Mini-Snopes: Great moments in dishonest charts

A friend shared this chart on Facebook today. At the moment it has 5678 shares. Her source introduced it this way:

(For those that refuse to discuss anything but guns, because guns are the most important issue)
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our passions, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

Those bars are impressive and if scaled correctly would be more even more impressive. Gun homicides are truly insignificant viewed like this. However, this view is complete bullshit.

The bottom two bars measure homicides, none of the others do. If you add firearm suicides and accidental, fatal shootings, the gun death numbers triple. If you sort out the others to only homicides what do you get? How many motor vehicle homicides are there per year? Poison homicides? Alcohol, drug, tobacco, or medical homicides? When was the last time you heard of someone charging inro a building and killing twenty plus people with a baseball bat or a cigarette? If the sources of the chart are correct, the first eight lines should all be included in the "Non-firearm" category.

Was the original author dishonest or just unclear on the concept? As a general rule, we should never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. Here, however, I'm voting for malice. If the author was looking at causes of death in the United States, any source would have listed cancer and heart disease at the top. This dishonesty is especially obvious since the author lists one of his/her/its sources as the Center for Disease Control. If you can't make you case without resorting to lies, then you have no case.

PS - I have never met anyone who refuses to discuss anything but guns as the cause of death.

PPS - One of the commenters at my friend's source smugly says, "It is sad the sheeples believe everything they are told by the media." Sheeple automatically excludes you from any intelligent conversation.

Mini-Snopes: yet another congressional pay edition

Almost exactly a year ago, I wrote about this one. It's back. If you see it, help kill it.

Let's be clear. Neither members of Congress, nor the President, nor the Vice President get their pay for life. That is bullshit. Think about it for a minute. Do you really think some one-term, House member is going to get his pay for life after only "working" for two years? Even if you're going to be extra cynical and say "they would if they could," the correct answer is, they couldn't and they never will.

Members of Congress get a civil service pension just like the person delivering your mail, processing Social Security checks, or sending you your tax return. It's a formula based on the number of years they worked for the government times their highest pay grade times a fractional multiplier. The total cannot equal their final pay, even if they were boyhood friends with Jefferson Davis, like Strom Thurmond was. Ever since they began to pay for Social Security and Medicare in 1984, members of Congress been part of the civil service pension program.

I'm all for economic populism, but let's focus on the right things. How much pay Congress makes is not important. How much pay you make is. How much Social Security and Medicare your parents, grandparents, or you collect is. How much food, rent, and medical support other vulnerable Americans get is. These are the issues and people that are important. You should care more about what they aren't getting than you should about what a few hundred congress members get. If you've fallen into the the trap of hating the poor, then do it for the veterans. Many of them are poor, old, hungry, and sick. Everyone loves the veterans, in theory. It's too bad they don't care as much for the civilians that the veterans were protecting.

There are good reasons to cast a jaundiced eye on the benefits package congress gets. A lying internet meme is not one of them.

Mini-Snopes: executive orders edition

This is only marginally a Mini-Snopes. The meme below doesn't really come out and claim BS, so much as imply it on multiple levels.

Since this is being passed around in anti-Obama circles, let's start with that. Is the executive order something Obama made up? No. Not even close. Executive orders have been around since the founding of the republic. George Washington issued executive orders. With the exception of William Henry Harrison, who spent most of his 32 days as president dying of pneumonia, every president has issued executive orders during their tenure. Before the Civil War, executive orders were fairly rare. Even Lincoln only saw fit to issue forty-eight. In the Twentieth Century, that number dramatically increased with most presidents issuing that many every year. 

That said, has Obama used executive orders more than others? Again, the answer is no, not even close. FDR, who had the Depression and Hitler to deal with, comes in first with almost 300 per year. Small government Republican Herbert Hoover is number two with almost 250 per year. Is Obama number three? Still no. Reagan's favorite president, Calvin Coolidge comes in third and Harry Truman comes in fourth. After that four, the number per year dropped dramatically with no president issuing over 100 per year. 

Well, where does Obama fit into this? Surely he has the biggest count of executive orders since then. No, no, and further no. Let's look at the last five presidents. During his first term, St. Reagan issued 213, in his second 168. GHW Bush issued 166 during his only term, Clinton, 200 and 164, and GW Bush, 173 and 118. Obama's first term saw 147, except for W's second term, the smallest number of executive orders since Truman. Last year saw 21 executive orders, which is a number not seen since Lincoln.

So, the implication that Obama has depended on executive orders more than other presidents is flat out dishonest. The exact opposite is closer to the truth. What about the less subtle implication that this somehow is tyrannical or unconstitutional? Executive orders have been used constantly since the Constitution was written. The people who actually fought against a monarchy thought executive orders were compatible with American democracy and used them.

Well, what's the problem? Do I even need to say it? The problem is Obama. The people who spread these memes think anything Obama does is unconstitutional and tyrannical. If Obama made a statement in favor of oxygen, we'd see a mile long line of blue-faced Republicans, Fox pundits, and right-wing bloggers clamoring to be the first to point out that Hitler also breathed oxygen.

Aside from an irrational hatred of anything Obama does and a willingness to misrepresent anything he does, a meme like this shows the overwhelming ignorance of the author and anyone who reposts it of history and the Constitution. As I showed above, issuing executive orders is a normal part of the job of the President. The President is the head of the executive branch. He is the boss of almost all of the civil servants employed by the American people. He would be derelict in his duty if he did not issue orders. Like it or not, the size and complexity of the federal government is greater than it was in Washington's time and therefore needs more direction. Issuing executive orders does not undermine, circumvent, or otherwise ruffle the Constitution. Every executive order is subject to the same judicial review as laws passed by Congress. As to tyranny, making such a claim, like Nazi and Holocaust analogies, makes light of the experience of people who have suffered the real thing. 

Using the powers of the presidency to do something you disagree with is not tyrannical, not illegal, not unconstitutional, not un-American, and not hypocritical. Not getting your way everyday is the price you pay for living in a democracy. Crying persecution, kicking over the board, threatening secession, coup, and assassination is childish, dangerous, and, frankly, bad for America. In summary, this meme is not just wrong, it's dangerously wrong.

Mini-Snopes: the last line of defense against Obamacare

This bit of wisdom has been around since 2010 and has been attributed to no lesser great thinker than Donald Trump. Sadly, the real Snopes has determined that the Toupee never said this in any documented venue. To proceed:

Let me get this straight.

It says, in a probable copyright violation of a Hallmark character.

Were going to be "gifted" with a health care plan...

I'm not sure who called it a "gift," but feel free to make fun of them is you want.

...which we will be forced to purchase...

Actually, there is no plan that you will be forced to buy. You see, this idea is part of the claim that the government is going to "take over" the health care system. This argument is, what experts in logic call, "a lie." What the law requires is that everyone have insurance. That's it. If you get insurance through your employer, as fewer and fewer people do, that's great, nothing changes. If you get your insurance through socialistic government programs like Medicare or Veterans' benefits, that's also great. If you can afford to buy your own insurance, good for you, nothing changes. If you can't afford insurance, or have been empoverishing yourself to pay for it, you might be eligible for a tax break or subsidy. Many people too poor to purchase their own insurance will be eligible for expanded Medicaid, unless you live in a state with a Republican legislature that will not allow the expansion.

...and fined if we don't...

The only people who will be fined are people who can afford insurance, but who refuse to buy it, thus saddling the rest of us with their expenses when they have to go to an emergency room.

...which purportedly covers at least ten million more people...

More than that, I hope, since about fifty million Americans are without insurance.

...without adding a single new doctor...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Maybe someone made that claim, but I'm not sure who that was. What I want to know is, why is more doctors a bad thing? Hundreds of counties, mostly blood red, already need doctors. Doctors are well paid professionals who make a significant contribution to their local economies. I think more doctors is a good thing.

...but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents...

Congratulations, I'm glad to see that you've finally moved down from the claim of a quarter million IRS agents to a slightly less ridiculous number of 16,000. Nothing in the law provides for that number of new IRS agents. The IRS estimates the number will be closer to 375, or 7.5 per state.

...written by a committee...

Okay. The run on nature of the sentence is getting out of control. I'm going to express my editorial prerogative as the owner of the blog to add some sentence breaks.

[This bill was] written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it...

In fact, it was written by several committees. Republicans had a lot of influence on some of those committees. I'm not sure which chairman the writer means, but this is the first in a series of comments in which the writer tries to use one person out of the 300 million Americans to invalidate the law.

...passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it...

Congress didn't exempt themselves from the bill. They hadn't when this tirade first started circulating and they haven't since then. This nefarious disinformation is based on a bit of unsuccessful trickery inserted into the original bill by one of it's Republican authors, Sen. Chuck Grassley. To review: everyone is required to have insurance. Members of Congress and their staffs already have insurance, the same insurance all federal employees have, no better, no worse.

...and signed by a president who smokes...

At this point we move into a series of meaningless cheap shots that, as far as I can tell, serve no other purpose than to fill space. This shows the ignorance of the person who wrote this rant. Short pithy quotes are much more effective that a long rambling rant. But, to the point. So what if the president smokes? I haven't seen any evidence of him smoking in the last few years. But even if he was smoking like a chimney, so what? The law doesn't require us to live the exact same lifestyle as the president. Who cares if he smokes?

... with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes...

Again, so what. The Secretary of the Treasury's past taxes are relevant to his getting the job. His current taxes are relevant to his keeping the job. None of his personal taxes are relevant to the validity of funding any specific bill. If they were, we would have to disband the military.

...for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect...

Well, it's been over three years since the bill was passed. Many of the benefits have already taken effect. The Medicare prescription donut-hole has been closed. Young adults up to the age of 26 can stay on their parents' insurance, children cannot be refused insurance for pre-existing conditions. And, on January 1, I'll have insurance for my cataracts. I'm not sure which horrible taxes I've been toiling under during those years, but they don't seem to have destroyed the republic. I thank the founders for designing our country so that allowing a bare hint of the compassion of our peers lavish won't destroy us.

...by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare...

Neither Social Security nor Medicare is bankrupt. We might argue about how to maintain their solvency in the future, but neither was bankrupt when this first began circulating and they are not not. To say so is unconscionable fear-mongering.

...all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese...

It's still an irrelevant cheap shot and, by now, tiresome. If we hired an aerobics instructor as Surgeon General, would you suddenly support the bill? Whatever your answer, it reflects badly on your argument.

 ...and financed by a country that is broke!

And no matter how often this is repeated, it's still a lie. Paychecks to our military are still honored by the banks. Foreign countries still line up to buy our bonds, even though we are now paying no interest. However, if we default on those bonds by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, then we might destroy our credit rating. The last time Republicans played games with the debt ceiling, our credit rating lost a notch, for the first time in our history. The only thing that held it up was the fact that we are too big to fail.

But, that is a different lesson. For now, the important lesson is that this rant is a farago (don't you love that word?) of lies, half-truths, deceptions, and irrelevancies.

To return to the document at hand.

What the hell could possibly go wrong?

Well , some honest person might be fooled by this BS.

The Stupid Files: Mini-Snopes edition

I've seen that meme called the 28th Amendment or Congressional Reform Act of twice today. With all the feelgood shouts of "stop their pay" and the GOP pushed lie that Congress has somehow exempted itself from Obamacare, we're probably going to be seeing a lot more of it in the coming days. I've written about it before, but it's time to refisk it. 

There are several forms of it floating around. The first one I saw included term limits ("stop me before I vote again!"). Another version says Warren Buffett himself started the chain letter. That lets you know how honest the propagators of these things are. The original was some person's honest rant which they sent to their friends who sent it to their friends and so on. But at some point, someone thought it would be more effective if they added an out-and-out lie to the beginning. This sort of thing appeals to the inner populist in us all. It's an emotional appeal not a rational one. It counts on the too easy impulse to shout "Yeah!" and press "Send to All."

And so to begin. Warren Buffett does not send chain letters. The various versions are presented as a list with different numbering and paragraph breaks, but a core content. The list is made up of a mish-mash of misconceptions, outdated information, and just plain weirdness.

1. No Tenure / No Pension.

"No tenure" What does that mean? Congress doesn't have tenure. We can vote them out at any time, but we need to take responsibility for our own votes and do it if we don't like what they are doing. Democracy belongs to those who show up. Their pension is the same one that all government employees have.

2. A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.

This is that unkillable rumor that Congress keeps collecting their pay for life. Think about this for a moment. What the rumor claims is that if Sarah Palin were to elected to Congress, she could serve one term, quit, and still collect 172K a year. That's not how it works. Congressional pay ends when the job ends, just like at any job.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

Members of Congress do pay into Social Security. They have since 1984.

4. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

5. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

Congress participates in the same retirement program that other federal employees do. It's based on a formula of years served and pay grade. There is no special fund.

6. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

According to the 27th Amendment, Congress cannot vote itself a raise. What it can do is vote the next congress a raise. If we don't like it, we have the responsibility to let them know our disapproval, either by voting them out or by deluging them with letters, petitions, and phone calls. Since the 27th Amendment was pased, Congress has voted raises roughly once evry four years.

7. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

Because of that rumor about Congress exempting itself from Obamacare, this one is sure to get recycled a lot. The health care system that the American people participate in is one where some people get Medicare, some have veteran's benefits, some use Medicaid, some buy their own, and some get insurance through their employer. The Federal government provides insurance for its employees, including Congress. There is no special policy for them. They have the same choices as the rest of the civil service. Obamacare requires people to have insurance. Congress has insurance. Therefore, Congress is participation in Obamacare. It's that simple.

8. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

Once again, because of that exemption thing, this one is getting a lot of traction. Some versions of this list say they are specifically immune to sexual harrassment laws. They are not. Do you think that Congress could pass a bill saying rape or murder is a crime unless one of us does it? Of course not. If they tried they would be laughed out of the Supreme Court. There are a tiny number of laws under which they are treated differently. One of them is specifically written into the Constitution. Article I, Section 6. "They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." Even then, as soon as the session is over, they can be arrested.

9. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 12/31/13. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.

This line is in every version of this that I have seen. Something very specific was bothering the original author   but I have no idea what it was. Contracts are a normal part of adult life. Does this mean that members of Congress can't buy or sell a house or a car or get married? Those are all contracts.

I hate these things because I hate seeing people taken advantage of. If you see any variation of this nonsense, point the person who sent it to you back to me or to the Snopes article. If all of us did this, we could raise the avaerage IQ of the internet by at least two points. 98% of you won't and you are bad, bad people.

MiniScopes: Oklahoma is not OK edition

This one is less of a debunking than it is picking apart a FaceBook meme. A conservative friend in Alaska put this one up today. It's supposed to be showing how Oklahoma is a conservative paradise. I was halfway through it before I realized the writer's purpose wasn't showing how Oklahoma is a conservative nuthouse for us to point at and laugh.

Oklahoma is the only state that Obama did not win even one county in the last election... While everyone is focusing on Arizona’s new law, look what Oklahoma has been doing!!!!
An update from Oklahoma:

Arizona? I thought we were all still focussed on Boston and terrorism. I guess I wasn't paying that much attention this week. Which Arizona law? The "No Gun Left Behind" bill or some other? There are so many dumb Arizona laws to focus on these days. Oh well. Once more into the breach my friends!

Oklahoma law passed, 37 to 9 an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values...! HB 1330. Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.

This has been ruled unconstitutional over and over and will cost the taxpayers of Oklahoma hundreds of thousands--if not millions--of dollars to find out that it's still unconstitutional.

Oklahoma recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen. They all scattered. HB 1804. This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake. Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.

This will be completely unworkable and expensive to attempt. How exactly are they going to deport all the "illegal immigrants" they round up? Oklahoma law ends at the Oklahoma state line. They'll need federal help to move their prisoners any further. Oh, I suppose Rick Perry might agree to ship them across Texas and dump them in Mexico. I suppose Mexico would have to repatriate Mexican citizens. What about non-Mexicans? Rick Perry is not going to let Oklahoma dump them is Texas. Without federal help, they're not going to ship them any further than one of the surrounding red states. Does the new law suppose the taxpayers of Oklahoma will spring for tickets to fly each prisoner back to his or her home country? And, while we're on the subject of cost, where will they incorporate all their prisoners? They're going to need to build some new jails.

Recently we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegal's (sic) to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional SB 1102

They might be able to get around the constitutional right to privacy if they take the time to try and convict each prisoner, which would be expensive and time consuming. And, no matter how low the cost of DNA testing becomes, it will always cost something.

Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. Joining Texas, Montana and Utah as the only states to do so.
More states are likely to follow: Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Carolina's (sic), Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi and Florida. Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again. HJR 1003

Oh boy, nullification and a threat of secession. Didn't we fight a civil war over this? Wasn't Oklahoma on the losing side in that one? (Spoiler: Yes and Yes) Assuming we don't choose to bomb them into submission (again), how good for their economy is it going to be when the Union removes all of its military bases, fires all the federal employees, and bills Oklahoma for its share of the national debt?

The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I'm sure that was a setback for the criminals  The Liberals didn't like it -- But....Guess what........... Oklahoma did it anyway.

What "bold steps to take away [your] guns"? The toothless background check amendment that didn't pass? The right to bear arms is still protected by the Constitution and doesn't need extra state laws to stay that way. Without a new Constitutional amendment, the most aggressive thing we liberals can do is debate just what the existing Second Amendment means and what reasonable limits can be placed on it. And both are legitimate subjects of debate.

Just this month, the state has voted and passed a law that ALL drivers’ license exams will be printed in English, and only English, and no other language. They have been called racist for doing this, but the fact is that ALL of the road signs are in English only. If you want to drive in Oklahoma, you must read and write English. Really simple.

Go outside and look at some traffic signs. The great majority of them are either symbols or place names. Every license exam I've ever seen requires prospective drivers to know the signs. Its not that hard for non-English speakers to learn to recognize a few dozen phrases without being fluent in English. I can read the menus well enough to order in a dozen languages even though I can only speak English. You don't want us to call it racist? Fine, we'll call it xenophobic, nativist, or any other synonym for bigoted. If the sheet fits, wear it.

By the way, the Liberals don't like any of this either
Guess what...who cares... Oklahoma is doing it anyway.
If you like it, pass it on, if you don't then delete it...Thanks
Guess what: the people I'm sending this to will send it on. Well, at least the ones who love and believe in freedom will.

It must be nice to live in a state with enough money laying around that they can take on the extra expenses of attempting to carry out these laws and fight the inevitable court challenges.  But....Guess what........... They don't have money laying around. Oklahoma is just another deadbeat red state. For every dollar the pay to federal government, they take $1.36 (2005 figures). Who pays the difference? We liberal producers in the blue states have to subsidize the lazy moochers in the red states.

At least it must be nice to live in a state where all the state's problems are solved giving the legislature free time to waste passing unenforceable, unworkable, unconstitutional, and mostly symbolic laws.

It's amazing how much the modern conservative movement is based on spite. Just last week, a study was released showing that conservatives will be less likely to buy something, that they would otherwise have bought, if you say it's good for the environment  Reread the Oklahoma bragging points again; almost all of them list offending someone--the ACLU, the feds, pelosi, liberals--as a positive point. No matter how wrong headed an idea is, if they think it will offend some imaginary liberal, they're for it. Along with refusing to accept that they lost the last election, spite is one of their primary motivations.

I will give the writer one thing, he or she is not so lacking in self-awareness that they'll claim to be American patriots or "constitutional conservatives." They are neither. Spite is more important than either of those ideas. They are perfectly happy to celebrate unconstitutional actions and even suggest treason if it means getting their way and offending liberal strawmen.

Let me suggest a new slogan for them: Oklahoma--We'll wipe our butts with the Constitution if we think it will offend a liberal.

Mini-Snopes: Congressional pay edition: again

I've run into two different versions of this in the last few days. I suppose it's tied to the same populist frustration as the last one.

Let's be clear. Neither members of Congress, nor the President, nor the Vice President get their pay for life. That is bullshit. Think about it for a minute. Do you really think some one-term, House member is going to get his pay for life after only "working" for two years? Even if you're going to be extra cynical and say "they would if they could" the correct answer is, they couldn't and they never will.

Members of Congress get a civil service pension just like the person delivering your mail or sending you your tax return does: it's a formula based on the number of years they worked for the government times their highest pay grade times a fractional multiplier. The total cannot equal their final pay, even if the were boyhood friends with Jefferson Davis like Strom Thurmond was. Ever since they began to pay for Social Security and Medicare in 1984, they have been eligible to collect from them.

I'm all for economic populism, but let's focus on the right things. How much pay Congress makes is not important. How much pay you make is. How much Social Security and Medicare your parents, grandparents or you collect is. How much food, rent, and medical support other vulnerable American get is. If you've fallen into the the trap of hating the poor, then do it for the veterans. Many of them are poor, old, hungry, and sick. Everyone loves the veterans, in theory. It's too bad they don't care as much for the civilians that the veterans were protecting.

Mini-Snopes: Congressional pay edition

I'm sure you've seen this or some variation of it. It's good for a chuckle and some good, old fashioned, anti-Washington, populist rage, but it's bullshit.

First, it's bullshit because it's unconstitutional. According to the 27th Amendment, Congress cannot cut (or raise) their salary within a term. Any change in pay will not take effect until the next term. Let's take a look:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

I know many "Constitutional Conservatives" and "Originalists" like to say that the Constitution is not a living document. Article V, the one about amendments, the Founders were only kidding. Many act like only certain amendments after the first ten count. Here's where knowing a little history comes in useful. This amendment was part of the Bill of Rights. Twelve amendments were passed around in 1789. Only ten were ratified by enough states to make it into the Constitution at that time. This one was ratified by seven states.* This is not a new idea. This comes from the Founding Fathers themselves.

There might be some wiggle room to suspend their pay, but they'd get the full amount after the deal was made.

The second reason that it's bullshit is that, well, it's bullshit. Even if we cut or suspended their pay, they make over $170K per year. How many of them would really hurt if they had to go without pay for a couple weeks. Very few. Meanwhile they would dig in their heels (or keep them dug in) shouting for all to hear that the gridlock is entirely the other party's fault. Democrats will continue to claim that bipartisanship and negotiation means both sides give a little to find a middle ground. Republicans will continue to claim that bipartisanship and negotiation means Democrats agree to vote for the Republican program and agree to take most of the blame for the unpopular parts. In the end we would get almost the exact same deal that we're going to get anyway. The Democrats will give far more than the Republicans and both parties will loudly proclaim "never again." The only difference will be that the deal might come a few days earlier.

* The last of the original twelve was a bizarre formula for increasing the size of the House as the population grew. If ratified, The House would have about five thousand members today.

Mini-Snopes vs. British crime statistics

Yesterday, a conservative friend of mine posted on Facebook that gun crime numbers in the UK have gone through the roof since the government banned guns. Of course they didn't ban all guns, but that's beside the point. It took some pushing to find out his source. It came from Jim Hoft's blog on the site of the libertarian magazine Human Events. The Human Events blog post was, in turn, a block quote of a column on the far right site Townhall by News Editor Katie Pavlich. The quote my friend gave began with this:

Since NBC sportscaster Bob Costas gave us an anti-gun lecture two weeks ago during Sunday Night Football, we've heard a lot from progressives like Juan Williams, Bob Beckel and anti-gun advocacy groups about how countries in Europe with strict gun control laws don’t have problems with gun crime. We've also heard the reason the United States has a "gun crime problem" is because we allow citizens to own handguns however, the numbers on violent crime committed using a gun tell a different story.

That's Pavlich's introduction to a block quote from the British conservative tabloid, The Daily Mail. Here's the key part of the Mail's article:

 The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.

Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.

Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.

It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.

Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.

That sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? That sure blows a hole in the liberals' argument that fewer guns make us safer. Not only does it not make us safer, it makes us less safe. When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns! And, for some reason, fewer guns seems to make criminals more likely to use theirs. So, why aren't we hearing about this on the news? Yes, I know the mainstream media is run by anti-American liberals, but why aren't we hearing about on Fox or talk radio? Could it be that it's complete BS? Yes, it could. If Pavlich had bothered to look at the top of the page on the Mail article, she would have noticed that the article was published on January 10, 2003, Those "Government's latest crime figures" refer to the 2001/2 reporting year. The figures are over ten years old.

Locating the correct figures and making sense of them took some work. When I did find them, this is what my crunching revealed. The British reporting figures are for England and Wales only. Northern Ireland is omitted because they are a special problem. Scotland has a different legal system, so the the definitions of crimes don't match up with those of its two southern neighbors. In the England and Wales statistics, total gun crimes includes air guns and fake guns. I eliminated air guns, which made up about half of the total gun crimes statistic. For the first two years below, fake guns were not separated out. The real gun figure should be a couple hundred smaller. The Daily Mail article includes fake guns in its figures.

In 1996, 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton entered the grade school in Dunblane, Scotland, a town of less than 8000. He carried four handguns. Over the next few minutes, he killed sixteen five and six year-olds and one teacher who tried to shield the kids with her body. He wounded ten other children and three adults before killing himself. The next year, the government passed laws banning almost all handguns manufactured after 1917.

In 1996, the year of the Dunblane massacre, there were 6063 gun crimes in the UK (that includes fake guns).

In 1997, the year they phased in the new law outlawing handguns, the number went down to 4904, a 17% drop in one year.

In 1998, they separated fake guns from the real gun statistics.

In 2000/1, the number of gun crimes was up to 6683. That's the first number the Daily Mail article mentions. It's a huge increase. The UK was in the midst of an epidemic of drug-gang violence at the time.

In 2001/2, the second year in the Daily Mail article, the number had gone up to 8778, however, this number was inflated by some changes in definitions and reporting. In any case, everyone agrees that it was an increase over the year before.

Beginning in 2003, the numbers started going down and have continued ever since.

In 2010/1, the last year for which figures are available, the number had dropped to 5411. That's about ten percent lower than in the year of the Dunblane massacre. For comparison, in that year, the US had over 300,000 gun crimes.

These figures do not support the popular conservative argument that more guns equals less crime. Even if there was a rough correlation, it's naive to think that that one variable is the only factor determining how much crime we have. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

There are rational arguments that can be made on both sides of the gun control debate. Naturally, I find some more convincing than others. Your mileage may vary. No one is helped by using lies and BS to push their agenda.

PS: At some some point, Pavlich did find out that the Mail article is extremely out of date and admitted it (Hoft has not). Rather than simply say "oops" and move on, she went hunting for different statistics to support her argument. The Mail came to her rescue with a 2009 article referencing the 2007/8 figures. I guess five year-old figures are better than ten year-old figures.

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year--a rise of 89 per cent. 

I went back to my sources to figure out what the hell they're talking about. Both Mail articles used figures that included fake guns. My figures for real guns are 4643 in 1998/99 and 7403 for 2007/8. That's a 62% increase--big, but it's not 89%. That increase needs to be taken in the context of a six year trend of gun crimes decreasing and that the newer number uses methods that result in higher numbers than the earlier figure.

That's all fine and dandy, but what explains the difference between 89% and 62%. Here's something I missed my first time through. After the handgun ban went into effect, fake gun crime increased. In 1998/99 there were 566 fake gun crimes and in 2007/8 there were 2562, well over four times as many. The lesson here is that when guns are outlawed, outlaws will use toys.

Bonus fun fact: In her original article, Pavlich did not just rely on the Mail article to argue that more guns make us safer.

On top of these figures, the notoriously violent city of Washington D.C. just saw its murder rate fall below triple digits for the first time since 1963 and just four years after the Supreme Court overturned the city's handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Boo yah! Who needs foreign statistics when we have genuine American anecdotes we can use. Okay, it's not really American, its a liberal, east-coast, big city. But that's even better since it shows the failure of nanny-state, socialist elites. Except it doesn't. Pavlich was good enough to provide us with a chart to make her point. It only covers murders, but that's a good stand-in for crime, especially violent crime.

Let's see, the gun ban was overturned in 2008. If her argument is valid, we should see a dramatic downturn in murders as soon as that happened. And look, there is a dramatic downturn in murders--starting in 1992 while the gun ban was in effect. In fact, the number of murders went down about 60% while the gun ban was in effect. After the gun ban was repealed, the decrease in murders continued at about the same pace. That does not support the argument that more guns means less crime. It does, however, support the argument that there might be some other factors that need to be considered along with the numbers of guns in our society if we really want to reduce violent crime.