Psychologist: Psychological Tests Can't Predict Rogue Pilots...

In the aftermath of the GermanWings crash, the reliability of psychological testing is downplayed. Said Dr. Erin Bowen, a behavioral psychologist, in an interview conducted for the Today Show,

"The idea nowadays that a full psychological workup would somehow clue you in to which pilots are going to do things like this, it's fiction."

Yet the Brady and Bloomberg anti-firearms groups continue to insist that psychological evaluations are the magic bullet (forgive the pun) that should determine who should or should not own a firearm. If they can't predict which lawfully-licensed pilots are going to take down an aircraft, then they certainly can't predict which firearms owners are likely to commit crimes with lawfully-owned firearms.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Thank you, Dr. Bowen, for stating what so many of us have known for so long.

Finstein's San Francisco Handgun Ban Effectiveness By The Numbers….

OK. Sen. Feinstein became mayor of San Francisco in 1978 (1978 - 1988) after the assassinations of Harvey Milk and George Moscone; Feinstein, by the way, was the first to come upon Milk's body after he was shot. The murders were carried out by a former police officer using his five shot .38 special duty weapon; he carried 10 extra rounds with him that day (hmmm - maybe this has something to do with her obsession with 10 round limitations?). Surprisingly, even though she traces her gun control obsession back to this event, a five round .38 special is what DiFi carried herself, and that weapon has never made it onto any of the gun ban lists she has compiled while in congress.

After assuming control of the mayor's office, she pushed through the San Francisco handgun ban - something about which she is very proud. After passing the ban, citizens had 90 days to turn in their firearms, so the effect on firearm-related crimes should have been immediate.

But the question is, HOW EFFECTIVE was her handgun ban (which was eventually overturned in 2008)? Following are the raw murder numbers for the years 1978 - 1990 (unfortunately, the numbers from that far back do not tell us how many of these crimes were actually committed using handguns):

1978 - 113

1979 - 108

1980 - 110

1981 - 121

1982 - 106

1983 - data not available 

1984 - data not available

1985 - 85

1986 - 114

1987 - 103

1988 - 92

1989 - data not available

1990 - 102

http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-vs-city/1286828-top-25-cities-violent-crime-rate-9.html

http://www.disastercenter.com/californ/crime/1191.htm

The raw data tell us that he prized handgun ban had little, if an, effect on murder in San Francisco during her tenure as mayor.  In the years from 1990 to the present, murder rates did indeed drop, but they follow the same general pattern as was experienced by the entire nation, so the drop cannot be linked to her handgun ban. Additional study would have to be done to see what effect, if any, her ban had on rates of armed robbery.

In short, her gun bans had little if any effect on crime in San Francisco during her years in the mayor's office.  Likewise, the bans for which she has fought while in congress have proved ineffectual, as the incidence of violent crimes of all sorts have steadily fallen for the last twenty years, while at the same time firearms ownership and carry have dramatically inreased.

That isn't going to stop her from trying to get all of the guns, though.

Anti-gun OK Senator Sends Sheriffs Packing….

On 03/13,2014, KTUL (Tulsa, OK) reported that an unidentified OK state senator ordered - anonymously and through through intermediaries - that 40 sheriffs gathered at the state capitol for their annual meet/greet/lobby needed to disarm themselves in order to remain on capitol property. Apparently the unidentified senator was fine with armed state troopers in the capitol building, but not elected, armed sheriffs.

Now, as far as I can see, there is nothing in Oklahoma law that requires a sheriff - or anyone else, for that matter - to disarm themselves prior to entering the premises of the state capitol.  Nonetheless, this as-of-yet unidentified senator, who swore an oath to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Oklahoma, expressed his/her personal discomfort with the idea of an elected and duly sworn sheriff carrying their duty firearm on said premises and ordered them to either disarm or vacate the premises.

The intermediaries or anyone else who knows the identity of the senator who anonymously sent the message to disarm have the duty to reveal the identity of that senator. 

I can tell you this much: they should not have left. They had a legal right to be there and they were carrying in accordance with OK laws. They are also ELECTED OFFICIALS. They should have gone office to office until they found the guilty senator and placed him/her under arrest for interfering with a law enforcement officer in the exercise of their duties. Like it or not, lobbying is part of the job of a sheriff; there is nothing in any law of any state of which I am aware that says that they must be unarmed while doing so. By leaving they gave this gun grabber exactly what he/she wanted; it was a victory for the antis who would even like to see all but an elite, ideologically sound group of law enforcement officers (evidently the OK State Troopers fit this description) unarmed. 

We don't have keystone cops here in the US like they do in Britain. We have LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS who are charged with keeping the peace and given the means to do so.