Author: coldhardcashner

Teaching the Constitution

The Public Interest Institute (PII) recently released a new policy study entitled “A Republic If You Can Keep It: Failing To Teach First Principles,” which highlights America and Iowa’s failure to ground young citizens in “civic education.” The Public Interest Institute is an independent, non-profit organization located on the campus of Iowa Wesleyan College in Mt. Pleasant. It is committed to doing research “on principles and methods to promote and encourage human rights, economic freedom, economic growth, and the creation of jobs here in Iowa.”

The report essentially says that, when it comes to American history and institutions, many American’s are like the people on The Tonight Show’s popular “Jay Walking” segments, in which Jay Leno would ask questions to random people on the street whose answers were often woefully ignorant.

Some statistics cited by the report, from various studies:

  • 52.1% of undergraduate seniors could not recognize that the line “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” is from the Declaration of Independence.

  • 52% of college graduates believe that the phrase “wall of separation” is found in the Constitution.

  • Less than 50% of average Americans can name all three branches of government.

  • Only 27% understand that the Bill of Rights prohibits the establishment of an official state religion for the United States.

Why does civic education matter? Because, the report states, “Americans have a citizenship responsibility that requires an informed patriotism based on our history and institutions.” This lack of “informed patriotism” has left the nation “facing a national emergency of losing not only its identity, but also history and values.”

The PII report also analyzes the core curriculum of Iowa’s institutes of higher learning and finds them lacking on civic education. It points to the curriculum of Hillsdale College (Michigan) and Patrick Henry College (Virginia) as examples of good grounding in civics.

To remedy the situation, the PII study recommends that governors and legislators should push for higher required standards on civics education. It also suggests that citizens should lobby their elected officials and hold education institutions “accountable” (whatever that means).

A warning missing from the PII study is that we need to be wary of how this new civics would be taught and who teaches it. “Civics education” can easily be perverted by a usurping government into political propaganda, or more likely just a sloppy and inaccurate presentation of the subject.

For instance, worrying about the lack of “civics education” caused the U.S. Congress to want to establish “Presidential Academies” to help teach the subject. Ironically, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress ZERO authority dealing with education ( and the 10th Amendment reminds “powers not delegated to the United States [government] by the Constitution, […] are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”). Can institutions chartered in violation of the Constitution be reliable teachers of constitutional principles?

Another cautionary tale on civics education comes from “We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution,” a widely-used high school civics textbook. An analysis done by Gun Owners of America discovered some interesting points in the textbook.

Firstly, the aforementioned 10th Amendment is not even mentioned in the section dealing with the Bill of Rights. Not even once! When the book discusses federalism it “treats the federal government as the octopus head which can dictate to the tentacles (the states) what they must do,” (in GOA’s words).

The Second Amendment is discussed in an historical context, but is presented as hopelessly out of date. Students are asked: “Do you think the Second Amendment is as important today as it was in the eighteenth century? Explain your answer.” and “What limitations, if any, do you think should be placed on the right to bear arms? How would you justify those limits? ” Students are not asked to similarly question the relevance of any part of the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but are asked how it might be expanded in this country.

Although I agree with PII that state governments could push for higher standards in civic education, I believe that the primary responsibility belongs to the people themselves. We must first teach ourselves. (I’m still learning too.) We and our civic groups must teach our children and our fellow citizens on America’s history, identity and values. The reason civic education is in such sorry shape is because we have already given so much of the task to the state.

We must read the Declaration and Constitution. When they are old enough, my kids will be receiving handsomely bound copies (after they get their Bibles, of course). We should read our state constitutions as well.

There are many fine books out there dealing with Constitutional principles. On everyone’s short list are “The Federalist Papers” and “Democracy In America” by Alexis DeTocqueville. I would also recommend “The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates” by Ralph Ketcham and “The Bill of Rights Primer” by Akhil Reed Amar. For middle-school age kids and up, I recommend “The U.S.Constitution for Everyone” by Jerome Agel. Also try “Revolution: A Manifesto” by Ron Paul. [Some of these are located in the “Important Documents” section at the right side of this blog.]

At the end of the day, only we the people can instill the “informed patriotism,” that the PII study speaks of, in our fellow citizens and future generations. We HAVE to if we want “America” to mean anything more than a mere geographic location on the map.

Mexican Crime Guns NOT From U.S.

Here’s a video report at FOXNews.com detailing the widely repeated myth that 90% of Mexican crime guns come from U.S. sources. (There is a short commercial before the report.) You can read the accompanying article here.

http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/foxnews1-foxnews-pub01-live/current/videolandingpage/fncLargePlayer/client/embedded/embedded.swf

On The Road To Des Moines

While of course Memorial Day is a somber occasion, its weekend is the traditional kickoff of summer. My family and I were able to already have a nice mini summer vacation without lining the pockets of the foreign potentates of Wisconsin or Minnesota. We spent two days in Des Moines, right here in good old Iowa. That was plenty far to drive with a three-year-old and a pregnant wife anyway.

On Thursday we left Northeast Iowa early and headed for Adventureland Amusement Park, in the Des Moines suburb of Altoona. Adventureland came into being in 1974 (the same year I did) and is Iowa’s most complete amusement park and resort.

I’ve been going to Adventureland since I was a child. My parents would take us down at least once per summer. They were stockholders in the place, so they got tickets at a deep discount. (To put that into perspective for us kids who didn’t understand stocks, when we asked about it, Dad would point at one of the painted lines in the parking lot and say, “We own that line.”) Since I have so many summers worth of memories there, it felt good to see my little boy on some of the same toddler rides that I rode on, as well as quite a few that they didn’t have back then.

Outside the park we ate a nice picnic lunch that my wife had packed, to save a little money on park food. We didn’t get a chance to go on any “big kid” rides this time. That was fine with me because just going on the “Tea Cups” with my boy made me a little green around the gills.

Although Adventureland remains almost frozen in time from when I was a kid, nothing can shield it from Iowa’s shifting demographics. When I was a kid, it was mostly teenagers running the rides, today it is mostly “seasoned citizens” running them. I guess I’m getting old enough that I kind of prefer them. In another cultural shift, the sound of Spanish language from park guests filled the air.

That night we stayed at Adventureland Inn, located right next door. My son loved its three large indoor pools, my wife enjoyed relaxing and I appreciated Iowa’s only swim-up bar.

The next day we headed for Blank Park Zoo, which bills itself as “Iowa’s WILDEST Adventure.” While there are a few “animal displays” in Iowa (Osborne Park in Clayton County, Bever Park in Cedar Rapids and Fontana Park in Buchanan County being the best examples in my neck of the woods) there are none that truly qualify as a “zoo.” Blank Park Zoo, however, certainly qualifies as a true zoo.

Blank Park Zoo boasts lions, tigers, giraffes, kangaroos, alligators, monkeys and many, many more. My boy especially enjoyed the camel ride as well as riding the zoo train which gives visitors a tour of the zoo. With the picnic food gone, we spent more at the zoo than we did at Adventureland, but it was well worth it.

On the way home we stopped at the Tanger Outlet Mall in Williamsburg. My wife bought some new baby clothes while my son and I tried to make ourselves scarce. Then it was one last meal at McDonald’s and we were home.

It was a great two days in Iowa. The weather was perfect and we all had a great time.

I hope my kids will look back wistfully on memories like these someday, like I do with mine. Maybe someday they’ll be taking their own children too.

They’re Here. They’re Queer. We’re Dealing With It.

One of the hardest lessons to learn as free people is how to resist the urge of I don’t like X, so X ought to be illegal. The conservatives haven’t mastered it. The liberals haven’t mastered it. The libertarians try, but it isn’t always easy.

Gay marriage here in Iowa is a perfect example of this tendency at work. Many of us were raised to believe that homosexuality is wrong. As free people we certainly have every right to believe that if we choose. Things that are “wrong” should be illegal, right? Not necessarily.

Libertarians believe that as long as the action doesn’t harm anyone else, it should remain legal. The government shouldn’t be in the business of enforcing morality for its own sake. Do we really want the likes of Bill Clinton, Larry Craig, Rod Blagojevich, Richard Nixon or J. Edgar Hoover defining morality for us anyway?

When we use the force of government to impose our own morality on “those people” (whoever that may be), we have to realize that we are all “those people” to somebody else. I’m not gay, but there are certainly those in this country who would view me as one of “those people” who needs to have different values imposed upon.

Some would view me as “one of those” kooky gun owners in need of regulation and registration. Some would view me as “one of those” evil white males in need of some reverse discrimination to put things right. My support of a third party might even land me on the Dept. of Homeland Security’s list of “those” darned domestic terror suspects. Sooner or later we all end up on the receiving end of these attempts at government “redistribution of values.” It is better if the government just protects our rights and leaves the moralizing to we the people.

The so-called “values voters,” who may be opposed to gay marriage, can console themselves that the seemingly wide support for it is not necessarily part of some headlong rush toward mindless hedonism and away from all “traditional values.” As reason contributor Jonathan Rauch points out:

“Here’s something in the [ABC-Washington Post] poll data which is revealing, if indirectly. Rising support for [same-sex marriage] is accompanied by increased support for legalizing illegal immigrants and decriminalizing marijuana—but also by a decline in support for gun control. A new poll from Pew confirms the turn against gun control, and adds that opposition to abortion is growing.”

After Rauch wrote this article, a Gallup poll showed a majority of Americans identifying themselves as pro-life for the first time since the poll started. Rauch continues:

“What does all of that have to do with gay marriage? Just this: It suggests that [same-sex marriage] is part of a libertarian shift in values—not a libertine shift or a flight from values altogether. The public increasingly rejects the claim that gay marriage harms a third party (as abortion does) or violates anyone’s rights (as gun control arguably does).” [My thanks to Advocates of Liberty for posting a link to that article.]

So gay marriage might not be the end of the world as we know it. That is probably why Iowans have mostly responded to the gay rights mantra of “We’re here! We’re queer! Deal with it!” with a collective shrug and an “Okay.”

Really, we don’t care. Now shut up, our favorite show is on!

Mom

Mother’s Day has taken on a bittersweet tone this year, after the passing of my wife’s mother last spring and the realization that the number of Mother’s Days with my own mother are rapidly dwindling. You see, several years ago, my mom was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease.

According to the Alzheimer’s Association, there are 5.3 million Americans living with the disease and it is our sixth leading cause of death. Since it primarily attacks senior citizens, that number is sure to grow as our population ages. The disease “destroys brain cells, causing problems with memory, thinking and behavior severe enough to affect work, lifelong hobbies or social life.” It is always fatal and there is no cure. These are facts that I never realized until Mom was diagnosed.

Mom came from a poor family but, through hard work and the help of a Pell Grant, she was able to put herself through college. She worked first as a teacher, then later for the Iowa Department of Human Services. She kept the books for our family farm. When she was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s at the age of 62, rather than moping about, she wrote about the experience in an article that was published in a national magazine.

My mother is a smart lady. I would like to explain to Alzheimer’s how unfair it is that she be slowly stripped of her greatest asset, but there is no rationalizing with Alzheimer’s.

Besides working full time and keeping the books, Mom gladly accepted all the other duties of a farm wife. I can recall myself and my siblings working in the fields, picking up the numerous rocks that our farm always bore. In the late afternoon we would see Mom’s car return from work. A few minutes later Mom would emerge from the house, out of her office attire and into her chore clothes, to help us, always without delay and without complaint. Whatever the task, be it picking up rocks, driving a tractor or hefting buckets of feed, Mom could do it.

My mother is a strong woman. I would advise Alzheimer’s that there must surely be easier targets to attack, but there is no reasoning with Alzheimer’s.

Long about junior-high age I decided that I didn’t want to go to church anymore. I can recall arguing about this with Mom one Sunday morning. Although I thought I had presented a compelling case, Mom carried the day and forty minutes later my rebellious little butt was firmly planted in a church pew.

As I sat there in church, my arms folded, silently fuming, I felt a gentle rap on my shoulder. I turned to see Mom produce something from her purse and hold it out to me. It was a small plastic sandwich bag filled with Cheereos, much like the other mothers in the congregation might use to comfort a crying baby. Message received.

My mother is a smart alec! She has an acerbic wit that still, to this day, she will occasionally play like an ace card when no one expects it. I would warn Alzheimer’s not to mess with her, that she could cut it down to size with a mere word (or less), but there is no threatening Alzheimer’s.

So, what is this mother’s son to do? I help my folks out with some errands now and then (what little I can with a job and a growing family of my own from two counties away). I donate what little I can afford to groups like Alzheimer’s Association. Other than that, I can only remind Mom that I love her and wish her a happy Mother’s Day.

Getting A Carry Permit

The last Sunday in April I took my county’s class to get a permit to carry concealed weapons. I’m new to all this, so I thought maybe others who were thinking about getting an Iowa weapons permit (which according to a recent Cedar Rapids Gazette article, is an increasing number of you) might want to see what it’s all about, from the vantage point of a fellow newbie. You old pros, who have carried for years, will have to bear with me.

Firstly, In Iowa there are two types of civilian permits dealing with handguns: the “permit to acquire pistols and revolvers” and the “permit to carry weapons.” The names are self-explanatory.

The permit to acquire only requires that you fill out a form at your county sheriff’s office, pay a small fee and submit to a criminal background check. This will allow you to purchase handguns, but is not needed for long arms.

To carry a gun in public, you’ll need a permit to carry weapons. Although the law doesn’t say the weapon has to be concealed, it’s generally understood to be a good idea, to avoid “scaring the horses.” A permit to carry also functions as a permit to acquire.

Here’s where things get confusing because Iowa leaves each county sheriff with wide discretion as to how or even if permits to carry are issued to the citizens in each county. Essentially, Iowa has 99 different policies on carry permits. Efforts by gun rights advocates to establish a uniform statewide standard for carry permits have met with surprising resistance in the Iowa legislature.

So getting a carry permit in your county may well be different than it was for me. Some sheriffs refuse to issue them even to legally qualified applicants. Luckily, my sheriff in Jones County does.

I visited the sheriff’s office and filled out the requisite paperwork to allow a background check and paid $25 for the required class. In the short time I was there, there was an older married couple in line ahead of me, also signing up for the class, and one guy came in behind me to sign up. The 30 slots in the class filled up fast.

A few weeks later I arrived at the local shooting range where the class was held. I knew that there would be a written test as well as a live-fire proficiency test with my pistol. Besides that, I didn’t know what to expect.

First Sheriff Mark Denniston addressed the class, which was composed of a fairly diverse mix of young and old, male and female. The sheriff told the applicants what was expected of them if they got their permits. Then he turned the class over to the two professional firearms instructors who the sheriff’s department contracts with to teach the class: Mike and Ernie.

Mike Sieverding is CEO of Sieverding Engineering Enterprises and Chief Firearms Instructor for F.I.E.R.C.E. (Firearms Instruction for Every Responsible Citizen Everywhere). Ernie Traugh is an instructor and the owner of Cedar Valley Outfitters, a gun and shooting supply shop in Marion. Both men are also reserve police officers.

Most of the class dealt with the legal aspects of having the permit. Mike and Ernie did a good job on what could have been a rather dry subject. They also reminded the class what a truly grim situation a defensive shooting would be if, God-forbid, anyone did have to use their weapon. They really drove home the point that things don’t play out as they do in the movies. They also encouraged everyone to continue to practice with their own weapons and take further firearms instruction classes to increase proficiency.

After about 5 or so hours in the classroom and after completing the written test on the subjects addressed by Mike and Ernie, it was time for the range test. I have to admit, I was a little nervous about the shooting test. After pheasant and squirrel hunting growing up and 6 years in the infantry, I have spent much more trigger time with rifles and shotguns than with pistols.

It turned out I was sweating for nothing. I knew that the test was at 10 yards with FBI silhouette targets. I spent the month before the class practicing with my .45 (at the very shooting range where the class was held, coincidentally). Once I knew I could hit the target at 10 yards, I practiced at 15 and 20 yards as well, just for my own satisfaction.

I ended up getting 100% on the shooting test. Still, I would like to take some of Sieverding’s other pistol courses to break myself of some of the bad shooting habits that I have no doubt picked up from pistol plinking with “the guys.”

That was it. I waited a week then called the sheriff’s office. I’ll pay a $10 license fee when I pick it up tomorrow.

If the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is something you really believe in and being able to protect your family while away from home is truly important to you and if you’re comfortable with the idea, I encourage you to investigate what it takes to get a carry permit in your own county. The folks at the local gun shop or shooting range and IowaCarry.org can point you in the right direction. The rest is up to you.

Got Ammo?

I took my trusty old M1911 to the shooting range a few times this month in preparation for my concealed carry class at the end of the month. I was advised to bring 50 rounds of ammunition to the class. I hadn’t bought handgun ammo in over a year. As I burnt up my ammo supply in practice, I figured it would be no problem to stop by the local Thiesen’s or Wal-Mart and pick up another box. Boy, was I wrong! A nation-wide shortage of all types of ammunition, handgun ammunition in particular, has emptied store shelves.

My friend (a first-time gun owner) spent the other day driving around Cedar Rapids (Iowa’s second largest city) looking for his particular caliber and type. He went from store to store only to find the ammo shelves bare. At one store they said that the delivery truck arrived at 11:00 am on Thursdays and that the handgun ammo was usually gone by noon. Apparently you practically have to help unload the truck yourself if you want some ammo. My friend ended up at hardware store in a small town outside C.R. paying 50 bucks for 50 rounds.

There are several causes to the shortage. The long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have helped to dwindle ammunition supplies, as suppliers give priority to military orders over civilian sales. The largest cause of the shortage, however, is fear. Buyers are snapping up ammunition and hoarding it while they still can.

Many gun owners, including an increasing number of first-time gun buyers, are afraid that President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress will move to outlaw or excessively regulate guns and ammo. Some previously proposed legislation dealing with ammo has included placing a 1000% tax on handgun ammo, bans on lead (i.e. most) bullets, and “encoding” each bullet with a unique serial number (making it vastly more expensive).

If the specter of all of the Democrats previous gun control schemes weren’t enough to drive ammo prices through the roof, recently President Obama announced his support for CIFTA, an international gun control treaty. Among other infringements upon the Second Amendment, the treaty could require people who reload ammo at home to get a federal license. (No one knows how much such a license would cost, or even if they would be issued.) The treaty should drive ammo prices up further and keep them there.

So in a time of ammunition scarcity, what can shooters do?

If you can’t find the ammunition you need at your local merchant, you can try ordering ammunition online at Cheaper Than Dirt, The Sportsman’s Guide, or Ammoman.com. They may be sold out of what you need, but keep checking.

If you can wait, try attending the next gun show near you. There are usually ammunition vendors at gun shows, giving you at least a chance to find what you need. Unlike what you’ve probably seen on the network news, gun shows are not lawless orgies of illegal gun sales with Satan himself laughing in the background, but you can pick up some good deals at one. IowaCarry.org maintains a list of Iowa gun shows here.

Good luck and good shooting!

Economic Wizardry

Growing up here in Iowa, my sister had a book that was a collection of the funny papers classic “The Wizard of Id.” I remember one particular cartoon in that book. The wizard was standing knee-deep in the sea, his sleeves were rolled up and he had his arms pointed out to sea, furiously casting lightning bolts and cartoon magic at it. Behind him, on the beach, the king watched the wizard’s hard work proudly with one of his underlings. The wizard could always get the tide to go out, the king explained to his subject, even if it took twelve hours to do so.

I recall looking down at that cartoon as blankly as if I’d just read the day’s relative humidity in Scranton Pennsylvania. It was only after my older and wiser sister explained to me that, after twelve hours, the tide would have gone out by itself anyway, that I got the joke. The wizard was an absolute fraud, but he sure wasn’t going to let his sugar daddy (the king) know it.

I’m reminded of that cartoon now as I watch our government’s economic wizards work their best mojo to make the recession retreat. However, unlike the good wizard of Id, who merely cast his fake magic harmlessly out to sea, our federal wizards are casting their lightning bolts into a pre-existing economic tinderbox of their own making and mortgaging our children’s future to fund the enterprise.

Market forces are remarkably resilient (but not indestructible). Some economists were predicting as early as January that the recession may have been bottoming out. If left alone, the recession would end eventually and would do so sooner without all the “help” from the government. A UCLA study of the Great Depression, for instance, concluded that New Deal programs to alleviate the depression actually added seven years to it. We can expect similar results from current “stimulus.”

We already have $11 trillion in public debt and that is set to get much worse as the Social Security and Medicare promises that the federal government made to baby boomers (with no way to pay them) come due. By 2030 it will take half of all federal income tax dollars to fund just these two programs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, by mid-century Medicare and Medicaid will require the entire federal budget, leaving no money available for national defense, security or any other federal program. In order to keep Medicare and Medicaid and still fund the government’s other functions, a middle-income family will have to pay two-thirds of its income in taxes. (Medicare/Medicaid figures are from John C. Goodman in the March 2009 “Imprimus.”)

It’s not hard to see that piling trillions of dollars in additional debt on top of these unfunded liabilities, to fund current stimulus of dubious usefulness, will not help our economy in the long term. But by the time the tide rolls back in, the wizards will be long gone with the kings gold.

If They Only Had Integrity

I’ve come to not expect much from coverage of firearms issues by the mainstream media, particularly television network news. However, even I was shocked by what a one-sided hatchet job the ABC News show “20/20” did with their special episode titled, “If I Only Had a Gun.” The program made absolutely no attempt to even feign balance or objectivity.

As I saw it, the three main points of the show were: 1)Guns can’t help you in an emergency. 2)Kids are drawn to unsecured guns like moths to a flame. 3)Guns are too easy to acquire.

To prove the first point, “20/20” staged one of many “experiments” on the program with all the scientific purity of six-year-old kid frying sidewalk ants with a magnifying glass. Reminiscent of Columbine or Virginia Tech, they placed a student volunteer armed with a training weapon in a classroom situation. Suddenly a gunman burst through the door, shoots the professor and turns the weapon on the class. The reporters then critiqued the actions of the untrained “armed student” with police instructors to show how ineffective they were.

Firstly, “20/20” picked the most extreme crime situation a person can be put in. So-called “multiple victim public shootings” (MVPS’s) or “active shooter” situations are statistically rare. A person carrying a weapon for self defense is vastly more likely to confront a mugger, wild animal, rapist or burglar (or nobody) than a psychotic school shooter. Of defensive uses against these more mundane threats, the defender usually doesn’t even fire a shot. Once the gun is brandished, the attacker usually retreats to find an easier victim.

In the “20/20” experiment there were other variables stacking the deck. The “deranged gunman” was actually a professional police firearms instructor, who just happened to know who the one person in the classroom with a gun was (each time that person was seated front and center in the classroom). The student volunteers only received a brief “show and tell” training session with their pistol before the show. The students had to wear long, weird peasant shirts that hung well past the pistol stashed in their waistband, which is not what most students carrying pistols (nor any student this side of Abu Dhabi) would wear and they also had to wear protective, yet restrictive, “space helmets“ as well. I could go on, but suffice it to say that “20/20” got the results it wanted.

In each experiment, the armed student responder was criticized for not properly taking cover, for nearly shooting the “frightened classmates” who made a point of running in front of them, and for only hitting the killer in the arms and thighs while the professional firearms instructor landed his rounds center-mass on the student. To further stack the deck, “20/20” added a second shooter to the side of the classroom, then criticized the student volunteer for only engaging the shooter directly in front.

In such a situation, “20/20” advised viewers to run, hide or play dead, and grab their cell phone (which they called an important “weapon” against active shooters). This is probably often sound advice, especially if someone is unarmed. However, it should be conceivable that armed resistance can help, since at least three school shootings have been cut short by armed bystanders (Appalachian Law School in Virginia, Pearl Mississippi High School, and Edinboro Pennslvania).

On the second point about children and guns, “20/20” recycled another “experiment” that they did ten years ago. In this one, they planted real, but inert, pistols into toy boxes at a daycare. To the surprise of the reporters, but no one else on Earth, the children played with them! I think that’s why God created adult supervision. They also showed a segment about a kid in Florida whose neighborhood is overrun with armed gang-bangers who already disobey numerous gun laws.

To illustrate their point about guns being too easy to acquire, they visited one of those despicable gun shows that we hear so much about. “20/20” brought in a guy whose sister had been killed at Virginia Tech. (The VT killer did NOT buy his gun at a gun show, “20/20” had to admit.) They gave him $5,000 and one hour to buy as many guns as he could. Again, to no one’s surprise, he walked out with a load of them. (If ABC wants to conduct this type of research here in Iowa, I would like to officially offer my services! Unlike this guy though, I will not be turning the guns over for destruction.)

Although “20/20” said that gun shows were a major supplier of crime guns, a 1997 study by the National Institute of Justice put that number at about 2% of guns used in crime. In 2001, the Bureau of Justice Statistics put the number at less than 1%. I guess it depends on what your definition of “major” is.

At the end of the show Diane Sawyer stated that they were unable to find a single “reliable” study that pointed toward the effectiveness of guns for self-defense. I guess a study is only considered “reliable” if it reaffirms the show’s preconceived thesis. Let me suggest the following to Ms. Sawyer:

  • A 1997 study performed for Bill Clinton’s Justice Department, titled “Guns in America,” found that there are as many as 1.5 million defensive uses of firearms every year. The report was authored by two esteemed anti-gun criminologists, Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.
  • Two years earlier, the study “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun,” written by Dr. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, criminology professors at Florida State University, put that number at as many as 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.
  • According to the study “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” (University of Chicago, 1996) by researchers John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, states which implemented concealed carry laws (wherein private citizens are permitted to carry firearms) reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%.
  • The U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, reported in its 1979 report “Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities” (page 31) that about 32% of rapes are completed by the attacker. If the woman is armed with a gun or a knife, however, only 3% of attempted rapes are successful.
  • According to “Multiple Victim Public Shootings” (2000) by professors John R. Lott, Jr. and William M. Landes, concealed carry laws reduced a states likelihood of having a MVPS by 60% and reduced deaths and injuries from MVPS’s by 78%. Their research also showed that the more restrictions that concealed carry states placed on where permit holders could carry their weapons (more “gun free zones”) the less of a reduction in MVPS’s the state experienced.
  • Although it’s only anecdotal evidence, not scientific, publications such as Gun Week, the National Rifle Association’s monthly publications and KeepAndBearArms.com routinely publish stories of citizens using firearms in self-defense.

With all this evidence (and more), you would think that it might warrant at least a single solitary mention of a successful defensive use of a firearm on “If I Only Had a Gun.” The whole thing left me wishing, “If I only had the remote!”

Gay Marriage Comes To Iowa

The Iowa Supreme Court made its long-awaited ruling on the case of Varnum v. Brien on Friday, allowing gay marriage in Iowa. The lawsuit was filed in 2005 on behalf of six same-sex couples who argued that the state’s ban on gay marriage violated their rights to equal protection and due process. The ruling makes Iowa only the third state (after Massachusetts and Connecticut) to allow equal gay marriage.

IowaPolitics.com reports that State Senator Matt McCoy, D-Des Moines, an openly gay legislator, had this to say about the ruling: “Today is a red-letter day for the state of Iowa. All of Iowa’s citizens now have equal protection under the law. Thousands of Iowans who have worked hard, raised families, and paid taxes will now be afforded the opportunity to marry. As a lifelong Iowan, I know that fair-minded people throughout our state support equality for all. I have never been more proud of all the Iowans who have worked continuously for the advancement of human rights for all.”

Many Republicans were disappointed by the ruling. GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats of Sioux City summed up their thoughts: “The Defense of Marriage Act had strong bipartisan support when it was introduced and debated in our legislature. That bipartisan support for traditional marriage between one man and one woman reflected the will of the people then – and reflects the will of the people now. On an issue of this monumental importance to the very foundation of our society, I believe a vote of the people is necessary. I hope the General Assembly will take the required steps to give Iowans a voice is this process on the most basic of issues – and that Governor Culver will take a leadership role to let all Iowans express their opinion.”

There were calls from conservative leaders to amend Iowa’s constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. An amendment seems unlikely in the near term, as such a measure would have to be passed by two consecutive sessions of the Iowa General Assembly, then by a vote of the people. Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, said Thursday that it was “exceedingly unlikely” that the current session would pass legislation regarding gay marriage. A “Hail Mary pass” possibly available to conservatives in 2010 is that the question of whether to hold a state constitutional convention will be placed before Iowa voters, as it is every 10 years.

While I support the Iowa court’s recent decision, I don’t think that it is the quantum leap forward in individual liberty that gay rights advocates make it out to be. It is an advancement in equality under the law (certainly a worthy goal), but not in individual liberty overall. The gay rights advocates are not challenging the authority of omnipotent government, they’re merely seeking its blessing.

As I explained in “Gay Marriage In Iowa” (11-28-08) and Beth Cody pointed out more recently, the real debate should be whether the state should be in the marriage business at all. Even with the recent ruling, supposedly free people (gay and straight alike) must ask for the state’s permission to marry the person of their choosing. So long as that remains the case, a larger issue of freedom remains.