Progressive News Feeds

From: Liliana Segura Liliana Segura If Anders Breivik’s twenty-one-year sentence is shocking to Americans, it is largely because we are so uniquely punitive, whether the crime is murder or drug possession.

Tags: author, function-load, progressive news, script, typeof-window-onload, var-addtl, var-oldonload, world

The right-wing Heartland Institute launched an “experiment” Friday, comparing believers in climate change to infamous figures such as Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber), Charles Manson, and Osama bin Laden. After 24 hours, the group pulled down its Chicago billboard but made no attempt to apologize for or retract its stunt. Even worse, the image of the billboard is still on their website along with some of the most extremist hate-speech ever seen from a global warming denial group — including this absurd assertion, “ the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen. ” Now, Heartland is seeing the fall-out: After the latest outcry, the leading drink company Diageo, which owns brands like Smirnoff, Guinness, and Johnnie Walker, told The Guardian it will end its ties to Heartland : DIAGEO SPOKESPERSON: “Diageo vigorously opposes climate scepticism and our actions are proof of this. Diageo’s only association with the Heartland Institute was limited to a small contribution made two years ago specifically related to an excise tax issue. Diageo has no plans to work with the Heartland Institute in the future. “ A few months ago, ThinkProgress reported on Heartland’s corporate-funded plan to teach climate denialism in schools. At the time, Diageo said it “vigorously” opposed climate skepticism and it would “be reviewing any further association with this organization.” Diageo contributed $10,000 to Heartland in 2010. Diageo joins corporations including General Motors and AT&T that have recently ended its funding to Heartland’s radical agenda. How radioactive has Heartland become? Consider one invited speaker to their forthcoming conference, Donna Laframboise, a Canadian climate denier who has spent the last several months launching an absurd attack on the IPCC [see  Fox Scraping the Barrel for Attacks on UN Climate Panel (or, You Have Got To Be F*!$*%@&! Kidding Me) ]. She just published a piece, “ Why I Won’t Be Speaking at the Heartland Conference ,” writing: Instead, those of us who had accepted Heartland’s invitation to take part in its conference found ourselves blindsided – a mere two weeks before the conference is set to begin – by a torrent of negative press. Suddenly, we were all publicly linked to an organization that thinks it’s OK to equate people concerned about climate change with psychopaths. As economist Ross McKitrick said in an a  strongly-worded letter to Heartland yesterday: You cannot simultaneously say that you want to promote a debate while equating the other side to terrorists and mass murderers. Indeed…. Well here’s the problem. My name – and the name of my book – is currently on the same page of the Heartland website where the above quote appears. Without prior knowledge or informed consent, my work has been aggressively associated with this odious ad campaign. Forget disappointment. In my view, my reputation has been  harmed . And the Heartland thinks it has nothing to apologize for. And this from a woman so far out of the mainstream that, in the same piece, she compares the work of the distinguished Nobel-prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to that of a ”pathological liar.” Yes, Heartland’s hate speech, which they apparently still stand by, is so far beyond the pale that it harms the reputation of an extremist like Laframboise. As Climate Central put it:  “ Heartland Institute Jumps the Shark .” UPDATE: Forbes has a great piece on Heartland and “serial Heartland apologist Anthony Watts.” Finally, the  Washington Post ‘s Greg Sargent  reported : Congressman Sensenbrenner will not participate in the upcoming Climate Change Conference if the Heartland Institute decides to continue this ad campaign. We have contacted the Heartland Institute and voiced these same concerns to them. Well, it’s running the ad on its website along with the original hate speech. So will Sensenbrenner still attend? NOTE: ThinkProgress is among several publications to have published  documents attributed to the Heartland Institute and sent to us from an anonymous and then unknown source. The source later  revealed himself . The AP worked to independently verify the documents and  concluded , “The federal consultant working on the classroom curriculum, the former TV weatherman, a Chicago elected official who campaigns against hidden local debt and two corporate donors all confirmed to the AP that the sections in the document that pertained to them were accurate. No one the AP contacted said the budget or fundraising documents mentioning them were incorrect.” Heartland Institute has  issued several  press releases on the documents. See also “ CAPAF General Counsel Responds To Heartland Institute .”

Tags: climate progress, climate-change, economy, global-warming, hate speech, health, iraq, lgbt, media, science, south-korea, tweets

On Monday, Redstate’s Erick Erickson wrote that he has been receiving “call after call after call from members of the United States Congress” seeking permission on a potential debt ceiling deal. (The conservative blogger has denied permission.) Though Erickson did not reveal whom he’d spoken with, ThinkProgress found one such member today: Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL). Walsh confirmed that he has spoken with Erickson multiple times, calling Redstate a “great” organization and parroting Erickson’s advice, “hold the line.”

Tags: action, archives, congress, economy, obama, palin, taxes

During a radio interview today, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, said the over 40 members of the CBC will be voting ‘no’ on any plan that cuts government services — including the plan put forward by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Cleaver says the caucus insists on a clean vote to raise the debt ceiling — the same kind of vote “we’ve done repeatedly since 1917.” Cleaver explained, “we can deal with the deficit questions later, but let’s not send the most powerful nation on the planet into default.” Rep. Allen West (R-FL), the one Republican member of the CBC, has said he will support Speaker Boehner’s (R-OH) plan.

Tags: economy, green, harry reid, lgbt, obama, posts-for-06-30-2011, war, yglesias

A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood confirmed today that one of their Dallas-area clinics was the target of a violent attack last night . Holly Morgan, director of media relations and communications for Planned Parenthood in Dallas said that at around 11 pm last night, the attacker(s) threw a Molotov cocktail, consisting of diesel fuel in a glass bottle with a lit rag, at the building. “It didn’t penetrate the health center office and none of the staff or patients were there, which is great,” Morgan said. “It scorched the outside of the door and I believe there was a little scorching to the retail locations on either side of it.” Fire crews “ confirmed that an incendiary device was used in the attack.” (HT: @EricMartin24)

Tags: abortion, action, dallas, economy, facebook, planned parenthood, planned-parenthood, posts-for-06-30-2011, thinkprogress, tweets

For the past two nights on his Fox News show, Bill O’Reilly has been expressing his offense at the idea that  Anders Behring Breivik, the suspect in last Friday’s terror attacks in Norway, is being described by the media as a Christian. On Monday night’s show, O’Reilly was outraged that The New York Times described Breivik as a “Christian extremist” in a page-one headline, declaring that being an “anti-Muslim bigot” is what drove him, “not Jesus, not being baptized.” O’Reilly went on to assert that this was part of “a movement in the American media to diminish and marginalize the Christian philosophy.” Later in the show, O’Reilly said the Times ’ headline was done to “give jihadists quarter or something like that, diminish the threat of them,” asserting that “the liberal media is so protective of extreme Islam, when it hates the left. … At The New York Times , they would all be hung.” O’Reilly continued his obsession on Tuesday’s show during a segment with The Washington Post ’s Sally Quinn. As Quinn pointed out that Breivik called himself a Christian, invoked the name of Jesus and discussed the nature of his faith, O’Reilly insisted that “there’s no evidence that ties this guy to Christianity,” dismissing Breivik’s self-description by claiming that “Mussolini called himself a Christian.” Unfortunately for O’Reilly, while Breivik may not be a Christian in an orthodox American way, he clearly identifies as one. As Salon’s Alex Pareene details :

Tags: article, breaking news, christian, facebook, islam, jesus, jesus-christ, liberal, media, muslim, nature, planned parenthood

After rushing to declare that the recent attacks in Norway were linked to Muslims, the right-wing media has now expressed outrage that the perpetrator, Anders Breivik, is being described accurately as a self-identified Christian. Breivik “Self-Identified As ‘Christian’ ” Salon: “Breivik Chose To Be Baptized At Age 15. He Self-Identified As ‘Christian’ On His Facebook Page.” As Salon’s Alex Pareene notes, Breivik “self-identified as ‘Christian.’” From Salon: Breivik chose to be baptized at age 15. He self-identified as “Christian” on his Facebook page .  He thought ”Christianity should recombine under the banner of a reconstituted and traditionalist Catholic Church” or, later, under a new (traditionalist) European Church. Breivik is  not  an American-style evangelical Christian. He is not a “fundamentalist” in that sense. Though he does identify with American cultural Christian conservatives. And he considers himself to be fighting in the name of “our Christian cultural heritage.” He supports a reconstituted Knights Templar devoted to winning a war against Islam in the name of Christianity. Does he go to church? Does he believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ? Is he a biblical literalist? I have no idea. There’s plenty about him that would lead a devout Christian to consider Breivik “not a ‘real’ Christian.” Here’s the thing about that: The same is true of all self-proclaimed Muslims who commit acts of terrorism. He’s a sick perversion of Christianity, sure. But if he “doesn’t count” as a Christian solely because no one this evil should “count” as a Christian (which is [Fox News host Bill] O’Reilly’s other argument — “no one believing in Jesus commits mass murder,” he said) then no terrorist should “count” as a representative of his faith. [Salon, 7/26/11 , emphasis in original] Right-Wing Media Complain Breivik Being Labeled As A “Christian” Ingraham: “The Idea That In Any Way He Represents” Christians ” Is Ridiculous And Absurd.” On the July 27 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade asked Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham if she was “surprised” that the media “quickly label[ed]” Breivik a “Christian.” Ingraham replied that Breivik didn’t represent “any mainstream or even fringe sentiment in the Christian community.” From Fox & Friends : KILMEADE: Let’s talk about Norway. The horrific — that horrific terror attack and that gunman and the quick look at — looking at him and the relief the media seems to have expressed that he is not Islamic, and they quickly label him Christian when there is nothing religious about his approach. Were you surprised at that?  INGRAHAM: No, I wasn’t. And the New York Times headline, the day after that horrible attack, I mean, it did jump out of the page at me, you know, Christian extremist, because I don’t recall the Islamic extremist label being used at all — KILMEADE: Ever. INGRAHAM: — or frequently by main stream media. We did a quick search on our radio show for one and we couldn’t find one from the Post — Washington Post or the New York Times . So look, obviously this guy, obviously a beast and an evil person and twisted, we’ll find out. The idea that in any way he represents any mainstream or even fringe sentiment in the Christian community is ridiculous and it’s absurd and the glee seems to have come through in some of these headlines. [Fox News, Fox &  Friends ] O’Reilly Promo: “Why Is The Liberal Press Playing Up The Christian Angle?” A promo for Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor which aired during the July 26 broadcast of Fox News’ Happening Now asked: “What’s the motive? Why is the liberal press playing up the Christian angle in the Norway shooter case?” [Fox News, Happening Now , 7/26/11 via Media Matters ] O’Reilly: Coverage Of Breivik’s Christian Faith Is “A Movement … To Diminish And Marginalize” Christianity. On the July 25 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor , host Bill O’Reilly claimed that identifying Breivik as a Christian “is intentional and people should know. Americans … should know that there is a movement in the American media to diminish and marginalize the Christian philosophy.” [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor , 7/25/11 via Media Matters ] O’Reilly: “Liberal Media Have Branded” Breivik “A Christian, Even Though There Is … No Evidence.” On The O’Reilly Factor , O’Reilly claimed: ” The New York Times and other liberal media have branded the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik a Christian, even though there is absolutely no evidence the man is a follower of Jesus Christ.” O’Reilly later claimed: “There is no evidence this man was a member of a church. No evidence that he followed the teachings of Jesus Christ. As you know, they’re nonviolent. OK? No evidence that he had anything to do with the Christian faith. Yet, they call him a Christian because he says he is? Come on.” [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor , 7/26/11 via Media Matters ] Peters: “He Defines Himself As A Christian, But … Anybody Can Claim Anything.” On the July 26 edition of Fox Business Network’s America’s Nightly Scoreboard , Fox News contributor Lt. Col. Ralph Peters claimed Breivik “defines himself as a Christian but, you know, anyone can claim anything.” From America’s Nightly Scoreboard : ASMAN: Well, judging from the mainstream media accounts of the horrific massacre in Norway, you might think that we’re on the cusp of a wave of Christian terrorism that could rival any threat from Muslim terrorists. Is that true? Let’s ask our own terrorism expert and Fox News strategic analyst Lt. Col. Ralph Peters. So Colonel, first of all, this guy who was responsible, who we think is responsible, he’s claimed responsibility, et cetera, Anders Breivik, I guess is his name — do you think that he is — would you define him as a Christian terrorist, as all the headlines are? PETERS: Well, he defines himself as a Christian, but you know, anybody can claim anything. And I have to tell you, doesn’t have anything to do with any church I’ve ever attended. But David, what troubles me most is the hypocrisy. I mean, this is such a godsend to the liberal media. One guy, a Timothy McVeigh type in Norway this time, does something really monstrous, and suddenly, ‘Oh, it’s OK!’ It’s not about — you know, you — you know, it’s just like Islam. Well, you know, it’s not. There have been tens of thousands of Islamist terrorist attacks, and the media have rushed to say it’s nothing to do with Islam. Now one crazy claims he’s a Christian and commits an act of terror, and Oh, my God, we expect more Christian terrorists. Well, I’m waiting for the Baptist suicide bombers. [Fox Business Network, America's Nightly Scoreboard , 7/26/11 via Media Matters ] Yet The Right-Wing Media Rushed To Incorrectly Label Breivik A Muslim Before Learning His Identity Ingraham: “Two Deadly Terror Attacks In Norway … Appears To Be The Work … Of Muslim Extremists.” On the July 22 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor , guest host Laura Ingraham claimed the bombings “appears to be the work, once again, of Muslim extremists.” From The O’Reilly Factor : INGRAHAM: In the “Back of the Book” segment tonight, two deadly terror attacks in Norway in what appears to be the work, once again, of Muslim extremists. In Oslo today, which is where the Nobel Prize is awarded, at least one bomb exploded, ripping apart buildings including the prime minister’s office and killing at least seven and injuring 15. Shortly afterwards a gunman disguised as a police officer opened fire at a children’s camp nearby. Though authorities say as many as 10 people were killed in the shooting, the man arrested in that incident has been linked to the bombing in Oslo. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor , 7/22/11 via Media Matters ] Rubin: Oslo Attacks Are “A Sobering Reminder For Those Who Think It’s Too Expensive To Wage War Against Jihadists.” In a July 22 Washington Post blog, conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin claimed there was a “specific jihadist connection” in the Oslo attacks and called it a “sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war with Jihadists.” From the Washington Post : Moreover, there is a specific jihadist connection here: “Just nine days ago, Norwegian authorities filed charges against Mullah Krekar, an infamous al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist who, with help from Osama bin Laden, founded Ansar al Islam — a branch of al Qaeda in northern Iraq — in late 2001.” This is a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists. I spoke to Gary Schmitt of the American Enterprise Institute, who has been critical of proposed cuts in defense and of President Obama’s Afghanistan withdrawal plan. “There has been a lot of talk over the past few months on how we’ve got al-Qaeda on the run and, compared with what it once was, it’s become a rump organization. But as the attack in Oslo reminds us, there are plenty of al-Qaeda allies still operating. No doubt cutting the head off a snake is important; the problem is, we’re dealing with global nest of snakes.” Some irresponsible lawmakers on both sides of the aisle — I will point the finger at Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and yet backed the Gang of Six scheme to cut $800 billion from defense — would have us believe that enormous defense cuts would not affect our national security. Obama would have us believe that al-Qaeda is almost caput and that we can wrap up things in Afghanistan. All of these are rationalizations for doing something very rash, namely curbing our ability to defend the United States and our allies in a very dangerous world. In a later post, Rubin acknowledged her error, writing the story “is a good reminder to all of us including myself that early reports are often wrong.” She nonetheless added, “There are many more jihadists than blond Norwegians out to kill Americans, and we should keep our eye on the systemic and far more potent threats that stem from an ideological war with the West.” [ Washington Post , 7/22/11 ; Washington Post, 7/23/11 ] Big Peace Asks If Norway’s “Big Muslim Problem” Has “Just Blown Up In Its Face.” In a July 22 post on Big Peace, blogger Dan Friedman wrote: “Norway has a big Muslim problem. Before long we should know if Norway’s problem has just blown up in its face.” [Big Peace, 7/22/11 ] Bolton: “It Sure Looks Like Islamic Terrorism.”  From the July 22 edition of Fox News’  America Live , Fox News contributor John Bolton stated: BOLTON: Well, this is a very un-Norwegian act, so the odds of it coming from someone other than a native Norwegian, I think, are extremely high. And it is a classic terrorist effort. And it’s gonna have a dramatic impact on Norway. There have been speculations because the famous Mohammed cartoons were published there, because of this cleric who’s under deportation proceedings. So without anyone taking responsibility for it or any definitive evidence, we can’t say for sure, but it sure looks like Islamic terrorism. [Fox News,  America Live,   7/22/11 via Media Matters ] Erickson: “I Bet You It Was Not Lutherans.” In a July 22 Twitter post, CNN contributor Erick Erickson wrote: “Terrorist bombing in Oslo. I bet you it was not Lutherans who did it.” [Twitter, 7/22/11 ] Media Matters intern Marcus Feldman contributed to this item

Tags: america, author, congress, conservatives, european, faith, media, media matters, norway, peace, religion, war

Following the July 22 attack on Norway’s Utoya Island by Anders Breivik, right-wing personalities have begun to advocate for more lenient gun laws, claiming that “if somebody did [have a gun], they might have been able to take this crazy guy out before he did all of this damage.” In fact, Norway, despite having stricter laws on handgun ownership than the United States, has a much lower rate of deaths related to gun homicides. Fox Cheerleads For Lax Gun Laws Following July 22 Attack In Norway Napolitano: If Norway’s Handgun Laws Were More Lenient, And Someone Near Breivik Had Been Armed, “They Might Have Been Able To Take This Crazy Guy Out.”  From the July 26 edition of Fox News’  Fox & Friends : ANDREW NAPOLITANO: I don’t think that this society has seen this type of killing since World War II, so it has not happened in the lifetime of most people now living in Norway and they have a problem with guns. It’s very easy to get a rifle in Norway for hunting — a handgun, almost impossible. 76 people were killed on that island. Nobody had a handgun. If somebody did, they might have been able to take this crazy guy out before he did all of this damage. BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): Absolutely. Yep. [Fox News,  Fox & Friends ,  7/26/11 ] Napolitano : Because Of Norway’s Gun Laws, “Nobody Could Take This Guy Down,” And ”Innocent Human Beings Were Slaughtered.”  During the July 25 edition of Fox News’  The Five,  Andrew Napolitano and Greg Gutfeld argued that the atrocity committed by Breivik could have been prevented with more lenient gun laws. From Fox News’  The Five : NAPOLITANO (co-host): How about the fact that nobody on that island had a handgun? GREG GUTFELD (co-host): Yeah. I hear – BOB BECKEL (co-host): Here we go. NAPOLITANO: Nobody had the ability to shoot back at him and stop him? Do you have a problem with that? BECKEL: Here we go. John Wayne is back in the room. NAPOLITANO: You have a problem with that? BECKEL: Yes, I have a problem. And let me give you the problem. You know what’s amazing to me, is that the gun nuts in this country immediately jump on this and say, “If everybody had a gun then the guy could have been shot.” NAPOLITANO: Should we cut the Second Amendment out of the constitution? BECKEL: Yes we should as a matter of fact. NAPOLITANO: Alright at least you’re — BECKEL: No, no, we should interpret it for what it is. GUTFELD: Let me — can I just make a simple point? BECKEL: Excuse me, wait a second, I want to make one point. Last year in Norway, there were 500 murders. In the United States there were 10,543. Norway restricts guns, we do not.  Case closed. NAPOLITANO: Case closed. Why did it take the police 90 minutes to get there? Why is it that nobody who was there had the right to carry a handgun under Norwegian law and why is it that 95 beautiful, innocent human beings were slaughtered because nobody could take this guy down? GUTFELD: Here’s a simple thing. You know Bob, there is a midpoint from where you are and from where I’m at. Fact is that that was an island that took 90 minutes for those people to get there and in that time those people were killed. We live in a building, I work in a building that’s protected by armed guards. My life isn’t any more valuable than those lives. If they had — there’s a statistic that shows the amount of carnage at the beginning of an attack is directly related to when the second gun arrives. When another gun arrives, the amount of casualties is diminished. [Fox News,  The Five ,  7/25/11 ] Beck: “Nobody Could Stop This Madman” Because “Nobody Had A Firearm.”  From the July 25 edition of  The Glenn Beck Program : GLENN BECK (host): 93, dead. Mainly children. Now one thing that you have to take into account is in Norway, at least on this island, no one had a firearm. No one. This guy walked on onto this island with a firearm, no one else had one. No one could stop him. No one had one. Remember what I said a couple of weeks ago? The police cannot prevent the crime. They can only come in and investigate what happened. Occasionally, if they happen to be there, yes. BECK: I have a right to protect myself. Nobody had a firearm. Nobody could stop this madman. 93 people later, he stopped.  [Premiere Radio Networks,  The Glenn Beck Program ,  7/25/11 ] Fox Contributor John Bolton: “Gun Control Laws Are Not Going To Stop Somebody Who Is Determined To Carry Out This Kind Of Insane Attack.”  From the July 25 edition of Fox Business’  Freedom Watch : JOHN BOLTON (Fox News contributor): But as I say that the horrific amount of damage that he was able to do suggests that a broader conspiracy whether its Neo-Nazis on the one hand or terrorists on the other hand, could cause even more damage. And I think it really should lead to a better discussion in Norway and across Europe about the necessary security that they should be undertaking, whether it’s the possibility of concealed carry laws or whether it’s a better police and security service. ANDREW NAPOLITANO (host): Now, Norway allows a lot of people to own rifles because hunting is a very big deal there. But it’s very, very restrictive on handguns. In fact, it’s very difficult to get a license from the government in Norway to carry a handgun with you. I think it only makes common sense, but I want you to weigh in on this, that if somebody on that island had had a handgun rather than was prohibited from having one by of the government, there might have been a lot fewer than 90 young people slaughtered. BOLTON: Right, well you can never tell about a given situation but academic research is pretty clear that if there’s any effort at self-defense the overall impact of a madman like this would be considerably less. And I think it does go to the cultural question, there’s no tradition of using firearms for self-defense, there’s certainly is as you say a very strict gun control regime and I think that demonstrates the even more basic point that faced with a threat like this, gun control laws are not going to stop somebody who is determined to carry out this kind of insane attack. [Fox Business,  Freedom Watch ,  7/25/11 ] Cal Thomas: “[I]f Someone On Utoeya Island Had Returned Fire, There’s A Possibility That Far Fewer Would Have Been Killed.”  From a July 25 column in The Washington Examiner : Norway forbids civilians from carrying concealed weapons, or owning an automatic weapon, unless they are gun collectors. As in America, gun laws do not deter criminals who are determined to cause harm with a weapon. What would have deterred Breivik would have been a gun in the hands of a competent person capable of stopping his mass-murdering spree. If Norway can be a site for terror, is there a safe place on Earth? The answer is no. There are no “safe” places; no one can be 100 percent safe. Does that mean everyone should be armed? Not necessarily. What it means is that for some countries, some people and some places, a way to make the environment as safe as humanly possible is to have properly armed and trained people who can respond to such events. Would Anders Behring Breivik have thought twice about his killing spree if he had known in advance that someone would shoot back? That is impossible to know. But if someone on Utoeya Island had returned fire, there’s a possibility that far fewer would have been killed. This approach may not be pleasant for some to contemplate, but the alternative is more personal and national mourning, as is now being experienced in Norway. [ The Washington Examiner ,  7/25/11 ] In Fact, Despite The U.S.’s Permissive Gun Laws, It Still Has A Higher Gun Homicide Rate Than Norway Gunpolicy.org: U.S. Has A Far Greater Rate Of Homicides, Gun Homicides, And Unintentional Gun Deaths When Compared To Norway. According to data compiled by Gunpolicy.org, compared to Norway, the United States has a far higher rate of homicides and gun related homicides: [Gunpolicy.org, accessed  7/26/11 ] [Gunpolicy.org, accessed  7/26/11 ] [Gunpolicy.org, accessed 7/26/11 ] Experts Have Debunked The Theory That “Right-To-Carry Laws” Deter Crime Co-Director Of Johns Hopkins Center For Gun Policy And Research: “Permissive Right-To-Carry Laws” May Actually Increase Crime.  In a  New York Times  Room For Debate post titled “The ‘Right To Carry’ Fallacy”, Daniel Webster, co-director at the Center for Gun Policy and Research and professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, wrote: When mass shootings occur, many think that, if only one of the citizens at the site had access to a firearm, they could have taken the gunman out and saved lives. That’s an odd argument to make in a state where probably more people carry guns than in any other state. While you can find an example to prove this point, it begs the question of whether it’s sound public policy to allow anyone who is not prohibited by our weak gun laws to carry firearms anywhere they choose. It is not clear that permissive right-to-carry laws haven’t increased violence. There have been numerous studies of these laws, many of which have substantial flaws. The best study was done by Ian Ayres and John Donohue, law professors at Yale and Stanford, respectively, and disaggregates the effects for each state and type of crime. The estimates from their best models show right-to-carry laws associated with increases in 7 of 9 crimes studied, with the largest effect (+9 percent) being the crime many researchers would have hypothesized would increase – aggravated assaults. Finally, laws prohibiting gun-carrying are an important tool for police to use to suppress the practice in so-called hot spots for shootings. Police units focused on deterring illegal gun-carrying have been the most consistently effective approach to reducing gun violence. Permissive right-to-carry laws could make it harder for police to use this law to deter gun violence. [ The New York Times , 1/11/11 ] National Research Council: “It Is Not Possible To Determine … Causal Link Between The Passage Of Right-To-Carry Laws And Crime Rates.”  In 2004, a National Research Council (NRC) committee released a report on right-to-carry laws and their effects on crime. From the committee’s conclusion:  The literature on right-to-carry laws summarized in this chapter has obtained conflicting estimates of their effects on crime. Estimation results have proven to be very sensitive to the precise specification used and time period examined. The initial model specification, when extended to new data, does not show evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws reduces crime. The estimated effects are highly sensitive to seemingly minor changes in the model specification and control variables. No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge. While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change. Finally, some of the point estimates are imprecise. Thus, the committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates. [ Firearms and Violence , Committee on Law and Justice, National Research Council,  2004 ] John Donohue: “Empirical” Evidence Refutes Claim That Right-To-Carry Laws Would Reduce Crime.  In a  New York Times  Room For Debate post, Stanford Law professor John Donohue wrote: “[W]hile some early studies by John Lott and others suggested that state policies providing greater freedom to carry guns would reduce crime, empirical evidence refutes this view. Wise gun policy and individual consumer choice to carry weapons involves weighing competing probabilities.” [ The New York Times ,  1/11/11 ] Donohue’s 2003 Study Concludes: “No Longer Can Any Plausible Case Be Made On Statistical Grounds That Shall-Issue Laws Are Likely To Reduce Crime For All Or Even Most States.”  In a 2003 study titled, “Shooting Down the ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ Hypothesis,” Donohue and Yale Law professor Ian Ayres concluded, “No longer can any plausible case be made on statistical grounds that shall-issue laws are likely to reduce crime for all or even most states.” They also wrote: While we do not want to overstate the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from the extremely variable results emerging from the statistical analysis, if anything, there is stronger evidence for the conclusion that these laws increase crime than there is for the conclusion that they decrease it. ["Shooting Down the 'More Guns, Less Crime' Hypothesis,"  October 2002 ]

Tags: alternative, america, cnn, environment, friends, glenn-beck, global-warming, guns, networks, police

Senator Patrick Leahey gaveled the Senate Judiciary Committee to order today to hear from those in support and opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It was the spectacle everyone anticipated and more.

Tags: atheism, bible, black, california, environment, jesus, media, new-york, political, politics, poverty, president

A new website aimed at Latina mothers launches today. Bryan Curtis on America’s hottest demographic—and its power in 2012.

Tags: alabama, art, barack-obama, books, business, cnn, congress, director, huffington-post, oprah-winfrey, yahoo