universe. This last evidence so conclusively confirmed the theory of the universe’s beginning that Stephen Hawking said, “It is the discovery of the century, if not of all time.”

By the way, Dr. Meyer also does a great job of explaining the problem of proteins, DNA and the origin of life in this lecture. And you can hear him defend his views in this debate podcast with Keith Fox and in this debate podcast with Peter Atkins. He does a great job in these debates.

Positive arguments for Christian theism