Now, Let’s Watch The Saint Cloud Times And Star/Tribune Hyperventilate

A proposal to make Sherburne County a “Second Amendment Sanctuary” has been floated.

If you live in SherbCo, your mission is clear.

The proposal, from State Rep. Shane Mekeland, from the “New House Republican Caucus”, would commit SherbCo and its law enforcement to defying any future oppressive gun restrictions:

The Saint Cloud Times has Mekeland elaborating:

In a phone interview Monday afternoon, Mekeland said the resolution is basically the county board saying it will not support perceived threats to Second Amendment rights should they come from the state level.

Will SherbCo go through with it? I think it’s doubtful. And I don’t think it matters.

I think the real payoff was what we saw in Richmond yesterday – the movement gives the silent majority a coherent focus for their political power.

There may not be any Second Amendment sanctuaries in MInnesota this time next year – but a lot of Real Americans will come to the polls because of the movement.

Expect much tut-tutting from the Saint Cloud Times, the Strib, MPR and Ryan WInkler.

Elections Have Consequences

I say this apropos what’s happening in Virginia right now.

After a chaotic morning at the state capitol in Richmond, and despite huge turnout from thousands of gun owners, Virginia Democrats approved a number of gun control bills in a key committee hearing Monday.

Ten years ago, I’d have said “this kind of overreach is going to lead them to an electoral reckoning”. Power for “progressives” is like a Blackjack table for a habitual gambler.

And it could very well still be the case in Virginia, where most of the counties have declared themselves “sanctuaries” from Governor McMinstrel’s depredations.

But I’m less sanguine about this than I used to be, at least in places like Virginia. Virginia is so dominated by Blue counties, and Blue America has gotten so very, very tribal, intellectually monolithic, entitled and, let’s be honest, stupid – and that’s not even bringing the money of Big Left into the picture.

This could very well be Minnesota next year.

Miss Compassion

“Protect“ Minnesota is planning to bring people to the senates hearings on “gun safety“ up in Hibbing next week.

But… Only the right people…

It would be so fun to get some film of The “Reverend” Nancy Norred Ben’s and her enforcers ensuring that no “gun rights advocates” – Or, for that matter, people who are disabled and can’t afford T-shirts – get on the bus.

Not Even A Slap

It’s almost becoming a truism; behind every spree killer lies a judge, investigator,

prosecutor, psychiatrist or some other alleyway in the system that looked at someone who gave of warning signs…

… And did nothing.

So, naturally, with the case of Thomas Kinnunan, The man who tried to shoot up a church service in White Settlement, Texas a few weeks ago. He killed two people, before being shot by a parishioner on voluntary security duty.And yes, the system has blood on his hands:,

prosecutor, psychiatrist or some other alleyway in the system that looked at someone who gave of warning signs…

… And did nothing.So, naturally, with the case of Thomas Kinnunan, The man who tried to shoot up a church service in White Settlement, Texas a few weeks ago. He killed two people, before being shot by a parishioner on voluntary security duty.And yes, the system has blood on his hands:,

So, naturally, with the case of Thomas Kinnunan, The man who tried to shoot up a church service in White Settlement, Texas a few weeks ago. He killed two people, before being shot by a parishioner on voluntary security duty.And yes, the system has blood on his hands:,

Linden, New Jersey police arrested Kinnunen in September of 2016 for unlawful possession of a firearm.  Kinnunen had been riding a bicycle near a refinery while carrying a 12-gauge shotgun.  He told police he was homeless, traveling on his bike from Texas and taking photos of “interesting sites.”

Kinnunen’s trial took place in January 2017. At that time, he accepted a plea deal finding him guilty of criminal trespass, with no mention of a firearm. The misdemeanor was punished with time served at Union County Jail, totaling about 90 days.

The judge ordered him to forfeit his shotgun – but didn’t bother putting anything on his record that’d help any other jurisdictions deal with the guy.

New Jersey – tough on law-abiding gun owners, easy on criminals.

For The Birds

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Preventing criminals from obtaining firearms is like keeping squirrels out of your bird feeder.  Tricks and gadgets simply don’t work.
Liberals’ solution is to stop feeding the birds.
Conservatives’ solution is a pellet gun.
I know which solution I prefer.
Joe Doakes

Correction: the “progressive” solution isn’t to stop feeding all birds. Some birds are more equal than others.

This Is Nancy Nord Bence’s Mind On…Er…Does Anyone Actually Know?

“Protect” Minnesota – which, as we all know, is Nancy Nord Bence and a bunch of the kind of people who think armed churchgoers are a bad thing, but only if they have never shot anyone and will never shoot anyone – posted this on social media last week:

So – prohibition doesn’t work, and people who want to flout laws will seek what they want on a black market which will leap to fill the demand, with the higher price enforced by the legal risk to the product…

…but “Universal Background Checks” will curb crime!

The reason we say gun grabbers are irrational bobbleheads is, they are irrational bobbleheads.

All The Same

SCENE: Mitch BERG is walking out of a Ukrainian sausage shop in Northeast Minneapolis when he notes Avery LIBRELLE, wearing matching “Meat is Murder” hat, T-Shirt, and carrying a matching sign, beginning to picket the store. BERG tries to tiptoe back inside, but LIBRELLE notices him.


BERG: Er, hey, Avery. What brings you… (But LIBRELLE interrupts)

LIBRELLE: The presence of those guns in that church in Tennesee…

BERG: Texas

LIBRELLE: Tomayto tomahto. The presence of guns in that peckerwood church made the murders possible.

BERG: So let me get this straight…

LIBRELLE: Inclusivity!

BERG: Sure fine – look, almost nobody makes the jump from “clean criminal record” to “mass murderer”, and even less so “street criminal”, without some kind of warning sign.

But we’re dodging the point here. Society really has two options:

  1. Disarm the law-abiding, Which leaves only those who don’t bother following the law with guns.
  2. Let the law-abiding exercise their right to defend themselves.

LIBRELLE: Option three – take away all the guns.

BERG: Er, yeah – in a society of 320 million people, with 100 million gun owners and probably 200 million guns, you won’t get ’em all, and a ban will do for guns what prohibition did for booze, pot and cocaine. So we’re back to two options: disarm the law abiding, or recognize their right to defend themselves.

LIBRELLE: Nope. If you disarm the so-called “law-abiding”, you’ll get rid of all guns.

BERG: (Sounding tired) Huh. Do tell.

LIBRELLE: Every criminal was once a so-called “law biding citizen”. So if you disarm them, eventually criminals will be disarmed.

BERG: Huh. Hey, look – that guy is wearing a “Carnivores for Trump” cap!

LIBRELLE: (Frantically looks for cap) Where? Where?

(But BERG has already made his escape)


Two Heroes

The first- Jack Wilson, who pulled off an incredible shot against the shooter at the Texas Church Massacre That Wasn’t.

On Sunday, during what would otherwise likely be a quiet worship service at the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, an armed gunman entered the church and after talking to a man for several minutes in the corner, pulled out a shotgun and opened fire.
The gunman, as was witnessed in recorded video of the entire incident, barely managed to get off more than a few rounds before an armed security guard standing 50 feet away from the shooter drew his pistol and fired a single shot, instantly killing the gunman with what appeared to be a perfectly placed head shot.

Go ahead – try to put a shot into a five inch circle at 50 feet. Simulate the stress of the situation first, though – do fifty jumping jacks and then grab your gun and squeeze off the shot in a second or less.

And as a practicing believer, I loved Wilson’s quote:

Wilson, who is running to be county commissioner in Hood County, shared on Facebook that while he is sad he lost  “two dear friends and brothers in CHRIST,” he thanks God for being able to protect the congregation because evil does exist in the world. 
“I just want to thank all who have sent their prayers and comments on the events of today. The events at West Freeway Church of Christ put me in a position that I would hope no one would have to be in, but evil exist and I had to take out an active shooter in church,” Wilson wrote.

Yep, I’ll be headed to the range. Or I would, if all my guns hadn’t fallen into Mille Lacs and they didn’t completely terrify me anyway.

The second? The Texas state legislator, Sen. Donna Campbell of New Braunfels, who led the push, after the Sutherland Springs church massacre, to remove the “gun free zone” language from Texas churches.

To be clear, churches would still be able to prohibit licensed citizens from carrying firearms on their premises so long as they provide oral or written notice.
Campbell’s bill codifies a previous opinion from Attorney General Ken Paxton sought shortly after the shooting in Sutherland Springs. In the opinion, Paxton stated that “unless a church provides effective oral or written notice prohibiting the carrying of handguns on its property, a license holder may carry a handgun onto the premises of church property as the law allows.”

I predict a steep decline in copy-cat shootings in churches – in “shall issue” and “constitutional carry” states, anyway.

Good Guys With Guns. Again.

Goon attacks church, killing two…

before being brought down by armed parishioners:

“It appears that a gunman shot two church members at back of auditorium with a footlong weapon, then a member shot the gunman with a pistol,” [Editor Bobby Ross of Christian Chronicle] wrote. “This is just based on me watching the video again. Screaming afterward in the church. So tragic. Two quick shots at back, then another shot. Then at least three members (I believe) with pistols [walking] toward where the gunman appeared to fall.”
CBS News Dallas reported that a witness confirmed to them that another church member shot the suspect.

Video of the episode:

The recognition of the good civilians with guns runs to the highest level of Texas government:

In the meantime, Jews in New York State react to yet another antisemitic attack – in some cases, utterly sensibly:

At the risk of sounding mawkish?  I’m proud to be an American when I see this.  

In a related matter, some prominent American Jews have some ideas on accessories in a time of rising antisemitic violence

This Is Every Progressive, Every Time

Remember – when Progs soothingly, condescendingly coo “nobody’s coming to take your guns”, there’s always, always and implied “until we can get away with it” at the end.  

Democrat in Virginia think they can get away with it.  

Now, America’s real #resistance, in the form of 75 Virginia counties, have declared themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuaries”, with no intention of enforcing Governor and Chief Blackface Minstrel Ralph Northam’s gun confiscation laws.  

Which has the salutary effect of getting some Virginia Democrats to screw up and let their inner id romp and play in public:

A U.S. congressman suggested that the Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam could deploy the National Guard to enforce gun laws in counties that have declared themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries.”

“Ultimately, I’m not the governor, but the governor may have to nationalize the National Guard to enforce the law,” Rep. Donald McEachin said, according to The Washington Examiner.“That’s his call, because I don’t know how serious these counties are and how severe the violations of law will be. But that’s obviously an option he has,” McEachin added.

Gov. Northam himself said on Wednesday that Virginia localities who refuse to enforce gun laws will face “consequences,” but did not allude to what those consequences could entail.

They want to sic the military on dissenters. 

Scratch the surface of any “progressive” and you’ll eventually find a totalitarian waiting to get out.  With some, you don’t have to scratch as hard.  

The commandant of the Virginia Guard didn’t exactly quash the idea – but then, he’s a political appointee commenting on one of his boss, Governor Minstrel’s, idiot colleagues.   I’ll cut him some slack.

But I’m going to guess that Governor Minstrel and Rep. McEachin are talking from an abundance of overconfidence in the loyalty of the Guard1.  Most soldiers are drawn from the same class of people as the people who own the guns in the first place.   I’m thinking Rep. McEachan might wind up going door to door himself, in his little pink kitty hat, at this rate.  

Of course, “Protect” Minnesota, the legiion of the ignorant and depraved, was there with their own little authoritarian twist:

Slavery, segregation, poll taxes, “Separate but Equal” and Jews wearing yellow stars were all “the law”, “Reverend” Nord Bence.

Try again – and a little lighter on the “soullless totalitarian harpy” next time.

The Progressive Totalitarian Impulse

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Democrats contemplate asking the National Guard to seize firearms from citizens.  And the leader of the Guard doesn’t rule it out.  
Leaving aside the irony of Democrats endorsing one form of sanctuary city (illegal immigrants) while threatening to crush another form of sanctuary city (guns), this might make an interesting test case.
Will Virginians who serve in the National Guard take up arms against their friends and neighbors who decline to give up arms?  Will Virginia National Guard members shoot homeowners who object to having their firearms confiscated? 
If the answer is “Hell, yes, the law is the law and we obey orders even if we disagree with them,” then Second Amendment activists must rethink things in a big way.  We’ve been confident the military won’t obey gun grabbers, won’t open fire on civilians, won’t act the part of British Redcoats at Lexington and Concord. 
What if we’re wrong?  Might be a good time to find out, before we pledge our lives, and the lives of our families, to a losing battle.
Joe Doakes

More on the VNG Adjutant General’s comments later today.  

For my part?   I believe most of the military, being overwhelmingly drawn from the same part of society that “gun culture” grows in, will side with The People…

…which is why I think the real attack on our freedom will be a lot more subtle than Governor Blackface McMinstrel’s japery.  

And that’s the danger – too many people will think “attacks on our freedom” will be this sort of comic book foolishness.  

There’s the danger. 

The Season!

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Heartwarming holiday story.
Joe doakes

In more ways than one.

Not sure if Democrats get it yet – whenever they threaten to take guns away (and it’s become pretty much the norm over this past few years), they create a wave of new owners.

Which means “gun culture” becomes more ingrained in our society – at least the parts of the society that take freedom seriously. And it’s already pretty ingrained – maybe irreversibly so.

The Plan

The Minnesota DFL – and of course, the likes of the “Reverend” Nancy North Benson – don’t dream of sugarplums and fairies.

They dream of making the US just like the UK.

“You must not defend yourself with something that can hurt someone”.

Apparently, all you need is love.


The Supreme Court, for the first time in nearly a decade, is hearing a significant Second Amendment case:

Faced with a defunct ban on transporting guns outside city limits, the increasingly conservative court majority could render a decision making clear what some justices believe: that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home, and that lower courts should view state and local limits on carrying guns in public with skepticism.
“This would be a strange case in which to go big,” says Joseph Blocher, a professor at Duke University School of Law and co-director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. “Yet the stakes going forward are potentially huge.”

I heard Prof. Blocher in NPR yesterday. He seems to believe that the SCOTUS will find some excuse to turn this case toward expanding limits on gun rights.

I’m not sure if it was Pauline Kael syndrome, or playing to the NPR audience’s echo chamber, or if he knows something I don’t. I wasn’t impressed.

Gun rights groups were surprised in January when the high court agreed to hear the case. Gun control groups were surprised in October when the justices refused to jettison it, even after the city and state erased restrictions that were likely unconstitutional.
Both actions went against the court’s recent modus operandi when it comes to guns: avoidance. Since its 2008 and 2010 rulings striking down gun restrictions in the District of Columbia and Chicago, the court has refused to hear dozens of cases challenging lesser limits on who can own what types of guns, where they can be taken, what requirements must be met and more.

Expect a ruling in June.

The Minnesota Medical Association Jumps The…

…I was going to say “shark”, but it’s really just a 50-something ninny with ELCA Hair and a shark fin taped to their collar who identifies as a shark.

Minnesotans’ main concerns about healthcare – about which the MMA is putatively supposed to be concerned, itself – are affordability and access.

Naturally, they’ve made gun confiscation among their top priorities for the 2020 Legislature:

In the recent report outlining priorities for 2020, Gun Control is listed as number 2, above any policy that would drive down the cost of healthcare or increase access to patients.
The priorities outlined by MMA include:

2.    Prevent firearm injury and death 
a.    Expand criminal background checks to all firearm transfers and sales
b.    Enact a “red flag” law to allow law enforcement to protect those who may be a danger to themselves or others
c.    Authorize the use of firearm ownership data for public health research or epidemiologic investigation

Naturally, none of their proposals have anything to do with health.  

It’s a further step down the path toward “progressivizing” all institutions.  

They’ve Got Questions. I’ve Got Answers.

“Hey, Mitch – why does anyone need a magazine with more than six or seven shots? Future president Joe Biden assures us two is all you need!”

I’m going to answer you with a question. Several, actually.

First: are you ever going to be attacked by someone who wants to kill you, then and there? If you answer “I have no idea“, that’s a perfectly valid, honest answer. Violent attacks – robberies, kidnappings, rapes, aggravated assaults, spree killings, terror attacks – are exceptionally rare. Rarer still if you have no criminal record, don’t associate with criminals, and don’t work in a business where a lot of criminals are part of the clientele. That accounts for the vast majority of people.

Not a single person who gets robbed, kidnapped, raped, suffers a home invasion, or is at a location where a spree killer decides to stage their blaze of glory, woke up that morning thinking “I bet I’m going to be the target of a violent incident today!“ Did they?

Second: if the person decides to attack you with the lethal force we mentioned above, and you decide to defend yourself, how hard is it going to be the end the threat to your life?: impossible to predict, right? Many robberies, assaults and rapes, and even a few spree killings , have been ended by a good guy pulling out a gun, with no shots fired. Sometimes an attacker falls over unconscious, or dead, after a punch to the face. On the other hand there are records of people who’ve been shot 20 times and still had the strength to shoot, stab or hit before they bled out. I know one story of a woman who barricaded herself and her kids in an attic during a home invasion; when the guy broke into the attic, she shot at him six times at a range of 2 feet, hitting them five times in the face and head – and he lived without a lot of complications ( other than a lengthy prison sentence). Alcohol, drugs and mental illness all affect this as well – drunk people are harder to deter from doing stupid things; people who are extremely high may not experience pain, even pain from a gunshot wound. There are cases of people who were very, very high who never noticed they’d been shot until they bled to death.

So the question is: how many shots (if it’s a gun you choose) will it take to stop one person from following through on trying to murder you? The answer, given the evidence we have seen above, is “0 to 20 shots – maybe”.

Bear in mind that, under stress, almost nobody hits their target with every shot. Even at close range. Even if you practice shooting a lot (although that helps) the police, in self-defense situations, hit with an average of about one shot in every six. Put another way, the police fire an average of 17 shots to end an engagement.

So – you don’t know how many hits you’re going to need to end a lethal or threat to you (or your family, or innocent bystanders), and you don’t know how many shots that you fire are going to hit the person who is trying to kill you.

That’s with one attacker.

Which brings us to the third question

Third: how many people will be trying to kill, Rob, attack, rape or kidnap you?: The scenarios above are predicated on one attacker. Can you predict how many people are going to attack you?

In my city, a few years back, there was a series of home invasions. Four people would break into a house, violently subdue any occupants who were present, and take what they wanted.

Nobody died in that series of incidents – but other home invasions do lead to murder, almost always murder of unarmed people.

Remember – none of the victims woke up that morning thinking “I bet I’m going to have a violent home invasion today”.

Now – if you hear somebody kick in your door in at midnight, ask yourself – how many of them are there? Are they armed? Are they drunk or on some sort of mind altering substance that warps their perception of risk, danger, and/or pain? How will they react to someone resisting (or not resisting)?

You are not going to know. All you know is that there is a potentially lethal threat to your life down there. Maybe the sound of a pistol racking up will send all of them scampering from your house. Or maybe the sight of one of them falling over, gushing blood after you shoot one of them will send them running.

Or maybe you pull out your six shooter, and fire all six shots of the first attacker you see – leaving you holding an empty revolver while robbers two, three, and four come at you with baseball bats, ice picks and a shotgun.

So the answer to your question is “When we are responsible for defending ourselves, our families and our community from a violent threat to our lives and we can’t predict who is going to carry out that attack, how many of them there will be, and what it will take to deter/stop them, we want a magazine that is less likely to run out of ammunition before the attacker runs out of attack”.

I hope that answers your question.

Full Gaslight

On Facebook the other day, The “Reverend” Nancy Nord Bence went full-on gaslight:

To face the reality of our gun problem, you’ll have to admit that you are the problem too. You’ll be forced to connect…

Posted by Protect MN Political Action Fund on Monday, November 18, 2019
Thumbnail included in case they scrub the Facebook post in embarassment. Which happens. A lot.

“To face the reality of our gun problem, you’ll have to admit that you are the problem too. You’ll be forced to connect the dots between guns and your white theology, guns and your nationalism, guns and your Islamophobia, guns and your white supremacy, guns and your resentment of foreigners, guns and the people who so often shoot strangers in shopping malls and schools and churches and concerts—guns and you.”

That’s not “facing the reality of the ‘gun problem'”. That’s exposing the reality of American Tribalism, delivered with a nasal, smug upper-middle-class white ninny accent.

It’s a real-life example of what Dennis Prager says: “Conservatives think progressives are wrong; progressives think conservatives are *evil*. And you don’t bother talking, debating or reasoning with evil”.

Pass this around. People need to know the other side’s motivations.

This isn’t some crackpot. This is the moral and intellectual leader of the “gun safety” movement in Minnesota.

She’s one sick, twisted little person.

Another Walmart. Another Shooting.

And another good guy with a gun saves the day:

From KSWO ABC Channel 7 in Oklahoma: “Multiple witnesses have said the gunman shot two people in a vehicle and a civilian with a gun confronted him, causing the gunman to turn the gun on himself. We are working to confirm that story with Duncan police.

That’s why this “mass shooting” got no media coverage, naturally. It disturbs the narrative.


Why are progressives so anti-gun?

Perhaps because, subconsciously, they know Berg’s Seventh Law is for real.

Gun-controller shoots her kids, self:

Ashley Auzenne, 39, fatally shot Parrish, 11, Eleanor, 9, and Lincoln, 7 — and then herself — in their Deer Park home, local police said in a statement. Authorities found their bodies when they got a request for a welfare check and responded to the New Orleans Street home around 8:45 a.m. Tuesday.

Police also found a gun inside the home.

The Harris County Medical Examiner’s Office ruled the deaths a murder-suicide on Thursday, with Ashley Auzenne as the suspect, authorities said….Last November, Auzenne framed her Facebook profile picture with an “#End Gun Violence” banner.

And the reason? She got her way in her divorce – custody, apparently – but didn’t get everything she wanted:

She was concerned she’d not be able to move with the kids to her hometown, and would need to find a job and pay him rent if she stayed in their current home, he said.

And as we’ve noticed in the past, Auzenne was not the first prog to lose it and start killing helpless people with one of those guns they claimed to abjure (for everyone else)

Beneath all too many anti-gunners is a narcissist with a violence problem.

Reliable Risible Sources

Anyone remember Dave Mindeman?

About ten years ago or so, he ran a blog – “MNPAct” – which was a website for putative organization Dave putatively ran.

Now, let me be clear: Dave was one of a small handful of “progressive” Metro-area bloggers from blogging’s heyday in the ’00s that didn’t and, to the best of my knowledge, still doesn’t belong under police surveillance; when my garage burned down, he didn’t feel compelled to disavow responsibility for it.

So there’s that. When you’re a conservative in the metro, you become thankful for the small things.

But that’s not to say Dave knows how to frame an argument any better than the rest of them ever did.

Example – last week, Dave felt the need to post this on Twitter:

Of course, Dave – confident as he seems to be in his side’s chanting points – didn’t know that Shannon Watts, like Nancy Nrd Bence (and Heather Martens before) has never, not once, said anything about guns, gun laws, gun owners, gun crime or gun statistics that’s simultaneously original, substantial and true; Lott’s “recent” testimony was 16 years ago.

I responded, natch – knowing, all along, I’d regret it, but such is the life of the contrarian.

It drew a “response” from Mindeman – one that was pretty clearly the fruits of a quick google for “John Lott Sucks” or some other “Dog Gone”-caliber thrashing about. Dave came up with…:

Mother Jones.

Now, if you are of a certain age, you might remember when MoJo was known for some capable journalism, even if it was always hard-left.

But the once-fabled counterculture investigative publication has fallen on risibly hard times; Babylon Bee doesn’t even bother parodying them anymore. What would be the point? (Interesting to see, by the way, that MoJo’s current “CEO” is City Pages hanger-on Monika Bauerlein).


The article – by “Writing Fellow” (read: glorified intern who’s hoping not to have to look for a job at Buzzfeed next) Gloria Exstrum, covers research Lott did on abortion and immigration, in addition to his usual gun research. I can’t comment on the abortion and immigration stuff – I cover my zone – but once it turns to the gun stuff, Exstrum’s article is proof that you never, ever use MoJo as a source on anything Second Amendment.

Exstrum writes:

Following the 2015 shooting at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado, President Barack Obama and former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid urged Congress to pass gun control legislation. “I say this every time we’ve got one of these mass shootings,” Obama said in a statement after the incident, “this just doesn’t happen in other countries.”
In a 2015 post on theCrime Prevention Research Center website, Lott’s group argues that “this claim is simply not true.”The analysis points out that, during the Obama administration, the United States ranks below several European countries in death rate per million people from mass public shootings. Predictably, conservative media outlets picked up the story, and Lott wrote a column for Fox News referencing his findings after the Las Vegas shooting.

So far so good. She got the basic assertions right – which is not something you can take for granted these days.

But here’s a challenge: try to figure out what the esteemed “writing fellow” is saying in response to Lott in this next bit. Honestly, I’m sort of at a loss, here:

However, as a Media Matters for America analysis points out, Lott’s claims only focus on public mass shootings involving machine guns, a criteria which excludes deadly incidents like the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and the Pulse nightclub shooting.

For a “writing fellow”, Ms. Exstrum is either a terrible researcher, a lousy reporter (evidence toward this: using “Media Matters” as a source), a substandard writer, or – who knows? – maybe any 2-3 of the above. Whatever it is, I have read this sentence a dozen times, and I can’t figure out what she’s trying to say. But I’ll give it a try, here:

Is she saying Lott excluded mass shootings involving machine guns?   Well, yeah – there’s never been mass shooting by a legally-owned machine gun – meaning “fully automatic weapon” – in US history, at least not since the 1934 National Firearms Act (shaddap about the Valentine’s Day Massacre).  Lott “excluded” them because history and fact “excluded” them.  They don’t exist in the past 85 years, to say nothing of the six year time frame of the study Ms. Exstrum is yapping about.  

Is she saying that the overseas shootings used “machine guns” – well, no, the raw data points out that non-US mass shootings used a variety of firearms – the vast majority of them subject to stringent gun control, by the way, which would tend to reinforce Lott’s point, not Exstrum’s.   The list below includes incidents with “machine guns” (notably the 11/13 Paris massacre, carried out with military-grade AK47s – which are as illegal in France as they are here) , semi-automatic weapons, even manual repeaters:

Is the dispositive point that Lott focuses on foreign “public” “mass shootings?”    It makes no sense – Lott’s list of shootings in the US from 2009-2015 includes all sorts of locations – almost all public, mostly “gun-free zones”:

LIterally, there is no way to read “writing fellow” Exstrum’s sentence that makes it jibe with the facts.

I’m open to suggestions, here.

Exstrum also wrote – sort of – about Lott’s foray into police-on-black-citizen shootings:

In a 2016 study, Lott and co-author Carlisle Moody, a professor at the College of William & Mary and a member of the Crime Prevention Research Center’s academic advisory board, argue that white police officers do not unfairly discriminate against black suspects. In a Fox News op-ed about the study, Lott says, “Many people incorrectly believe the police are racist.”

To which she adds:

Of course, ample research has concluded that black suspects are much more likely to be shot by police than white ones. But the study nonetheless received coverage from the National ReviewBreitbart, and the Washington Times, with Breitbart saying Lott’s research “runs against the claims of groups like Black Lives Matter.”

 “Ample research”.   Is anyone but me seeing a google search for “shooting black people consensus” as Ms. Exstrum’s “research”?

Of course, there’s ample research on the other side as well – including this one, by Harvard professor Roland Fryor – that confirms at least the broad outline of Lott’s conclusion.  Fryer happens to be black, and also happened to have started his research believing he’s find the opposite conclusion – so this finding, against interest (where “interest” <> intellectual honesty). 

Conclusions  Er, don’t start a land war in Asia, and don’t use MoJo as a source against someone who’s been paying attention? 

I’m Sure It Will Be A Fair-Minded Airing Of Issues, Yessireebob

Mayor Carter, presiding over the worst murder rate in almost a quarter century (even as crime outside the metro continues to fall) is holding a series of meetings:

In the midst of an uptick in gun violence in St. Paul, Mayor Melvin Carter announced on Monday that he’ll host three community meetings about public safety.
Carter said last week he’s considering proposing a supplemental public safety budget to the City Council. The Council is slated to vote on next year’s city budget in December.
The community conversations will be at the following St. Paul locations:
Thursday, Nov. 7, 6:30-8 p.m., Central Baptist Church, 420 N. Roy St.
Tuesday, Nov. 12, 6:30-8 p.m., Rice Recreation Center, 1021 Marion St.
Saturday, Nov. 16, 1-2:30 p.m., Arlington Hills Community Center, 1200 Payne Ave.

I’m going to go out on a limb, and guess that ending pre-emption and “universal” background checks will be the only subjects seriously discussed.