Liberal Press Again Skews Facts About Firearms Violence Research

Gun Violence Researchers Race to Protect Data From Trump | WIRED:
(February 07, 2017)

 AROUND 11 AM Pacific on January 20th, while newly-inaugurated President Trump finished a celebratory lunch in the Capitol Rotunda, Magdalena Cerd  noticed something different about the White House’s website: All of its references to climate change had disappeared. Cerd  is an epidemiologist at UC Davis’ Violence Prevention Research Program, which focuses on another politicized region of science—gun violence. So she knew what that meant.  (emphasis added)

Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn't know what 'that meant'; but the insinuation that the Trump White House was censoring published (or private) research data about "Climate Change" is obvious,

There are a lot of details which are not examined or made clear in this amateurish article, which suggests that it should be ignored except as an example of unprofessional reporting.  It's more important for what information it does not provide, than for the bias which is revealed.

And even more telling, research data about "gun violence" was, as insinuated by this WIRED article, also at risk of having been "disappeared".

This article is a patent attack on the integrity of the Trump White house, for purely political reasons.

 “It was a real call to action,” Cerd  says. With links to climate data vanishing, she worried the same thing could happen to gun violence data on websites belonging to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “I was on Amtrak between Berkeley and Sacramento,” she says. “So I sent an email to Garen Wintemute saying we needed to start downloading our data immediately.”

Does that mean that the research data of the UC Davis' Violence Prevention Research Program was not regularly backed up?

This is difficult to believe, considering that tens of thousands of dollars were probably invested in the research.   The UC Davis Web Master wasn't encouraging the research teams to perform website and data backups at least daily (and more responsibly, more than once a day) or that the data wasn't available on an offsite data repository?   It's a base canard against the professional practices of a respected Educational and Research Facility.

Rather than to point the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate at UC Davis tech support, I find it much more likely that the UC Davis research program managed to lose (at least temporarily ... whether they recovered the data is not discussed in the article) valuable research data, and in an attempt to cover up their embarrassing lack of data integrity supervision has chosen to blame their oversight on an external agency.

Specifically, a political foe:  the current President of the United States of America.

The suggestion that the President would be responsible for a loss of research data is not only bizarre, but it is a sad commentary on whomever provided the 'background' information for this article ... and for the author, who rushed to judgement by printing innuendo instead of facts.

(In fact, the article suggests that the President had the power, and the resources, to delete 'research data' from multiple, federally funded, generally reliable websites such as the Center for Disease control!)

And the worst approbation is for the website, which allowed this article to be published without requiring the minimum standard of finding at least two sources which support the same interpretation.

I once considered WIRED to be a reliable data source, if only for its technical content.
Now that the website has undermined its own integrity, every single word they ever published will be tainted.

So long WIRED.   Nobody will ever trust you, since you turned Political.

(The Flying Fickle Finger of Fate Award)

Ammunition Encoding

The NRA is making a (relatively) Big Splash on recent state efforts to require that every bullet, and every cartridge case, carry an unique serial number which (supposedly) can lead crime investigators to identify the person who purchased the ammunition used in a crime.

I say "supposedly', because the proposal has exactly zero chance of (a) aiding crime investigators and (b) being enacted for any purpose other than infringing on America's Second Amendment.

America's 1st Freedom | The Truth About Illinois’ Ammo Serial Numbering Scheme: Do you like to hunt or shoot? If so, hang onto your wallet, because ammunition could soon become prohibitively expensive if some Democrat lawmakers get their way.  An Illinois state representative wants to impose a scheme that’s not only been proven to be a multi-million-dollar failure at solving crimes, but could also make ammunition unaffordable for honest citizens*, while leaving criminals—who make millions dealing drugs, guns and (if this legislation is passed) ammunition—untouched.  And don’t just shrug if you don’t live in Illinois: As Fox News reports, similar bills are pending in at least 20 states.

The curious thing is, this isn't the first time this proposal has been aired.  And back in 2008, when it first was caught in the spotlight, I spent some serious blogging time exploring the whys and the wherefores.

Here is a link to my accumulated list of blog articles.  It's long, because the subject is complex, but it might mention a few issues which haven't been mentioned in a brief NRA warning message.  (Feel free to skim through it; not all of the issues are mentioned in only a single article.)

Here's a brief summary:

• It would be financially impossible for ammunition manufacturers to reliable encode each bullet with the case bearing the same unique identifying number ... let's call it "ID" for simplicity.*
• Packaging at the plant would be a vital, yet labor-intensive step because if one bullet/case combination got into a package with a different ID, the manufacturer would (probably) be liable to civil suit in case one round was used during the commission of a crime, and the wrong person was arrested based on this scheme.*
• Even that is a "mega-event', because the technology to match a bullet with the case bearing the same ID is not currently available.*
• ...WHICH IS EVEN MORE complex, because the original scheme proposed that the bullet would have the ID engraved on the BASE of the bullet ... which suggests that the "Quality Control Survey" would necessarily take place before the bullet was loaded into the case.  So much for Mass Production Technology.*
• The cost of such intensive quality control and inspection* (remember these are tiny little numbers, even it can be made to happen with the machinery) would require minutes per round, rather than the less-than-a-second progress which modern manufacturing technology provides.
• The cost of the complete cartridge would therefore be magnified* by a factor of  .. oh, a thousand?  A two-cent cartridge would cost you two dollars, because bullshit-factor.

Ultimately, manufacturers of complete ammunition would refuse to upset their entire industry, and therefore their ammunition would NOT be sold to states with this kind of absurd legal requirements.

WHICH IS THE POINT OF THE EXERCISE!

These states aren't trying to "Solve Crimes"*; they're trying to do an end-run on the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

(PS:  What happens when you reload your own ammunition?  In 'these states', there's a bit of a problem because you can't GET bullets with the same serial number as the cartridge case you're reloading!)

I'm pretty sure this is what the NRA is saying in their article, but they can't go into such fine detail as I can because (a) they're professionals, and (b) they assume everyone else can figure it out for themselves, and (c) they hope their warning-article will be read.

Unsafe At Any Speed: HillaryEMail

Clinton E-mail Trove Likely in Russian Hands | Frontpage Mag:

The mainstream media had sought to protect Hillary Clinton from revelations about Guccifer’s role in the hacking of her private e-mail server as long as it could. For example, NBC News reporter Cynthia McFadden had interviewed Guccifer from a Bucharest prison and elicited Guccifer’s first-hand account that Hillary’s server was “not safe at all.” NBC sat on this interview for more than a month. Only after Guccifer was extradited to the U.S. and appeared to be of interest to the FBI did NBC have to acknowledge the potential importance of what Guccifer had to say regarding Hillary’s unsafe server.

The repercussions of Hillary Clinton's "Not-So-Private" Email Server continue to resound,    Even though the  MSM gratuitously maintains its private job as Protector to the Queen, unsympathetic news/opinion websites dig deeper and discover increasingly ominous suggestions that her arrogance and self-perceived "I'm So Special I Don't Need To Obey The Rules" attitudes may have undermined the security of the United States.

If she is so mindful of her Liberal Preference as a candidate, how would she fare as the Leader of the Free World?

Barack Obama, you may soon be demoted to: "The SECOND Most Dangerous American President".


Hat Tip: Claire

 

Who you gonna trust?

PEW: Americans Trust GOP Over Democrats On Guns, Terrorism, Economy - Breitbart:

According to PEW, the public supports Republicans on guns by a margin of 43 percent to 37 percent.
Regarding the “terror threat,” the public sides with Republicans over Democrats 46 percent to 34 percent.
On the economy they side with Republicans by a margin of 42 percent to 37 percent. The public supports Republicans over Democrats by a slimmer margin on Immigration, 42 percent to 40 percent, but it is one more area where the American public looks to them instead of to Democrats.

Personally, I don't trust any of the lying scoundrels.

The article did, however, provide a nice blurb which essentially defines the difference between conservative and liberal ideology:

Republicans reacted to the San Bernardino terror attacks by focusing on border security and mental health, whereas Democrats reacted by wanting to expand gun control and introducing a ban on the manufacture of AR-15s and related weapons.

See details in "Breaking News" below the fold:

'Smart guns' may not work fast enough for some, expert says. Michigan reports!

'Smart guns' may not work fast enough for some, expert says - WNEM TV 5:
(November 02, 2015)

 The Gun Store owner Bob Irwin said some police officers have holsters available to them with fingerprint technology, but many don’t use them because they can be unreliable. Irwin said the technology may not work fast enough in a life or death situation if the hand is sweaty, bloody or covered while using a glove. “There’s all sorts of things that technology doesn’t allow for in the chaos of self-defense,” Irwin said.

This is terrific news!

No .. not the news that "smart guns" are about as smart as "smart phones" (we already knew that, and it's a canard on the word "smart"), but that a Saginaw Michigan news channel has picked up a FOX5 newsfeed from Reno and are running the story on their website.

Must be a slow newsday in Michigan.

Oh.  Michigan. Right.  Never mind.   They love ANY story that doesn't come out of Detroit!

EVIL gun laws in Arizona!

David Codrea at The War On Guns takes note of an article in the International Business Times which bemoans the lax gun control laws in Arizona which allows almost ANYONE to own and use a firearm!!  And they don't need a license to own a firearm, or to register the gun, or ANYTHING!
(Imagine that .. what is this country COMING TO???)

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on whether you wish the author to be considered an authority, or at least a competent reporter of "facts"), the author makes some serious errors in these  .. well, facts!

May the fleas of a thousand camels infest the testicles of liberal east-coast journalists!

Phoenix Freeway Shootings: Amid Manhunt, Arizona Gun Laws Are Among The Country's Most Lenient:

Most guns are legal in Arizona, which only outlaws firearms that shoot more than one shot automatically from one pull of the trigger without a manual reload, rifles with barrels longer than 16 inches, and shotguns with barrels longer than 18 inches.

{emphasis added}

Obvious (to people who are either smarter than a stump, or are conversant with gun-control legislation over the past 50 years), the usual gun control laws regarding barrel length have been applied to barrels SHORTER than a given length ... not LONGER. (Shorter barrels make it easier to hide or disguise long-guns, or so we are told by people who aren't a helluva lot smarter than this author.)

And these restrictions are imposed at a federal level .. they are not unique to the state of Arizona.

Are we to assume that the Liberal Press is stupid, or deliberately skewing the facts to fit their agenda?

Perhaps the two categories are not mutually incompatible.