(1700 words)

It is generally excepted that the standard methods of lying are:

  • Contradicting the truth.
  • Omitting parts of the truth.
  • Telling the truth

The first is by far the easiest. Even a child (or judge) can do it. “Jill, did you eat the blueberries?” “No daddy!” she responds with her face covered in blueberry juices.

Omitting part of the truth happens in things like the Second Amendment is [not] a regulatory straightjacketNew York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. V. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022) This citation is used in almost all infringement cases, but read it in full, in context.

To be clear, analogical reasoning under the Second Amendment is neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank check. On the one hand, courts should not “uphold every modern law that remotely resembles a historical analogue,” because doing so “risk[s] endorsing outliers that our ancestors would never have accepted.” Drummond v. Robinson, 9 F. 4th 217, 226 (CA3 2021). On the other hand, analogical reasoning requires only that the government identify a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin. So even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.

The fuller quote shows that this is a balanced statement. The state can try to get close, it is up to the court to determine if they are close enough. The courts are limited because this is not a “blank check”.

The third method is the hardest yet the most successful method. When you tell the absolute truth in such away that you are not believed or such that people jump to conclusions that are not the truth.

The other day, I was driving home with my wife. She started to open a protein bar. I asked her to put it away because it would spoil her lunch. She happily did so because we were approaching the city and some of her favorite restaurants are there. I asked her, “You like Five Guys, don’t you?” she replied in the positive. “Five Guys is much better than a protein bar.” “Yeah…”

We were pulling into one of her favorite restaurants before she realized that we were not going to Five Guys.

She accused me of lying to her. I made her replay the conversation, at which point she realized that I had never said we were going to Five Guys. I had asked her questions that let her easily assume that was where we were going.

A Master Class in Lying and Misleading, from NJ.com

Since the Supreme Court severely limited a state’s rights to control guns in the Bruen decision in June 2022, gun-rights advocates have tried to erase the restrictions that New Jersey placed on where you can carry a firearm.—Dave D’Alessandro | Star-Ledger Editorial Board, Where guns permits rise, so does the body count: A Q&A with Dr. Daniel Semenza of Rutgers, nj, (last visited Oct. 12, 2023)

This is an example of lying by omission. There is a true statement, “Bruen severely limited a state’s power to control guns” While the state does have rights in regard to the federal government, they have powers over their citizens. They never had the right to control guns, they had the power to control guns.

The second part is the omission, it is true that gun-rights advocates have tried to erase the restrictions New Jersey placed on where you can carry a firearm. They fail to mention that those restrictions were put in place after the Bruen decision. It makes a difference.

These groups are pushing an appeals court to expand the areas in our state where guns are permitted – including youth sports events, parks, bars, and medical offices – as they deem our definition of “sensitive places” to be too broad.—id.

This is an absolutely true statement. And it is a lie. They are attempting to expand the areas where guns are permitted because, in their post Bruen tantrum, New Jersey made most places “sensitive”.

The rationality of expanding concealed carry was examined by scientists at the Gun Violence Research Center at Rutgers, which published its findings in the Journal of Urban Health in August. Its conclusion: It leads to a significant spike in gun deaths.—id.

Omissions again. There is no indication that the “Gun Violence Research Center” is a gun-control group. There is no discussion of how come a gang issue is a leading contributor to death by gun. And there is nothing to indicate what types of deaths these are. Justifiable? Suicide? Or actual murder?

Because we had data on the actual permit numbers from 2010 to 2019 in 11 states, we could look at year-over-year relationships and make some stronger claims that a lot of other studies have been unable to. And the bottom line is, for most of the years in our study, when you had an increase in the number of carry permits, we also saw an increase in the total gun homicides in those counties.—id.

Notice the word homicides. A homicide is any death by other than natural causes. To the average reader, this word is synonymous with “murder.” Yet, the word homicide includes all sorts of other deaths. They might be telling the truth, but they are expressing it in such a way that people just assume “murders”.

It is also important to note that their results come from a sample of 11 states out of 50. Of those 11 states, they only track the numbers in some counties. Why did they pick 2010? Is it the same reason that they start counting the number of victims of terrorists in the US from 2002? The excuse sounds reasonable, but what are the hidden implications?

This lines up with a recent study out of Stanford, which found roughly 30% increase in violent crime and robbery when states introduced right-to-carry laws. Also, we found no evidence that increasing concealed carry permits did anything to reduce the number of shooting deaths, so there was no support for the “defensive” approach that people often cite to support broader concealed carry.—id.
This study investigates the reciprocal county-level relationship between the number of concealed carry weapon (CCW) licenses issued and homicides between 2010 and 2019 in a sample of eleven states. We utilize a random intercept cross-lagged panel model (RI-CLPM) approach accounting for reciprocal effects over time between homicide and concealed carry licenses, providing a robust methodological approach to the study of concealed carry and homicide. The results of the RI-CLPM found that increases in the number of CCWs in 2010–2017 were statistically associated with increases in total gun homicide in 2011–2018. Reciprocally, we found some limited evidence that increases in gun homicide were associated with changes in the number of CCWs issued in subsequent years during the early part of our study period. Far from concealed carry making people safer, our model finds acute safety risks associated with expansion of legal firearm carrying. As the right to carry firearms expands in many states, we emphasize the importance of responsible gun ownership practices, and draw attention to the need to implement preventive laws that keep guns out of the hands of people with prior violent histories and from places where violence risk is amplified.
Richard Stansfield et al., The Relationship between Concealed Carry Licenses and Firearm Homicide in the US: A Reciprocal County-Level Analysis, 100 Journal of Urban Health 657–65 (Aug. 2023)

The text of their paper is behind a $40.00 paywall. I put this abstract here to contrast it with a different abstract:

Our objective in this study was to evaluate how well proxy variables for firearm ownership used in county-level studies measure firearm ownership. We applied Bayesian spatial smoothing methods to calculate county-level estimates of household firearm ownership using Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data (2013–2018). We compared these estimates to four proxies for county-level firearm ownership: the proportion of suicides that were firearm suicides, the average of the proportion of suicides that were firearm suicides and the proportion of homicides that were firearm homicides, gun shops per capita, and federal firearm licenses per capita. U.S. counties for which BRFSS data on household firearm ownership were collected and available for release (n = 304) were included. The median (interquartile range) prevalence of household firearm ownership was 46.6% (37.2%, 56.4%). The per capita rate of federal firearm licenses was most strongly correlated with household firearm ownership (r = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.63, 0.75) followed by the proportion of suicides that were firearm suicides (r = 0.45; 95% CI: 0.36, 0.54). These correlations were stronger among counties with populations of ≥250,000 people. The per capita rate of federal firearm licenses was the best proxy variable for firearm ownership at the county level, however, a better proxy should be identified.—Miriam J. Haviland et al., Assessment of county-level proxy variables for household firearm ownership, 148 Preventive Medicine 106571 (Jul. 2021)

The first thing that I noticed is that they are using methods that I actually understand. That’s not important, I don’t do statistical studies, so most of the jargon is beyond me. What is significant is that even in the abstract, they are giving hard numbers.

This means that you can assess what their words actually represent.

To wrap this up:

Q. How was this study different from others?

A. It was a more comprehensive way to look at the link between concealed carry and homicides over time. People often talk about how correlation is not causation, which is true, and scientists are very cautious when saying anything causes something. But because of the modeling we used, we could ask, “Do concealed carries increase homicides the following year?” Or on the flip side: “Are people just getting more permits and guns because there are more homicides?” We saw some indication that permits increase when homicides are up.

But the majority of what we found was that the more concealed carry permits went up, homicides went up in the following year. Again, this is backed by research from others outside our team. Another recent study from Johns Hopkins found that states saw jumps of about 10% in firearm assaults following adoption of shall-issue carry laws. So in addition to the fact that we didn’t really see any defensive gun-use effect, we concluded that broadening concealed-carry – which might include allowing more concealed-carry in more places – would have a more harmful effect on public safety than doing anything to reduce the risk of shootings through defensive use.
Board, supra


New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. V. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022)
Miriam J. Haviland et al., Assessment of county-level proxy variables for household firearm ownership, 148 Preventive Medicine 106571 (Jul. 2021)
Richard Stansfield et al., The Relationship between Concealed Carry Licenses and Firearm Homicide in the US: A Reciprocal County-Level Analysis, 100 Journal of Urban Health 657–65 (Aug. 2023)
Dave D’Alessandro | Star-Ledger Editorial Board, Where guns permits rise, so does the body count: A Q&A with Dr. Daniel Semenza of Rutgers, nj, (last visited Oct. 12, 2023)
Spread the love

By awa

3 thoughts on “How to lie?”
  1. Until We the People can rid the world of power hungry liberals we will be in this fight. Sad that in liberal blue cities you can kill unborn babies easier than defending your own life…. Sick twisted evil liberals….

  2. …and in the end those study results are irrelevant to whether concealed carry is legal – it’s a right protected by the Constitution.

  3. The bit about picking just a few states, and a few counties in those few states, is an old familiar scam.

    When prof. John Lott published “More guns, less crime” he studied all 50 states. As part of publishing that book he also published the underlying data.

    So “researchers” at some university (CMU?) downloaded that data and started to manipulate it. They deleted 6/7th of the data. Having done so, they “showed” that the data they had at that point made the opposite case that Lott had made, i.e., more guns means more crime. Lott caught them at it and exposed the scam in an appendix to the book’s second edition.

    There are other examples. A notorious one is the claim in 1975 (discussed by Neil Schulman in “Stopping Power”) that “guns in the home are more dangerous than useful to the homeowner and his family who keep them to protect their persons and property”. What they actually studied was a 15 year period in ONE county (Cuyahoga Co. which includes Cleveland OH). And they reported that there were six times as many home fatal gun accidents as burglars killed. Neil Schulman points out, very properly, that this is a morally offensive statement because it means the authors are claiming that the purpose of self defense is to kill the attacker. And in addition, it hides the reality that most defensive gun use does not involve the death of the attacker, or even any shots fired at all. (As I recall, Gary Kleck found that the rate of death of the attacker in defensive gun use situations is about TWO percent.)

Comments are closed.