Media Matters’ Founder David Brock showed no shame when he was caught illegally using guns for his own personal protection. Indeed, Media Matters’ continues to lash out at others who own guns or support letting individuals use guns for the own protection, even increasing their attacks.
In April alone, Media Matters ran 32 articles attacking the NRA alone. Additional pieces have defended the Obama administration’s Fast & Furious program and dealt with other gun related topics.
Media Matters also attacked me three times over the last two weeks: I had an op-ed in the New York Daily News and an appearance on MSNBC defending Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws and The New York Times actually had the temerity to interview me and refer to me as “a researcher of gun culture who has held teaching or research posts at a number of universities.”
Media Matters wasn’t happy.
In total, since January 2011, they have criticized me in 25 pieces.
With headlines such as “John Lott fudges gun facts again” and “New York Times citing discredited gun researcher John Lott,” Media Matters attempts to thuggishly intimidate both people such as myself and those who talk to me (my response to their piece on the New York Times is available here). Alas, some people, including those in the media, believe Media Matters. . . . .
Even more astonishingly, Lott then claimed that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law has nothing to do with the controversy surrounding Trayvon Martin's death.The quote that Media Matters reports from the interview gets most of my point across. What Media Matters doesn't understand is that the Stand Your Ground law covers self-defense of all types and what I was referring to was what had changed in the Stand Your Ground law relative to what was in the original law that required retreat when possible. The point is clear that the Stand Your Ground law added nothing new that allowed Zimmerman to claim self-defense that he couldn't already claim under the old law. Yet, instead of dealing with the logic of this point, Media Matters just asserts its point.What I will say is that no matter whose story is right, the Stand Your Ground law isn't relevant to the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case. If George Zimmerman is right and the wounds on the back of his head that he was on the ground, Trayvon Martin was on top of him beating him, there was no place for him to retreat. And so the old defense, even if you had the rule that you have to retreat as far as possible, he still would have been able to act in self-defense there. And if the other side is right that somehow George Zimmerman provoked the attack, attacked Martin to begin with, then he wouldn't be able to rely on the Stand Your Ground law to protect him in that case either.Lott is really burying his head in the sand on this one. The Sanford Police Department cited the "Stand Your Ground" law as the reason that Zimmerman was not initially arrested. Before he became George Zimmerman's lawyer, attorney Mark O'Mara appeared on a Florida local news program and suggested that Zimmerman's actions may have been legally excusable under "Stand Your Ground." Controversy surrounding the law has even led Republican governor Rick Scott to convene a taskforce to address concerns related to the 2005 legislation.
Lott is correct that Zimmerman may unsuccessfully assert "Stand Your Ground" at trial. Or it is possible that Zimmerman will not use the defense at all. Or that he will use it and prevail. Only time will tell. But to claim that "Kill At Will" has not been "relevant" to the Trayvon Martin controversy is an act of willful blindness that serves to draw attention away from the legitimate debate surrounding the self-defense law.
Building on this point, Lott then claims that "the Stand Your Ground law doesn't allow you to provoke an attack, doesn't allow you to throw the first punch, it doesn't allow you to go and shoot someone in the back. You have to pass this reasonable person test that you're in direct threat, serious injury or death was going to occur." By suggesting that all shooters claiming immunity under "Stand Your Ground" face a thorough review into their actions, Lott is ignoring the fact that some of these shootings, even those that occur under dubious circumstances, are resolved without the shooter ever having to face a jury of his peers.
1) ""Call them what you will: 'Stand Your Ground' or 'Castle Doctrine' laws." In doing so, he is grouping together two laws that are in fact radically different - this faulty conflation is at the center of his entire argument."The difference between 'Stand Your Ground' and 'Castle Doctrine' laws is over where they apply, not what the rule is. Both laws remove the duty to retreat. Castle Doctrine laws apply to attacks within ones home as well as sometimes on ones property. Once you step off your property and onto the sidewalk Stand Your Ground laws apply. The principle of whether one has to retreat is the core of this debate so I have a hard time understanding how these laws are "radically different."
2) "For example, Lott later claims that 'In states adopting Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws from 1977 to 2005, murder rates fell by 9% and overall violent crime by 11%.' But 'Stand Your Ground' largely was not implemented until after 2005, making his point meaningless. But "Stand Your Ground" largely was not implemented until after 2005, making his point meaningless." [Emphasis added.]I didn't say that I had studied all states that had ever adopted these laws. I made it clear in both my research and the New York Daily News article what period of time over which the laws were adopted was studied. Despite the spin that Media Matters puts on it, their point "largely" is completely consistent with what I did. In addition, Media Matters is wrong about Florida's Stand Your Ground law: the laws was enacted on October 1, 2005, which is within the 1977 to 2005 period. A complete list of the state laws was provided in the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010, p. 332).
3) ""Castle Doctrine" typically refers to the codification of centuries old common law stating that an individual owes no duty to retreat to an invader of his or her domicile."Media Matters misstates the common law on the duty to retreat. In State v. Redmond, the Washington State Supreme Court pointed out: “The law is well settled that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be." This obviously extends well beyond just inside the home. In the same case, the court noted: "Redmond's right to be in the Lindbergh High School parking lot is not disputed."
4) "While Lott would like his readers to believe that "Stand Your Ground" is a mainstay of American legal tradition . . . "My New York Daily News piece makes it clear that the laws had changed over time: "Earlier statutes affirmatively required potential victims to retreat as much as possible before using deadly force to protect themselves."
5) "Actually states that did require duty to retreat largely did so only under the narrow circumstance where the victim could do so safely."My piece clearly stated that the requirement to retreat "sometimes putting their lives in jeopardy." The problem that arises is a practical one: whether a prosecutor agrees with the victim over whether they had retreated far enough. As I wrote in National Review Online: "a prosecutor might argue that a victim didn’t retreat sufficiently. There have been many cases where victims have been chased and knocked down a couple of times before firing in self-defense, and yet prosecutors claimed that the victim still could have done more to retreat before firing their gun." Again, I point to the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010) for examples of this.
6) "Lott's dubious legal analysis continues with the statement, "The supposedly infamous laws passed in Florida and elsewhere, in contrast, use a 'reasonable person' standard for determining when it is proper to defend oneself -- requiring that a reasonable person would believe that another individual intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death on them." Of course what Lott fails to mention is that the elimination of the duty to retreat often means that "Stand Your Ground" confrontations end with only one surviving witness to attest to the reasonableness of using deadly force: the shooter himself."How is this different from any murder case? In the Zimmerman case not only is there a lot of forensic evidence (wounds to the back of Zimmerman's head, broken nose, grass on his back, wetness on his back, and I am sure other pieces after the crime labs have been able to examine the evidence) but there are also several witnesses.
7) "In Florida there were 43 cases of justifiable homicide in 2005. By 2009, the last year that complete figures were available, the number had risen to 105. The very data cited by Lott confirms this trend is mirrored nationwide. But while Lott criticizes the media for implying causality between "Stand Your Ground" laws and rise in justifiable homicides, at no point does he provide his own theory about what is really behind the uptick. . . ."Since Media Matters assumes that its readers won't actually read what I have written, let me quote from my piece: "But part of that increase is just a trick of numbers; it occurs because the laws have reclassified what is considered 'self-defense,' not because more people are being shot." in addition, I also note: "Curiously, though, this went unnoticed: Over the same period of time, there has been an increase in justifiable killings by police. And there are no similar data problems here, no changing definitions or large changes in jurisdictions reporting. Between 2000 and 2010, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports show that justifiable police killings rose by 25%, rising to 387 from 309, suggesting that something else is occurring." How is Media Matters then accurate to claim: "at no point does he provide his own theory about what is really behind the uptick."
8) "John Lott's methodology is simple. Develop a conclusion, and then invent whatever legal or statistical justifications are needed to reach it. At this point, it is shocking that anyone outside of the National Rifle Association gives any credence to his claims."Really? After all their errors in post after post that they put up, this is their name calling response? Because of having to learn the hard way, I have made a screen shot of their existing webpage before I put up my critique.
Woolrich, a 182-year-old clothing company, describes its new chino pants as an elegant and sturdy fashion statement, with a clean profile and fabric that provides comfort and flexibility.
And they are great for hiding a handgun.
The company has added a second pocket behind the traditional front pocket for a weapon. Or, for those who prefer to pack their gun in a holster, it can be tucked inside the stretchable waistband. The back pockets are also designed to help hide accessories, like a knife and a flashlight.
The chinos, which cost $65, are not for commandos, but rather, the company says, for the fashion-aware gun owner. And Woolrich has competition. Several clothing companies are following suit, building businesses around the sharp rise in people with permits to carry concealed weapons.
Their ranks swelled to around seven million last year from five million in 2008, partly because of changes to state laws on concealed handguns.
Shawn Thompson, 35, who works at an auto dealership in eastern Kentucky, bought two shirts last month from the Woolrich Elite Concealed Carry line. Both, he wrote on his blog, are a step up from more rugged gear.
“Most of the clothes I used in the past to hide my sidearm looked pretty sloppy and had my girlfriend complaining about my looks,” he wrote, adding in an interview, “I’m not James Bond or nothing, but these look pretty nice.” . . .
By contrast, in 1984 only 8 states had such statutes, and 15 did not allow handgun carrying at all, said John Lott, a researcher of gun culture who has held teaching or research posts at a number of universities, including the University of Chicago.
Only one state, Illinois, now forbids handgun carrying in any form, but the legislature is considering a change.
A majority of states have long allowed the open carrying of handguns, said Mr. Lott, who also provided the data on gun permits. But the reality, said Mr. Lott and other gun experts, is that people do not want to show others that they are carrying a weapon or invite sharp questioning from the police. . . .
1) "It's curious that the Times went to Lott for comment, given that the paper has previously noted that studies of his work 'have found serious flaws in his data and methodology.'"Media Matters rarely responds to what I write and of course they have prevented me from leaving comments on their website (they don't want to confuse the audience). I made a post about the NY Times' piece here, though I kept it limited because I was hoping that the Times would publish my letter to the editor. Unfortunately, they didn't publish it.
2) "Lott first gained fame in the 1990s for his claim that the passage of laws allowing for the concealed carry of handguns causes levels of violent crime to drop -- a claim that has since been debunked."Again, among peer-reviewed academic studies by criminologists and economists, 18 find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, 10 claim no effect, and just one claims one type of crime increases slightly [a slightly out of date list is available here and the new totals are discussed here].
3)"Lott has since been convincingly alleged to have fabricated data to claim that 98 percent of defensive gun uses don't involve the firing of a weapon."I may have been "alleged to have fabricated data," but this ignores the statements by those who say that they took my survey, the replication of the survey, and the differences between my survey and those of others. In addition, where I have referenced this survey the data was biased against the claim that I was making. I argued that the simple defensive brandishing or warning shots are not news worthy. The higher the rate of defensive brandishing or warning shots, the easier it is to explain why the media is not biased when it doesn't cover most defensive gun uses. If I wanted to show that the media was more biased, I should have used the surveys with lower defensive brandishing rates. But ultimately the point of science is replication, and, as just noted, the results were replicated.
4a) "cited data that doesn't exist to claim that the end of the assault weapons ban reduced murders"Here is what I wrote in the LA Times: "Well, more than nine months have passed and the first crime numbers are in. Last week, the FBI announced that the number of murders nationwide fell by 3.6% last year, the first drop since 1999. The trend was consistent; murders kept on declining after the assault weapons ban ended."
4b) From Media Matters' 2005 hit piece on my op-ed in the Los Angeles Times that the current piece links to: "The FBI will not release state-by-state and month-by-month UCR data for 2004 until fall 2005, as part of its final report "Crime in the United States, 2004" (the bureau has released previous years' reports in late October)."Media Matters may not understand this, but the FBI's UCR had already released an estimate on what different violent crime rates were for the first half of 2004. Thus it was possible to compare the number of crimes for the entire year to those over the first half of the year and tease out the number of crimes in both the first six months and last six months of 2004. If there was any substantial change in crimes during the last 3.5 months of 2004, it would presumably show up in the estimate for the last six months of that year. Finally, in addition, I had called up a person who I had gotten data from in the past at the FBI and asked them whether violent crime rates had fallen in the last quarter of 2004 and I had been told "yes."
5) "altered blog posts after the fact to eliminate false claims for which he had been criticized"Media Matters is well-known to publish doctored photos (see here for an example). My pages are regularly backed up by other sites.
Harvard University professor Alan Dershowitz alleged Friday that Media Matters has "crossed the line into anti-semitism" by tolerating an employee who uses charged language to criticize supporters of Israel.
Dershowitz, a liberal Democrat who is a staunch supporter of Israel, first started speaking out against the liberal media watchdog group last month. He went further in an interview on Fox News, saying Friday that Media Matters has crossed the line into "bigotry." . . .
Dershowitz called on Media Matters to fire Rosenberg, but also called on the White House to disassociate itself from Media Matters -- warning that their cozy relationship would cause problems in the 2012 reelection campaign.
"The president should do to Media Matters what he did to Jeremiah Wright -- totally disassociate, rebuke and say 'I stand with Israel,'" he said. . . .
In a somewhat ominous and psychologically violent use of language, he described himself as a “right-wing hit man.” . . .
when his book "The Seduction of Hillary Rodham" wasn’t embraced by politicians on the right, Brock grew bitter. He then recanted a great deal of what he had written about the Clintons, exposed one of his confidential sources (despite this being journalistically unethical) and began to cultivate a left-wing following. . . . .
Indeed, even as a young man, Brock was so needy of attention—so desperate for regard from an audience (and perhaps any audience)—that he admits, "I demonized my enemies on the staff..." at his college newspaper while he was a student at Berkeley. . . . .
Any psychiatrist will tell you, however, that a person who holds two diametrically opposed views of the world, who speaks of himself as a hit man, who encourages a “war” on a group of journalists (in this case, Fox News), who has by his own admission been a drug user, who has been delusional and who reportedly is playing with guns and thinks there are assassins out to get him...needs some help. . . . .
David, say it isn't so!
The news from the Daily Caller website is surprising: David Brock, the founder of Media Matters, had a personal assistant illegally publicly carry a concealed handgun in the District of Columbia in order "to protect Brock from threats.” Few organizations have declared their opposition to gun ownership or concealed carry laws as strongly as Media Matters.
The group's opposition to guns has largely been a “scorched earth” approach, demonizing supporters of gun ownership and concealed handgun laws.
According to Media Matters, laws letting law-abiding citizens carry concealed handguns for protection are "dangerous." They assert these citizens "endanger" police officers and "compromise public safety." And derisively refer to the “cult of victimhood,” where crime victims and defensive gun uses are pointed at to justify gun ownership. They claim that it is a “myth” that concealed handguns reduce crime and label those who disagree “extremist”. . . .
The report cited a September 2009 document from Media Matters contributor Karl Frisch to Media Matters bosses David Brock and Eric Burns.
It's unclear to what extent the organization, a 501(c)3 tax-exempt nonprofit group, followed through on the detailed suggestions, but they would appear to comport with Brock's early 2011 announcement that he planned to prosecute a "war on Fox."
The tactics floated by Frisch were likened to a "presidential-style campaign," one which he hoped would "discredit and embarrass the network."
He suggested hiring "trackers" to "stake out" events with Fox News employees, sending "anti-Fox News literature" to employees' homes and even convincing director Michael Moore to make a documentary about the network. Frisch also suggested establishing a "front group" of shareholders to target parent company News Corporation.
At least one of the ideas appears to have come to fruition -- a suggestion that Media Matters publish an anti-Fox News book under Brock's name. "The Fox Effect," co-written by Brock and the Media Matters organization, is due for release next week. . . .
“Brock, the head of the liberal nonprofit Media Matters for America, had told friends and co-workers that he feared he was in imminent danger from right-wing assassins and needed a security team to keep him safe.”. . .
By 2010, Brock’s personal assistant, a man named Haydn Price-Morris, was carrying a holstered and concealed Glock handgun when he accompanied Brock to events, including events in Washington, D.C., a city with famously restrictive gun laws. Price-Morris told others he carried the gun to protect Brock from threats.
Late in 2010, other Media Matters employees learned about Price-Morris’s gun, and he was fired due to their objections. No public announcement was made.
According to one source with knowledge of what happened next, Brock was “terrified” that news of the gun would leak. “George Soros and a lot of groups connected to gun control are funding this group, and they wouldn’t be too happy that an employee of Media Matters was carrying a gun, especially when it was illegal in D.C.”
The head of Media Matters for America -- now out coordinating a new super PAC to help President Obama get reelected -- is operating his nonprofit organization in close coordination with the Obama White House, a new investigative report out Monday says.
David Brock, according to the Daily Caller, has collected a $250,000 annual salary for his work at MMFA, which includes daily screeds against Fox News Channel and other media outlets that allow conservative perspectives in their reporting.
Brock's group, founded in 2004, is spending $20 million this year in a campaign to influence news coverage that sheds a positive image on the current administration as well as progressives and lawmakers in Congress.
And the campaign is going well, according to a former employee who told the DC that "virtually all the mainstream media" has used Media Matters' research.
"We were pretty much writing their prime time," the ex-employee was quoted saying of MSNBC.
Brock is also the head of American Bridge 21st Century, the political action committee that he has boasted would become a rival to Karl Rove's American Crossroads GPS. . . . .
But much more importantly, Buffett's claim ignores why the capital gains and dividend tax rates are set at the level they are: corporate income has already been taxed once when the company earned it. In the United States the combined federal and state corporate tax rate is 40 percent, the highest rate in the world.
So let's take a simple example. Suppose Warren Buffet invests his money in a company and that company earns $1. The company pays 40 cents in income taxes. If the remaining 60 cents is paid as a dividend, the 15 percent dividend tax rate leaves the stockholder with 51 cents, for a combined effective tax rate of 49 percent. The analysis is the same if the company keeps the money, raising the value of the company stock, and creating a capital gain. The rate would be higher if there is a state income tax. . . .
MR. CARNEY: Mr. Hoffa speaks for himself. He speaks for the labor movement, the AFL-CIO. The President speaks for himself. I speak for the President.
What the President was glad to do yesterday was have the opportunity to present his views on the importance of working Americans and on the importance of taking measures to help working Americans --
Q Okay, so the precedent --
MR. CARNEY: -- to create jobs and grow the economy.
Q So the precedent you’re setting right now for the 2012 election is, the candidate -- the Republican candidates are the ones that we need to pay attention to, and those who introduce them at rallies, their surrogates -- you don’t have to pay attention to anything that they say.
MR. CARNEY: Jake, I really -- I think I’ve said what I can say about this.
Q I just -- is that the standard now?
MR. CARNEY: You can report it as you --
Q I’d rather not have to do this Washington Kabuki every time something happens --
MR. CARNEY: It’s up to you to do the Kabuki --
Q -- but if that’s the standard -- if that’s the standard, then --
MR. CARNEY: The standard is, we should focus on the actions we can take to grow the economy and create jobs, instead of focusing on Kabuki theater.
Q Did the President find the comments appropriate?
MR. CARNEY: Can we move on?
HOFFA: Everybody here's got to vote. If we go back and keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son of a bitches out and give America back to America where we belong! Thank you very much!
. . . But the statements today by Jimmy Hoffa Jr and Vice President Joe Biden demean the presidency and, tactically speaking, are stupid own goals.
Hoffa, the Teamsters president, was warming up a Detroit crowd when he said: “President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son of a bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.”
Biden, whose mouth has long been a liability for Obama, was at an AFL-CIO rally when he told union members: “You are the only folks keeping the barbarians from the gates…the other side has declared war on labour’s house.”
These comments were not nearly as bad as the statement last week by Congressman Andre Carson last week that members of the Tea Party want black people “hanging from a tree”. Let’s not get too sanctimonious here – they’re fairly common sentiments behind the scenes on both sides of the political divide.
The difference, of course, is that they were uttered publicly by someone chosen by the White House to introduce Obama and by the sitting vice-president at a time when Obama is calling for a bipartisan coming together to tackle the economy. To add to their foolishness, they follow on from Obama’s sensible call in January for “civility” in public discourse and for people to talk “in a way that heals, not a way that wounds”.
Hoffa’s comments were much worse than Biden’s, though the vice-president’s demeanour suggests he could be a liability on the campaign trail (I’d wager there’s a campaign plan for him to be used only in “rev up the base” type events). Put together, they are embarrassing enough to require an apology from Obama. . . .
Aaron Fielding quietly stalks his prey - Republicans - with his video camera, patiently waiting for a political moment worthy of YouTube.
At 27, he is a full-time "tracker" for American Bridge 21st Century, a new Democratic organization that aims to record every handshake, every utterance by Republican candidates in 2011 and 2012, looking for gotcha moments that could derail political ambitions or provide fodder for television advertisements by liberal groups next year. . . .
Since they began work in 2004, however, the watchdog spirit of the group's founding has turned into an outright assault on its political opponents. That means they delight in attacking anyone with a conservative point of view on radio or TV. In fact, they have now announced they are engaged in a “war” against Fox News Channel and anyone who appears on their airwaves. They have also admitted to engaging in a despicable campaign to dig up dirt on Fox News executives and producers in an attempt to do personal damage to people who are guilty of offering the public political perspectives they find disagreeable.
That means they have targeted me. Yes, I am paid by Fox News to do political analysis. It is also true that on most issues I am left of center – what most on the far right call a liberal. And I go to political battle over ideas and policies by offering my views, hearing other viewpoints and often challenging conservative arguments on Fox.
Yet, apparently as part of their assault on Fox and its employees, Media Matters has targeted me for years for making what they smugly and fatuously call “false claims.” They cheered as I was fired from National Public Radio last October and praised NPR’s management for their courage. Their only complaint was that NPR did not also fire my friend and Fox News colleague Mara Liasson, at the same time. . . .
Brock was compelling in arguing that he would like to see the Democratic Party develop a different, more inclusive message for the 2012 election, recognizing that the Party in large part, had failed in 2010 because they did not present a positive and affirmative case to the electorate-- an argument that I could only agree with.
Brock also made clear that he saw his mission to try to the best of his ability to counteract Republican fundraising efforts, that had frankly exceeded in substance and sophistication, those of the Democrats. . . .
Brock also made it clear to me that his focus was on the party, and providing and creating a level playing field for it and its advocates, rather than positioning himself as exclusively or even primarily as a media critic. . . .
Napolitano: I don't need to go to the court house and ask for a permit to exercise my free speech rights. What is gained by my going to city hall or the court house as the case may be in different places in America to get a permit to exercise my second amendment rights?
Lott: Well, I guess that those are the cases that are going to have to be coming down from the courts. The Supreme Court has only dealt with the very simple issue right now of whether a complete ban is constitutional or not. Can they ban an entire category of guns? But we see that some places require fees, large fees for getting guns. Some places require training. So there is a whole set of other issue. How much can they 'infringe'? How costly can they make it for people to be able to get guns?
Napolitano: Should people be able to walk around with guns on their hips or under their jackets everywhere in the United States?
Lott: Well, we pretty much do that now. We have 48 states that to one degree or another allow citizens to be able to carry concealed handguns. We have 5 states now that people don't even have to have a permit to be able to do that. And the evidence is pretty consistent. Some states have had this for 90 years.
BERLANGGANAN VIA EMAIL
