2/07/2006
For a forthcoming book that I have, I have collected a lot of data on the Supreme Court as well as other federal courts. One thing of some interest is the age of retirement. Justice John Paul Stevens is 85, and only two justices nominated since 1862 have retired past age 85: Oliver W. Holmes, Jr. ( age 90) and Harry A. Blackman (age 86). The average age of retirement was 71 (with a standard deviation of 8.5). For those who have retired after 1980, the average retirement age was 78. Since 1862, there have only been six nominees who served longer than 30 years on the court. Stevens passed the 30 year mark this past December. After this next election this fall, there will only have been four Justices who will have served longer than Stevens.
Illinois Gov Rod Blagojevich in trouble in the polls
A new rasmussen poll shows that Blagojevich unfavorable rating is 49 percent while those approving are at only 40 percent. He is also trailing State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka (R) by 48 to 37 percent. Republicans might have a hard time keeping up their number of governorships, but the Democrats could easily lose Pennsylvania, Illinois and Wisconsin.
A confession
I have a confession. Many people will probably view it as a little wierd, but I like just looking through statistical volumes such as "Historical Statistics of the United States." Robert Samuelson's article in today's Washington Post
2/05/2006
The ABA Responds to my op-ed in the New York Times
The ABA does not contradict a single one of the facts that I put forward in my New York Times op-ed. They also misinterpret what I wrote. I did not say that Roberts and Alito got ratings that were higher than they deserve. What I wrote was that the ratings for Republican nominees were particularly low relative to Democrats when there was a Republican President and a Democratic Senate.
Federal Court Nominees
New York Times
Published: February 4, 2006
To the Editor:
We dispute the description in "Pulling Rank," by John R. Lott Jr. (Op-Ed, Jan. 25), of what the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary does and what it does not do.
Democrats and Republicans, and Americans, want individuals nominated to the federal bench who are professionally qualified, which is why President Dwight Eisenhower asked the American Bar Association to evaluate the professional qualifications of his prospective judicial nominees. And why Democrats and Republicans since then have looked to our Standing Committee for nonpartisan peer evaluations.
Our only goal is to advance the fair and impartial administration of justice by helping to assure an independent and qualified judiciary. What the committee has never considered is a nominee's ideology. It focuses only on three areas: professional competence, judicial temperament and integrity.
To suggest that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. were given the American Bar Association's highest rating for cynical and tactical reasons is an insult to the judges themselves. They gained the committee's highest rating for one reason only: they earned it.
Michael S. Greco
President
American Bar Association
Washington, Feb. 2, 2006
More Articles in Opinion >
New York Times
Published: February 4, 2006
To the Editor:
We dispute the description in "Pulling Rank," by John R. Lott Jr. (Op-Ed, Jan. 25), of what the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary does and what it does not do.
Democrats and Republicans, and Americans, want individuals nominated to the federal bench who are professionally qualified, which is why President Dwight Eisenhower asked the American Bar Association to evaluate the professional qualifications of his prospective judicial nominees. And why Democrats and Republicans since then have looked to our Standing Committee for nonpartisan peer evaluations.
Our only goal is to advance the fair and impartial administration of justice by helping to assure an independent and qualified judiciary. What the committee has never considered is a nominee's ideology. It focuses only on three areas: professional competence, judicial temperament and integrity.
To suggest that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. were given the American Bar Association's highest rating for cynical and tactical reasons is an insult to the judges themselves. They gained the committee's highest rating for one reason only: they earned it.
Michael S. Greco
President
American Bar Association
Washington, Feb. 2, 2006
More Articles in Opinion >
2/04/2006
Vote on best gun blog
Well apparently I should thank you all for voting for me as having a good gun blog during the first round of voting. There is now a second round of voting and I would appreciate your continued support by voting here. Thank you.
2/03/2006
A note from a law school student
A reader of my website writes:
"I was driving today and I saw a bumper sticker that said "those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither," paraphrasing a Ben Franklin quote. There has also been some press coverage on a protest of some sort where some ladies are holding up a sign saying the same thing, I believe it is in reference to the Patriot Act or the domestic wire tapping. Suddenly it hit me how hypocritical that was coming from liberal America, in light of the recent San Francisco handgun ban and the Wisconsin CCW permit veto. I just thought you may want to point that out in one of your articles."
Andrew
Law School Student
Florida State University
"I was driving today and I saw a bumper sticker that said "those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither," paraphrasing a Ben Franklin quote. There has also been some press coverage on a protest of some sort where some ladies are holding up a sign saying the same thing, I believe it is in reference to the Patriot Act or the domestic wire tapping. Suddenly it hit me how hypocritical that was coming from liberal America, in light of the recent San Francisco handgun ban and the Wisconsin CCW permit veto. I just thought you may want to point that out in one of your articles."
Andrew
Law School Student
Florida State University
2/02/2006
Research on Guns and Road Rage
Updated
There is a new paper that is getting some attention that has just come out in the public health journal "Accident Analysis & Prevention." The paper by David Hemenway, Mary Vriniotix, and Matt Miller is entitled "Is an armed society a polite society? Guns and road rage." The paper is based on a survey of 2,400 drivers that the authors did. The survey asked respondents if they had made an obscene gesture to an opposing driver or whether they had aggressively followed another car. After that a series of descriptive questions were asked: gender, age, income, political views, urban/rural, and whether they have had a gun in their car at least one time over the last year. The authors make a simple comparison between those who have had a gun at least once in their car and those who didn't and say that the respective numbers are 23% and 16%. The authors imply that having a gun makes it more likely that one will engage in road rage.
There are multiple concerns with this analyis. Their questions make no attempt to ask whether a gun was in the car at the time the road rage incident occurred. Nor did they attempt to differentiate law-abiding permit holders from those who illegally possessed guns (e.g., asking respondents if they have a permit to carry a gun). This last point seems particularly important given that they want to make policy conclusions on concealed carry laws.
The paper also has some funny results. For example, Liberals are apparently much more likely to engage in road rage than conservatives and the difference is larger than the difference between those who did and did not have a gun at least one time in their car over the last year. This variable is apparently never investigated, but presumably they are also concerned about liberals being allowed to drive cars.
Finally, surveys can be a useful first approximation, but there is in fact much more direct evidence available on the behavior of concealed handgun permit holders. Despite almost four million Americans currently having permits to carry concealed handguns and some states having these laws for as long as eighty years, there is only one case in Alabama where a permitted concealed handgun was used to commit road rage. There are also other much more direct mesaures that indicate that people who have concealed handgun permits and who thus carry guns in their cars legally. For example, the fact that permit holders tend to be extremely law-abiding and lose their permit for violating gun regulations occurs for only hundredths or thousandths of one percent of permit holders. If they used their guns in the way that the authors of this study fear, their permits would have been revoked.
I have asked the authors for their data, but we will see when and how quickly I get it.
UPDATE: Hemenway is unwilling to provide the data for me to look at. My response is that if he or his co-authors are making comments to the press as they have, he is under an obligation to give out the data used in this paper. Despite putting together the largest data sets that have been put together on crime, I give out those data sets when the papers get media coverage even when they haven't been published yet. Hemenway's paper has been published. (The accuracy of this update was confirmed with my intern who talked to Hemenway and emailed him about obtaining this data. I had previously emailed one of the authors about obtaining the data, but I didn't receive a response.)
UPDATE 2: After a second telephone call, Hemenway said that while he will not give out the data used in the paper, he may reconsider providing a portion of the data, but that he can't make a decision before talking to his co-authors. He is also very busy and would not say when he would check into even this. (The accuracy of this update was confirmed with my intern who talked to Hemenway about obtaining this data.)
UPDATE 3: Well, it is official. Hemenway is not going to make his data available. This is true even though I have only asked for the data used in the published paper, and I am also happy to promise to use the data to only evaluate the research that the authors have already published. Hemenway complains about the comments that I have made regarding his study and concludes that: "no one on our research team believes that it will advance the science to provide even portions of the dataset semi-exclusively to Dr. Lott at this time." Of course, Hemenway inaccurately implies that I ever wanted the data set "semi-exclusively." I think that they should provide the data to everyone. I am probably just the only person to ask for it. (This update is based an email that Hemenway sent to Chris DeMuth, the president of AEI.)
Frank Main, the crime reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times, is the only reporter who has written on this study who mentions criticisms of the Hemenway, Vriniotix, and Miller research.
Clayton Cramer, Say Uncle, Geek with a .45, and The Donovan also have some notes on this research.
Correction: The original note mentioned that only one regression had been run by these authors. In fact, it turns out that four regressions had been run. The points listed above are now correct.
There is a new paper that is getting some attention that has just come out in the public health journal "Accident Analysis & Prevention." The paper by David Hemenway, Mary Vriniotix, and Matt Miller is entitled "Is an armed society a polite society? Guns and road rage." The paper is based on a survey of 2,400 drivers that the authors did. The survey asked respondents if they had made an obscene gesture to an opposing driver or whether they had aggressively followed another car. After that a series of descriptive questions were asked: gender, age, income, political views, urban/rural, and whether they have had a gun in their car at least one time over the last year. The authors make a simple comparison between those who have had a gun at least once in their car and those who didn't and say that the respective numbers are 23% and 16%. The authors imply that having a gun makes it more likely that one will engage in road rage.
There are multiple concerns with this analyis. Their questions make no attempt to ask whether a gun was in the car at the time the road rage incident occurred. Nor did they attempt to differentiate law-abiding permit holders from those who illegally possessed guns (e.g., asking respondents if they have a permit to carry a gun). This last point seems particularly important given that they want to make policy conclusions on concealed carry laws.
The paper also has some funny results. For example, Liberals are apparently much more likely to engage in road rage than conservatives and the difference is larger than the difference between those who did and did not have a gun at least one time in their car over the last year. This variable is apparently never investigated, but presumably they are also concerned about liberals being allowed to drive cars.
Finally, surveys can be a useful first approximation, but there is in fact much more direct evidence available on the behavior of concealed handgun permit holders. Despite almost four million Americans currently having permits to carry concealed handguns and some states having these laws for as long as eighty years, there is only one case in Alabama where a permitted concealed handgun was used to commit road rage. There are also other much more direct mesaures that indicate that people who have concealed handgun permits and who thus carry guns in their cars legally. For example, the fact that permit holders tend to be extremely law-abiding and lose their permit for violating gun regulations occurs for only hundredths or thousandths of one percent of permit holders. If they used their guns in the way that the authors of this study fear, their permits would have been revoked.
I have asked the authors for their data, but we will see when and how quickly I get it.
UPDATE: Hemenway is unwilling to provide the data for me to look at. My response is that if he or his co-authors are making comments to the press as they have, he is under an obligation to give out the data used in this paper. Despite putting together the largest data sets that have been put together on crime, I give out those data sets when the papers get media coverage even when they haven't been published yet. Hemenway's paper has been published. (The accuracy of this update was confirmed with my intern who talked to Hemenway and emailed him about obtaining this data. I had previously emailed one of the authors about obtaining the data, but I didn't receive a response.)
UPDATE 2: After a second telephone call, Hemenway said that while he will not give out the data used in the paper, he may reconsider providing a portion of the data, but that he can't make a decision before talking to his co-authors. He is also very busy and would not say when he would check into even this. (The accuracy of this update was confirmed with my intern who talked to Hemenway about obtaining this data.)
UPDATE 3: Well, it is official. Hemenway is not going to make his data available. This is true even though I have only asked for the data used in the published paper, and I am also happy to promise to use the data to only evaluate the research that the authors have already published. Hemenway complains about the comments that I have made regarding his study and concludes that: "no one on our research team believes that it will advance the science to provide even portions of the dataset semi-exclusively to Dr. Lott at this time." Of course, Hemenway inaccurately implies that I ever wanted the data set "semi-exclusively." I think that they should provide the data to everyone. I am probably just the only person to ask for it. (This update is based an email that Hemenway sent to Chris DeMuth, the president of AEI.)
Frank Main, the crime reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times, is the only reporter who has written on this study who mentions criticisms of the Hemenway, Vriniotix, and Miller research.
Clayton Cramer, Say Uncle, Geek with a .45, and The Donovan also have some notes on this research.
Correction: The original note mentioned that only one regression had been run by these authors. In fact, it turns out that four regressions had been run. The points listed above are now correct.
Labels: Hemenway
Comment on Broke Back Mountain
Sonya Jones forwarded me the links of some comics inspired by Broke Back Mountain: here, here, and here. I confess that the movie as well as the comics make me uncomfortable, but I wrote to Sonya that at least I would feel somewhat better if they referred to the main characters as sheepherders and not cowboys. Afterall, I seem to have some recollection from the movies that I watched as a kid that cowboys and sheepherders did not get along very well.
Anyway, I will be attending a gun show in Dallas this weekend, and possibly I will get some feedback from some real cowboys.
Anyway, I will be attending a gun show in Dallas this weekend, and possibly I will get some feedback from some real cowboys.
WHAT POLICE HAVE SAID ABOUT THE CANADIAN GUN REGISTRY
Canadian MP Garry Breitkreuz has a nice collection of quotes by Canadian police on what they think about the Canadian gun registry. Here is one of the quotes:
GILBERT YARD, RETIRED RCMP SUPERINTENDENT: I am appalled at just how much has been spent to date on the firearms registration process. But perhaps even more disturbing is the misplaced focus on legal firearms. Like many reasonable Canadians, I support programs that address the structural and social situations that give rise to crime. Our first objective should be to promote law-abiding, non-destructive behaviour in as many members of society as possible. There comes a point, however, where punishment and protection of the public must be the focus. In these cases, illegal acts and violent behaviour should be treated with appropriate penalties. From reading my views on gun control and firearms legislation, I suspect that many might feel that I am a "gun nut" with pro-American feelings regarding gun possession. This is just not so. Growing up, my family had limited contact with firearms but we were raised to believe that a gun was a serious tool to be used in appropriate circumstances only. I can understand people who emotionally react to guns as all bad but I am convinced that such emotion can mask the true problem of illegal gun possession and/or usage. During my 37 years of policing I carried a handgun as a tool of my profession. I was also exposed to a wide cross-section of collectors and target shooters who used, stored and transported their weapons in a legal and responsible manner. They are not the problem. The misdirection of time, effort and funding is unforgivable. I believe that Canadians are much too astute to believe that either Bill C-68 or the proposed handgun legislation is anything other than a waste of time, effort and money. Wasting public funds that could really make a difference in acute justice issues, in my view, borders on criminal activity.
SOURCE: THE NORTH SHORE NEWS, “Gun legislation an election issue” published January 11, 2006
SOURCE: THE NORTH SHORE NEWS, “Gun legislation an election issue” published January 11, 2006
2/01/2006
Who said that lawsuits weren't out of control?
If this lawsuit were to succeed, what is next? Amplifiers for guitars? Television sets that are played too loud? Radios? I wonder if Mr. Patterson realized that there is a volume control on his iPod.
Patterson's lawsuit accuses Apple of marketing defective products that damage the hearing of those who use the devices, specifically iPods. Patterson is seeking class action status for his suit. Patterson's complaint seeks a court order that would require Apple to upgrade the product and compensate victims for hearing loss.
UPDATE: Apparently it is being claimed that the lawyer behind this suit has worked frequently for Microsoft in the past.
UPDATE: Apparently it is being claimed that the lawyer behind this suit has worked frequently for Microsoft in the past.









