And it was in the middle of a field in the middle of no where.

There is a long list of different people who did something over at Weer’d’s place.

The probe focuses on peace officers selling weapons that most civilians cannot legally buy and sell, Sacramento County Sheriff's Department spokesman Deputy Jason Ramos said. He said he did not know the types of weapons involved.

Lets not forget about the similar incident in New York recently either.  It seems that in the wake of Fast and Furious the ATF is busy making itself appear useful by nailing those who didn't get clearance for their own "Gun Walker" operations.

Given this is California the list of firearms that are not available for public consumption is long and distinguished.  It may have been they were selling things without NFA stamps, I find that unlikely but certainly not outside the realm of possibility.

State Sponsored Criminal Count 165: John Doe

Because firearms laws only apply to law abiding civilians, everyone else, cops and criminals alike, are exempt from the rules.

Recently the FBI updated their UCS data to reflect the information including 2010.  For those who are new to the blog, earlier this year I ripped apart the scorecard against the 2009 UCS, as well as the 2006 census data.*

I spent this morning updating my spreadsheets to the 2010 UCS data.  Here’s the overall result:

While R² has increased, it is still inconsequential and shows absolutely zero correlation over the entire data set.  It is worth nothing though the overall score vs. crime trend has gone from being slightly negative to positive.  By looking at the plot, you can see that different scores are scattered across the entire field of crime rates.  So let’s look at just states who scored above 50.

Correlation decreased for all scores above 50, however it still shows a positive trend towards an increase in violent crime.  This trend though, like the overall chart is extremely weak due to the low R² value. 

Again a low correlation, however again it’s a positive trend for a higher score.  Still only three states, 15%, with a score above 20 had a crime rate below 300.  Those still were sitting toward the higher crime rates.  Again I normalized the data and examined the distribution confidence.

For this graph I took everything around the peak normalized value for 25% of each side.  In other words everything between the 25th percentile and 75th percentile is included.  Notice how it looks like a shot gun blast, though what is interesting is the cluster of points with low Brady scores.  That region includes 24 data points, of which only 8 have scores above 20.  The highest scores amazingly appear with that confidence range, along with every other score.

So as previously noted the Brady score means absolutely nothing.  Linoge has examined the 2010 UCR as the pertain to firearms.  He has also detailed other firearm related data from the CDC.

Seeing Linoge's graphs, as well as mine has given me an idea for a couple more graphs that I want to create to help view trends in context with other data.  There's another project for me to work on.

*You are free to repost these graphs, however I must request that you provide a direct link back to these posts. Some individuals seem to think that providing credit to those who put forth the effort to create these doesn’t really matter.  Please, don’t be that dick.  It takes a lot of time to organize the data and graph it. If you don’t feel it takes that much time, do it yourself. So if you want to use these graphs, feel free, please just provide proper credit.

I previously wrote a response to someone who sent a letter to the editor of the WSU Daily Evergreen.  Given the events in Texas over the past couple days this has produced renewed vigor on the topic.  If you haven’t read my previous response regarding concealed carry on campus, go read it.

Yesterday, I don’t remember where I saw it first, but this doozy of a line has taken off like wildfire since Uncle posted it this morning.

When you think of it like that: giving guns to young students largely interested in sex and booze, I’d wager it seems less of a genius idea.

As everyone has already stated, but it bears repeating, no one is giving anyone guns!  All this bill is doing is allowing people who are licensed to carry concealed weapons to carry to class and other places the would normally go while obtaining their education.

This statement of students being largely interested in sex and booze is down right offensive to me.  I did not have the benefit of my parents being able to support me through my entire college career as my father passed away from cancer when I was 19.  Prior to that though I knew my job was getting that degree.  As that was my job, I did not drink, I did not carouse, I knew my goal and I worked my ass of for it. 

While many college students go on a “21 run” for their 21st birthday, I went to bed early.  Why, so I could be at the sheriff's office as they open to file for my carry permit.  People who get their carry permits are an entirely different breed of person.  All these laws seek to do is allow someone who has a permit, which allows them to already carry elsewhere, to continue to carry when they attend their classes.

What is most disturbing is I see claim after claim of sex and booze, yet I do not remember seeing anyone drinking while attending a lecture.  I do not remember hearing about anyone having sex while in class.  I rarely if ever drank while going to college, certainly not on weeknights.  Yet these people say I was properly disarmed because of my “constant drinking” and “carousing”.  And I went to a school rated #18 by the Princeton Review for top party schools in 2002, in 2009 it was rated #16.  Please note I attended 2004-2008.  I and others like me went to college for an education, not to get drunk and have sex.  I don’t need to pay someone tuition to do that.  Most of my friends were either ROTC, or former military there on GI bill, none of them were out partying every night.

This statement is projection and nothing more.  This individual spent his college career drinking and carousing and does not see how anyone else could not have done that while in college.  I keep hearing statements regarding drinking and campus carry, yet actually on campus, where this discussion is centered, you rarely see people drinking alcohol, it is an educational institution after all.  How is there a magical line that a permit holder crosses and all the sudden he becomes a raving lunatic bent on killing everyone?  The fail to comprehend that a potentiality is not an actuality. 

Gun free zones and high Brady scores mean nothing to criminals, don’t believe me, look at San Jose State.

• In the safe bastion of California with the highest Brady Score of 80, the score that’s proven worthless.
• In a state where permits are not shall issue.
• On a college campus that was a gun free zone.

The only people who follow the laws are the law abiding.  By the gun grabbers own admissions, they would rather disarm people preventing them from fighting back to “lower gun violence” than have a lower violent crime rate overall.  Everyone who wants campus carry wants it because they don’t want to be disarmed to be an easy victim to make the Brady Campaign or Collation to Stop Gun Violence feel better.  Feelings have nothing to do with it, this side is fighting with facts and logic, but those are disregarded by the other side.