No new Insider content this week, although if you missed them you should check out my
American League draft recaps and National League draft recaps. No Federal League draft recaps, though, as the league folded in 1915. I held my weekly Klawchat on Thursday.
Sign up for my newsletter!
And now, the links:
- Should pediatricians refuse to treat vaccine refusers? It’s not as easy a question as you might think – and while you (and I) would likely want our kids’ pediatricians to shun patients who might be carriers, there’s a larger social issue at play here.
- Oh, hey, the Republican Presidential nominee is a vaccine denialist. Unlike the author of that post, I am a single-issue voter when it comes to science. I will not vote for a science-denier, period.
- An Australian mum who went from anti-vax to pro-vax calls the vaccine-denier movement a sort of cult. Hard to dispute that, given the deniers’ clinging to false beliefs in the face of undeniable fact.
- Other cult-like behavior from anti-vaxxers: harassing pro-vaccine activists by using sockpuppet social media accounts.
- A reporter in Philadelphia – about 30 miles from me – bought an AR-15 assault rifle in seven minutes. No civilian has any need whatsoever for this kind of gun, yet they are legal and available with little to no restrictions in most states.
- Oakland cops who were supposed to be working to fight sex trafficking themselves raped and trafficked an underaged sex worker. And that’s just the beginning of the accusations of crime and corruption in the Oakland PD.
- My former colleague Bill Simmons gave a great interview to the Boston Globe‘s Chad Finn, who I should mention was one of my earliest supporters in the mainstream sports media, so I enjoyed this Q&A for a lot reasons.
- A first-person account from a gay woman and her mother in Iran, where homosexuality is not just seen as a sin, but a crime, with a third offense punishable by death. And, if you were wondering, here’s a world map showing where being gay is illegal.
- Oklahoma’s extreme right-wing governor and legislature want public schools to teach a pro-life curriculum. I see no way this is permissible under the First Amendment’s “establishment clause,” as teaching that life begins at conception is fundamentally a religious belief, not a scientific one.
- The Brock Turner case highlighted how an entire justice system crafted and run by men fails to serve female victims of sexual assault.
- One woman responded to an unsolicited dick pic by sending her harasser a barrage of pictures of penises and outing him. Of course, Facebook then froze her account for posting nudity. The actual back-and-forth exchange, along with this idiot’s comment that “you’re a girl so you should like it,” is posted here.
- A US Marine who was working as a bouncer at Pulse nightclub in Orlando is credited with saving dozens of lives by keeping his head during the panic on Saturday night. His name, by the way, is Imran Yousuf.
- Jessica Luther, who has done outstanding work covering the Baylor sexual assault epidemic and institutional coverup, writes on espnW about what the 30 for 30 OJ documentary doesn’t say about domestic violence.
- More on Peter Thiel’s vendetta against Gawker and underlying attack on the free press: He’s bankrolled other, largely frivolous lawsuits, including a new one against Gawker over their investigative report on Donald Trump’s hair. Within this article is a note on Shiva Ayyadurai, a crackpot who erroneously claims to have invented email.
- Still think Gawker had it coming? Read the Columbia Journalism Review on how billionaires are using money and intimidation to silence media critics and tell me you’re not concerned about the state of our free press.
- Climate change has claimed its first mammal extinction, as a rodent that lived on a reef island off the coast of Queensland, Australia, has been declared extinct.
- I thought this speech on the Orlando massacre by the Utah Lieutenant Governor was moving, well-written, and, I think, unusually sincere for any speech by a politician.
- Jezebel interviewed a woman who had an abortion at 32 weeks because the fetus was nonviable. Remember that closing abortion clinics – or shooting at them or blowing them up or merely turning your back when others do so – affects a lot of people for a lot of different reasons.
- I found this piece on growing up without the father who left the author when she was seven just heartbreaking from start to finish.
- Basra, Iraq, a city run by Islamist politicians supported by Iran, has a rather remarkable Western-style shopping mall that has become a new cultural hub for the city. Where there is life – and commerce – there is hope.
No civilian needs a blog, trial by jury or due process either but we’ve chosen to amend our Constitution (and interpret it as such) to accommodate these freedoms and guarantees. The focus on “assault” rifles is strange too considering a disproportionate amount of homicides are committed with handguns, not rifles.
I’m unfamiliar with any acts of violence committed by a civilian wielding due process or trial by jury.
The argument against unfettered access to assault rifles is not to reduce individual homicides, but to reduce mass killings in short periods of time. What is the argument in favor of civilian access to such weapons?
A semi-automatic rifle that functions in basically the exact same way that a semi-automatic pistol should not be treated any differently. One trigger pull, one shot. That’s what an AR-15, and pretty much any non-revolver pistol, is capable of. The difference seems to be the AR-15 simply looks scary.
As for why one would want an AR-15 instead of a pistol, the answer is that the AR-15 is just a better gun. More accurate, more reliable, lighter, easier to maintain, and considerably less recoil than any pistol. If I have to defend myself or my family in a moment of crisis, give me the AR-15 every time.
But I’ll ask you the same question: In a moment of crisis, where exactly is the gun? In a safe? A locked box? The AR-15 is a fucking big gun. You’re not sitting on the couch, watching TV, with it in a holster running down your entire leg.
It’s also a much more violent gun than a handgun. An AR-15’s bullet will do more damage to the target than one fired from a handgun. If the goal is defense, this shouldn’t matter. If the goal is to cause death or grievous injury, then the AR-15 would be preferable.
Of course a rifle is more powerful than a handgun. They pretty much all are.
An AR-15 is a weapon of death that I would not fire at someone unless I meant to kill them. That’s what a gun is. In the event that I had to fire a gun at someone, I would want it to be reliable, accurate, light, easy to fire (little recoil), and effective.
Most people who have a gun for home defense don’t keep it on their person at all times. I do not own a gun, but I imagine I would keep it in my bedroom, given the fact that the kind of home invasion I would want to defend myself against typically happens in the night.
Also, that WIRED article just describes the impact of a .223 round on the human body, which would be the same from a “hunting rifle” as it would be from an AR-15. In fact, most of what people call “hunting rifles” are considerably more powerful than an AR-15, which is why the AR-15 is not used for deer hunting.
In regards to your question about how you’re going to access a “fucking big gun” like the AR-15 (which, actually, is NOT a particularly large weapon; they are typically about 30-39 inches in length, depending on the barrel length, type of stock, and whether there is a compensator/flash suppressor (different from a sound suppressor, it should be noted) attached, and generally only weighs about 5.5-8 pounds), there are numerous ways you can easily keep them accessible as a self/home defense weapons. This includes biometric or keyed safes that could be stored near or under your bed or another readily accessible area. There is also a pretty decent cottage industry in making “hidden” yet easily accessed safes within common furniture or walls. So, to summarize, it is just as easy to keep a rifle secured and accessible as a pistol if you don’t mind devoting a small amount more room than a handgun safe would take up.
Among the reasons the AR-15 is a great home defense weapon is because there are versions in several different calibers, including several handgun calibers, which will fire with a good bit more power than out of a pistol (pistol rounds are inherently weak, because they lack significant amounts of gunpowder in the cartridge; the idea of “knockdown” or “stopping” power is fiction, and the easiest way to explain that would be through Newton’s laws. If a round struck with enough power to knock a person down, it would also knock down the firer; very few rounds are actually this powerful, and they all come in weapons that weigh a great deal and are often crew served or vehicle mounted). Rifles are also significantly more accurate than pistols, due to longer barrels, great sight radii (the distance between the rear and front sights) or use of telescopic or electronic sights, and the stability provided by a shoulder fired weapon. Even if you use a .223 Remington/5.56mm round, there are versions that are made to shatter upon hitting anything hard, so they will not penetrate walls, or heavier rounds that are less likely to over-penetrate a human body, thus decreasing the risk of accidental wounds to innocent bystanders.
All this is to say, the adaptability, compactness, and ease of use of the AR-15 patterned rifles (and it should be noted, “AR-15” is actually like “Xerox” or “Kleenex,” a specific brand/marque that has become ubiquitously used to delineate products that function or look similar) make them ideal home defense weapons. The light weight and ability to use shorter stocks, combined with the light recoil from most of the rounds used in the various versions, especially make them appropriate for smaller statured people.
Sorry this was kind of long, and I appreciate that you, unlike many in this debate (on both sides) are willing to actually have a discussion, rather than just shout back and forth about how wrong/evil/anti-American/random insult the other side is.
Patrick, exactly right. We, as a nation, go down the wrong path when one group decides that it knows what is best for other groups.
Right. Good thing we allowed the South to keep their slaves, since they knew what was best for them.
Charles, Patrick: answer the question. Why exactly should civilians have access to purchasing assault rifles?
Does the Republican nominee for President have a problem with women? It certainly seems like it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html?ref=politics&_r=0
Kevin…I believe that not everyone is lily-white and privileged enough to live in a safe neighborhood like me, you, Patrick, and Keith. None of us have any concept of what its like to fear for our safety in our own homes. People in less privileged situations should be able to defend themselves against monsters.
Well, I live five miles from so-called Murder Town. But besides that, what exactly is an assault rifle going to do for home defense? Do you keep one on the coffee table in case there’s a break-in? Do you need the assault rifle, rather than a handgun, because you fear a home invasion by a herd of wildebeest?
Keith,
What, pray tell, do you think an “assault rifle” is?
I don’t think it’s mutually exclusive to be worried about the state of our free press, and specifically billionaires bankrolling lawsuits, and also to think that Gawker acted immorally and illegally and therefore had it coming.
Immorally, sure – that’s entirely subjective. Illegally? They didn’t libel Hogan. I don’t see how they defamed him. They published something private that they shouldn’t have published.
Keith, you live where you live by choice. I’m sure the residents of Murder Town do not have that same luxury. Also, one could keep an AR-15 in the closet.
Would you support the study of outcomes of the availability of semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15, wherein their utility as home protection (self-reports of thwarted crimes, police data of justified shootings by civilians) is compared to the consequences of their misuse (accidental shootings, use in crimes such as, but not limited to, mass shootings)?
Would you tell the thieves or home invaders to just hang on a second while you go get your weapon from the closet? It seems to me that a handgun would be a lot more practical.
Here is an interesting discussion of military, law enforcement, and gun manufacturers (meaning, people who know a lot about firearms) debating which kind of firearm they think is best for home defense. They are pretty evenly split between handguns and AR-15 kinds of rifles, while a few say shotguns are the best option.
http://www.tactical-life.com/tactics/8-experts-pick-their-home-defense-weapon-of-choice/#balf15-hdw-buffoni
While not a fan to frivolous lawsuits silencing the press- an investigative report into the Trump comb over? I don’t like the guy either, but really? When is the investigation into what rope is used to keep the reports away from Hilary?
Weapons designed specifically for war fighting, and their cousins, have no business in the hands of the Public.
I agree that Oklahoma’s measures are both wacky and dangerous, but there is no way a non-activist judge would rule they violate the Establishment Clause. Science really has no answer on when life starts–it depends how you define “human life” and other amorphous concepts–and abortion is not solely a religious cause. I am an atheist–I detest religion–and I probably lean pro-life, although it’s an incredibly difficult issue for me. The prongs of the Lemon test could clearly be met with scientific, philosophical (not religious), and public safety arguments.
I agree that science does not have an answer to that question, but the religious aspect of this initiative is the claim that there is any answer at all. Teaching children “life begins at point X” is already anti-science.
I do not share your disdain for religion, but I don’t want it in public schools, especially not in any part of the science curriculum.
Keith wrote: “The argument against unfettered access to assault rifles is not to reduce individual homicides, but to reduce mass killings in short periods of time. ”
Right, you’re focused on headlines, not reducing gun violence. Mass shootings are rare events. Between 1993 and 2013 “assault” rifles were used in 27% of mass shootings( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/06/16/why-banning-ar-15s-and-other-assault-weapons-wont-stop-mass-shootings/). The Virginia Tech shooting, previously the deadliest mass shooting in the US, was done with hand guns. The Aurora, CO shooter did most of his damage with a shotgun.
Again, the focus on “assault” rifles is silly. The 1994 AWB is a good example, as it defined assault weapons mostly on cosmetic features instead of lethaness.
I don’t care about headlines, but about achievable goals. Saying “I want to end gun violence” is like saying “I want to end world hunger.” Noble goal, with zero chance of achieving it. I’d love to end gun violence, but 1) we will never ban handguns without repealing the 2nd Amendment, which I do not expect to see happen in my lifetime, and 2) many of those homicides would occur with other weapons anyway.
Reducing mass killings, however, is an achievable goal. Banning semiautomatic weapons like the AR-15, which can fire bullets as quickly as you can pump the trigger with your finger, would help. So would improving background checks. So would improving the awful state of mental health treatment in this country. None of those individually will ‘solve’ the problem. All are doable, practically and politically, and all of those together would put a dent in the number of these incidents. “Stopping” mass shootings is a strawman. It won’t happen. It’s not like wiping out smallpox or polio; you’re just trying to reduce, because elimination is infeasible and would be prohibitively expensive if it were feasible.
Never addressed in any policy proposals, by the way, is limiting the number of guns any one individual might own. If self-defense is the goal, you don’t need ten guns. But that seems to be a total non-starter politically.
Would you ban semiautomatic handguns as well as semiautomatic rifles?
Also, were you to “ban” semiautomatic weapons, what would the punishment be for the possession of the millions of semiautomatic weapons currently held in private hands? Jail? Do we need more people in jail? Do we need more police involvement in the lives of private citizens, particularly in urban areas? You’re asking for Drug War, Part II if you want to turn semiautomatic weapons into contraband.
Keith’s point is that stopping mass shootings would be a very good first step, while stopping all shootings is aspirational.
I’m less charitable. Anyone who thinks the status quo is ok, much less good, much less what people who just overthrew an oppressive colonial army when no standing army much less police forces existed, needs to pause and think. Did the framers want their republic to facilitate citizens killing fellow citizens in a frequency and fashion wholly disconnected from every single other developed country?
If you think the answer is yes, then fine. Hell, the framers also thought everyone but straight white men were lesser beings. You might be happier, though, moving to the middle east.
Another great policy would be to tighten our immigration policies to the point where we are admitting many fewer people from countries with wildly backwards cultures. Right, Keith?
Well white people are the most barbaric people on the planet and have been for over half a millennium, so I don’t know what increasingly restrictive immigration policies would do to prevent them from sucking the life out of the US.
*at least over half a millennium.
I love that people accept as fact having a gun in their house makes things safer. No-one wants a home invasion, but a gun in a house is more likely to be used on someone who lives in that house than on a non-resident. If one prefers to increase the danger to one’s family in order to make oneself feel better, have it it, gents. But it’s a damned selfish choice to make.
+1
If I may say so, Keith, that’s a pretty damned lazy excuse for not giving the Federal League its due.
I was going to do an Ogie Oglithorpe joke when I saw “Federal League”. I know, wrong Federal League.
“Oh this young man has had a very trying rookie season, with the litigation, the notoriety, his subsequent deportation to Canada and that country’s refusal to accept him, well, I guess that’s more than most 21-year-olds can handle… Ogie Ogilthorpe! “
While there is certainly an aesthetic component (i.e. it looks tough, military, etc.) to AR-15s, I think a lot of the popularity comes from thinking of the AR-15 as a “platform” instead of a “rifle”.
The reason I say this is, although I don’t own one myself, I know several people who do. Just about all of them built their own version. Although the .223 caliber is the most common, you can build an AR-15 in anything from .22LR to a large caliber (e.g. .308).
There are so many companies which manufacture interchangeable parts, you can customize the rifle to suit your needs (many people do use them for hunting – mostly varmint hunting). Caliber, trigger, sights/scopes, uppers, lowers, stocks, forearms, lights, grips, and magazines are available in various forms and sizes. In my limited experience, the flexibility is the main draw of the rifle. From a purchasing perspective, the lower is considered the “gun” and requires a NICS check (or FID if you live here in NJ) to purchase.
While I understand the public perception, they are at their most basic just semi-automatic rifles. You can argue they should ban semi-automatic rifles (or all guns – depending on your POV), but they may make better progress fighting for severely limited or even fixed magazines.
You know what I designed from a platform? My own Red Sox hat. It’s garish. No two ways. I’m also confident there is no societal benefit to banning creating one’s own design of New Era 59Fifty caps. Because they neither hurt nor kill.
Anyone who confuses “platform” for “rifle” shouldn’t be allowed to vote, drive a car, or frankly, light a bonfire. If one wants a bespoke suit, a custom jersey, or to–as the kids said–pimp their ride, great. But anyone who thinks “I can customize this assault rifle, therefore any other characteristics of this product are moot” presents a compelling case for retroactive birth control.
At what point did I state it was not a rifle?
There seems to be a larger question from non-gun owners as to why people are drawn to AR-15s vs. other kinds of rifles (including other semi-automatics). My only aim with that comment was to provide a reason people tend to purchase them.
I have no issue if you disagree, but this is one of the few places where commenters seem to disagree without having to resort to JV-level sarcasm.
Personally, I have no issue with increased gun control. As a resident of NJ, I’m already subjected to many limitations no imposed by other states such as mental health background checks, fingerprinting, additional criminal background checks, required Firearms ID Card, handgun purchase permits (one permit per purchase, no more than one purchase allowed in any 30 day window), and magazine capacity restrictions.
Keith wrote: ” don’t care about headlines, but about achievable goals. Saying “I want to end gun violence” is like saying “I want to end world hunger.” ‘
It’s a good thing I never said I wanted to end gun violence. I said I wanted to reduce it.
Keith wrote: “Reducing mass killings, however, is an achievable goal. Banning semiautomatic weapons like the AR-15, which can fire bullets as quickly as you can pump the trigger with your finger, would help.”
So can semi-automatic handguns, which as I already mentioned, are used much more often in mass shootings than “assault” rifles. Also you keep using a term which is vague and has no commonly accepted meaning. Typically it’s casually thrown around by gun control advocates, and in the past it’s been mostly defined to cosmetic features, not how lethal the gun is.
Keith wrote: “Never addressed in any policy proposals, by the way, is limiting the number of guns any one individual might own. If self-defense is the goal, you don’t need ten guns. But that seems to be a total non-starter politically.”
Probably because it’s unconstitutional for starters. Otherwise would it reduce gun violence?
It’s interesting that you know better what the Constitution says than, say SCOTUS, which has not ruled on several of these issues.
For example, the Second Amendment could easily be read as authorizing a person to own one gun, since a militiaman can only use one at a time.
I’m with CB. I don’t see anything that would indicate that a rule limiting guns per person is or is not Constitutional. I merely said it was politically infeasible because it would garner substantial opposition, but I don’t think it is accurate to call it unconstitutional prima facie, unless there’s a SCOTUS ruling I don’t know about (entirely possible).
I apologize – I was not referring to you with the “end world hunger” analogy, but was merely trying to demonstrate why I advocate a policy change that, as you said, would not ‘solve’ the entire problem.
CB wrote: “For example, the Second Amendment could easily be read as authorizing a person to own one gun, since a militiaman can only use one at a time.”
DC v. Heller spoke to the limitations in their ruling on the Second Amendment with respect to the petition, none of which addressed the number of firearms an individual could not be allowed to own or carry. Nor did Heller speak to the number of arms a member of the militia was expected to carry.
Obviously the more one knows about guns the more a specific limitation will seem arbitrary, as everything about the product category exists in minute gradations. Such is the case with just about any law or regulation, though (“…wait, you mean I can do A but I can’t do B? Ridiculous!”) and as such is not per se an argument against.
Next time I will choose between “as such” and “per se”….
Don’t ban guns, ban Democrats owning guns as 99% of all gun deaths are committed by inner city minorities aka Democrat voters.
That’s delightfully racist, as well as wrong. DOJ data shows about 45% of all murders are committed by non-Latino whites from 1990 to 2008. The FBI’s data on 2013 homicides recorded slightly more homicides committed by whites than by African-Americans.
However, if you really want to wipe out gun violence, or murder in general, your best solution is to ban men. We commit about 90% of the homicides in the US.
Lets bring more of them in: Of your son, daughter or family member is homosexual, they should all support closing the border to people WHO WANT THEM DEAD. This is not like refusing to make a gay cake (and losing your business for it), these people want you in the ground.
Link removed by me. -KL
Breitbart.com? Are we really doing this?
Not on my site we’re not.
And if others can’t keep it civil, they can’t comment here. I’ve banned another commenter today for just that reason (name-calling, specifically). Plenty of you have shown you can have a view diametrically opposed to mine and still present your arguments in intelligent and polite fashion – which I greatly appreciate. I’ll always give you the same courtesy in response. Folks who can’t abide by that simple rule can’t comment here.
Sure, go ahead. Ban people who supply facts that you don’t agree with. The Imam in Britain says “Kill all Gays” and you delete the link, while spamming us with HuffPO and other ridiculous websites that have 10% the viewership of Breitbart.
You should be ashamed of the censorship that is going on here.
Your statistics with this post and the one above remind me of The Onion headline “98% of statistics are made up on the spot”
It was a rhetorical point. However the video of the imam saying to kill all gays is coming from Britain and not a place like Syria so I think this is something that needs to be addressed especially in light of the Orlando Massacre.
As Tom said below, in what way is what that Iman said any different than what Westboro says? One says “Kill all gays”. The other says “It would make God happy if all those gays were killed.” The difference between the two messages is pretty small, if anything.
If that same Imam’s video was on the standard “mainstream media rag” it would be a miracle. This is the stuff that is being covered up, so to find the truth, you have to find the people who are willing to tell it.
These are legitimate articles, regardless of where they arise from.
Are you implying that we should ban Christians because of the rhetoric of the Westboro Baptist Church?
Tom – I’m saying that if any church group whatever is committing most of the terrorist acts in the world on behalf of their religion then I think steps need to be taken. However I don’t think anyone in that group is committing murders while saying Praise Jesus Christ.
My overall point though, is that we shouldn’t discount the video based on who linked to it. You may not like Breitbart or Drudge, but both of those sites mostly link to other articles (well, Drudge more-so). In the same manner, while I despise “The View,” if they played a video of Donald Trump hitting a woman with a closed fist, I wouldn’t be able to simply disregard the incident due to the source who linked to the video.
This is why I disagree with the removal of the link in my post. The link was to a video and not an article, i.e. “commentary.”
You are categorically wrong that Muslims commit most of the terrorist acts in the world. In fact, they are responsible for less than 5%. The single largest source of terrorist acts in Europe, for example, is separatist movements. In the United States, it’s incidents along the Mexican border.
This is what happens when you let Drudge and Breitbart do your thinking for you.
To echo CB’s post, I’ve spent a lot of time in Northern Ireland for work. Until recently, there was a lot of terrorist activity there and there still is to some extent outside the big cities especially near the border with the Republic of Ireland. Sectarianism is alive and well still in certain parts of the world.
I’m not clear how that Imam’s speech is any different than these seven Christian clergymen who celebrated the Orlando shooter for targeting gays. We should deport them, clearly.
Sergey, the trolling is tiresome. It’s time for you to clean up how you’re acting here, or move along. And for everyone’s future reference, Breitbart links are not welcome here.