Thursday, October 8, 2015

Another honor killing. What an incredibly nihilistic culture. Coming to the west now. Where is NOW and the women's movement?

Syrian gang rape victim who fled to Germany after her ordeal is stabbed to death 'in honour killing ordered by her own mother because she was seen as unclean after her sex assault' 

  • Victim, named only as Rokstan M, 20, found in a shallow grave on allotment

  • Detectives believe she was stabbed to death by her father and two brothers

  • She fled to Germany two years ago after being raped by three men in Syria

  • Once said: 'My mother and brothers mistreat me and say I deserve to die'

  • Mother denies ordering killing, saying: 'I had nothing to do with her death'

'My family regarded me as unclean': Syrian migrant Rokstan M was allegedly stabbed to death by her father and brothers in the twisted logic she brought disgrace on her family after being gang raped
'My family regarded me as unclean': Syrian migrant Rokstan M was allegedly stabbed to death by her father and brothers in the twisted logic she brought disgrace on her family after being gang raped
A woman whose family branded her 'unclean' after she was gang-raped in her Syrian homeland has been found murdered in Germany – allegedly on the orders of her own mother.
Police believe the victim, named only as Rokstan M, 20, was stabbed to death by her father and brothers in the twisted logic that she had brought disgrace on her family through the sex attack.
Shortly before she was found dead in an allotment garden in the eastern German city of Dessau, she apparently had a premonition of her fate.
Writing on her WhatsApp profile, she said: 'I am awaiting death. But I am too young to die.'
Rokstan had been living in a house for single women before returning to her family a few days before she was murdered and buried in a shallow grave.
The killing has served to pull into sharp focus the cultural gulf between Germans and the more than one million refugees expected to arrive in the country this year.
Rokstan had arrived in Germany two years ago following her ordeal. 
Authorities say she was well integrated into society and worked as a translator for asylum seekers navigating their way through German bureaucracy.
Author Mark Krüger, who employed her to interpret interviews he conducted with refugees for a book he is writing, said: 'Rokstan told me her terrible fate after she had helped me with translations.'

He listened to a tape she made in which she said: 'I was taken by three men. Ever since that time my family have regarded me as unclean. 
'My mother and my brothers mistreat me. They say that I deserve to die.'
Her body was found on Friday in the family's allotment in Dessau. An autopsy showed she had been stabbed several times.
Rokstan's father Hasso
One of Rokstan's brothers
One of Rokstan's brothers
Suspects: Rokstan's father (left) and two brothers (pictured centre and right) are wanted for questioning. The Federal Police believe the father, Hasso, has fled Germany and is now in either Turkey or Syria
Local prosecutor Christian Preissner said: 'There is the suspicion that the act was carried out by persons in her close circle with a culture motive in the background.'
The father and brothers are wanted for questioning but are nowhere to be found. 
The Federal Police believe the father, Hasso, has fled Germany and is now in either Turkey or Syria.
But author Krüger claimed the mother actually ordered the killing and once tried to hire a hit man to carry it out.
'Rokstan heard this from a friend,' he said.
The mother Roda insisted: 'I had nothing to do with her death.' Police have made no arrests in the case so far.

"Obama Admin’s Iran Point Man Promotes Anti-Israel Conspiracy Theories". Obama's jew haters. He has a long history of this from Rev. Wright to Al Sharpton.

Obama Admin’s Iran Point Man Promotes Anti-Israel Conspiracy Theories

Personal posts promote anti-Semitic authors, websites
Alan Eyre /
Alan Eyre / Twitter
A State Department official closely involved in the Obama administration’s Iran push has been promoting publications from anti-Semitic conspiracy sites and other radical websites that demonize American Jewish groups and Israel, according to sources and documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Alan Eyre, the State Department’s Persian-language spokesman and a member of the negotiating delegation that struck a nuclear deal with Iran earlier this year, has in recent months disseminated articles that linked American-Jewish skeptics of the deal to shadowy financial networks, sought to soften the image of Iranian terrorists with American blood on their hands, and linked deal criticism to a vast “neoconservative worldview.”
Eyre described the one article, penned by the anti-Israel conspiracy theorist Stephen Walt, as having an “interesting thesis.”
Insiders who spoke to the Free Beacon about Eyre’s private postings pointed to a pattern of partisanship and called it a sign that key officials at the State Department are biased against the state of Israel. Such criticism has dogged the team Obama since the early days of the administration.
Eyre regularly briefed U.S. officials at the negotiating table and was responsible for proofreading draft texts of the recent Iranian nuclear agreement.
While Eyre has a public Facebook page officially sponsored by the State Department, screenshots taken from his private personal account obtained by the Free Beacon include content that insiders described as concerning.
In one Feb. 13 posting, when Iran talks were at a critical stage, Eyre disseminated a link to an articlepraising Iranian Quds Force Chief Ghassem Suleimani, who is directly responsible for the deaths of Americans abroad.
Image 1
Suleimani, who is listed as a terrorist by the U.S. State Department, will have international sanctions against him waived under the parameters of the nuclear accord.
In another posting from Feb. 5, Eyre links to the website LobeBlog, which is viewed by critics as anti-Israel and regularly attacks neoconservative pundits.”
The article Eyre links to, “Who Are the Billionaires Attacking Obama’s Iran Diplomacy,” attacks opponents of the Iranian deal and insinuates that wealthy Jewish donors are behind this push.
The article puts particular emphasis on the Israel Project (TIP), a non-profit advocacy organization run by Josh Block, a longtime Democrat, and claimed that wealthy Jewish individuals were behind a stealth campaign to kill the deal. TIP is portrayed as playing a crucial role in discrediting the deal and convincing lawmakers to take a stance against it.
The article was penned by a former ThinkProgress blogger, Eli Clifton, who was forced out of the Center for American Progress-backed blog following a scandal in which several writers accused Iran deal critics of being “Israel firsters.”
Image 2
In another posting, Eyre links to an article by Stephen Walt, co-author of the book The Israel Lobby, which has been branded by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as an “anti-Jewish screed.”
Walt lashes out in the piece at neoconservative critics of the Iran deal, writing that “no one should listen to their advice today.”
Eyre linked to the piece with the comment, “interesting thesis.” He then quoted Walt at length, according to a screenshot:
The real problem is that the neoconservative worldview — one that still informs the thinking of many of the groups and individuals who are most vocal in opposing the Iran deal — is fundamentally flawed. Getting Iraq wrong wasn’t just an unfortunate miscalculation, it happened because their theories of world politics were dubious and their understanding of how the world works was goofy.
Image 3
Eyre also appeared to express disappointment online in March, when Sen. Tom Cotton and 46 other Republican lawmakers penned an open letter to Iran opposing the nuclear talks.
Eyre links to a March 9 Washington Post article by Paul Pillar, an Israel critic who backs boycotts of the Jewish state, titled ‘The misguided, condescending letter from Republican senators to Iran.’ He then opined in the post, “Seriously. Can someone write them a letter telling them that the most fundamental duty of Congress is to pass a budget?”
Image 4
At least one of Eyre’s Facebook friends has quibbled with his postings.
When Eyre linked to a Talking Points Memo article claiming that “49 percent of Republicans don’t believe in evolution,” one critic commented: “This post is total crap. Some 300 people were polled, and the polling criteria were, of course, not specified. This outfit has a deserved reputation as a left-leaning, professionally anti-Republican Flak Tank.”
Eyre dismissed that criticism, responding, “If you are going to fact check every incendiary posting I put up, it is going to detract from the sum total of my facebook-derived frivolity.”
In addition to his postings, Eyre has appeared as a keynote speaker at the National Iranian American Council’s Washington, D.C., conference.
The council, which has been accused as serving as a pro-Tehran lobbying shop, has helped the Obama administration disseminate pro-Iran talking points and champion the deal in the public sphere. Its top officials also have insinuated that Jewish lawmakers who oppose the deal have more loyalty to Israel than America.
One senior official at a Washington, D.C., pro-Israel organization expressed disappointment but not surprise at Eyre’s posting.
“The easiest way to explain the State Department’s behavior toward the Middle East is to assume that they don’t like the Israelis very much and they have this romantic fascination with Iran,” the source said. “That’s what you’re seeing here.”
“Of course they can’t admit that out loud, because the American people believe exactly the opposite, so they do it through passive-aggressive Facebook posts and occasional slips of the tongue about how moderate and sophisticated the Iranians are,” the source added.
A State Department spokesman declined to comment on Eyre’s personal postings when contacted by the Free Beacon.
“Alan Eyre is the Department’s Persian Language Spokesperson,” the official said. “In that capacity, he maintains his official page on Facebook here,” the spokesman continued, providing a link to the page.
The Facebook page in question, however, is separate from Eyre’s public-facing personal page referenced by the State Department, which said it had no knowledge of the second page.
“We’re not aware of any such content that you refer to posted on that account,” the official said.
The official did not respond to follow-up requests asking for comment from Eyre on the postings
Adam Kredo   Email Adam | Full Bio | RSS
Adam Kredo is senior writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Formerly an award-winning political reporter for the Washington Jewish Week, where he frequently broke national news, Kredo’s work has been featured in outlets such as the Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and Politico, among others. He lives in Maryland with his comic books. His Twitter handle is @Kredo0. His email address is

A Short History of Leftist Violence. It's also why they want to take your guns...

A Short History of Leftist Violence

By Paul Austin Murphy

Writing in the 1960s, Peter Berger (a Jewish refugee and 'peace activist' from Austria) became involved in a Leftist demo in the United States. He said that
"observing radicals in action, I was repeatedly reminded of the storm troopers that marched through my childhood in Europe".
It wasn’t just these Leftist marches that reminded him of the Nazis, he also said that Leftism (in the 1960s) formed a "constellation that strikingly resembles the common core of Italian and German fascism".
And even in terms of argumentation and rhetoric, the red and brown fascists seemed to merge into one another. Berger wrote:
"There is a near identity between the arguments of [Leftists].... And Mussolini’s polemics for action against theory, against program."
The 1960s
The Nazi Brownshirts and the Italian fascist squadristi (of the 1920s and early 1930s) were a bunch of street thugs who liked nothing better than a scrap. They also liked terrorising what they called the ‘bourgeoisie’ by breaking their windows and beating them up. Large chunks of the Left did similar things in the 1960s and 1970s.
Take the Weathermen, the violent offshoot of the radical activist Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).
The Weathermen had their own ‘Days of Rage’; which were on par with what Brown Shirts did in the 1920s and early 1930s.

When the Weathermen violently disrupted the 1968 Democratic National Convention their motto was: "Enough talk, more action!"
A man named Mark Rudd (part of the SDS at Columbia University) also talked about “direct action” and “raising consciousness”.
Mark Rudd was more honest about violence and riots than, say, the Socialist Workers Party is today (after all, this was the revolutionary 1960s). For example, how do you radicalise youth? Rudd said that in order to "revolutionise youth", there must have "a series of sharp and dangerous conflicts, life and death conflicts".
Another Students for a Democratic Society spokesman, Rennie Davis, said:
"Don’t vote... join us in the streets of America... Build a National Liberation Front for America."

You see, terrorism is just as much a tool of the Revolution as anti-racism, demos, and loudspeakers. So it shouldn’t be a surprise to learn that from September 1969 to May 1970, the aforementioned Rudd (of the SDS) and his coprogressives committed 250 terrorist attacks. That amounted to one bomb every day! In one summer of 1970 there were 20 bombings a week in California alone.
Now take the police, whom a large number of Leftists hate and often want to hurt. (The British Socialist Workers Party sees the police as "an arm of the state".) Rudd said:
"It’s a wonderful feeling to hit a pig. It must be a really wonderful feeling to kill a pig or blow up a building."
Another mate of Rudd, Ted Gold, said that Leftists must "turn New York into Saigon". Now was this out of sympathy for the Vietnamese (or the Vietcong) or simply because the thought of an almighty scrap simply turned him on? Perhaps it was both. Rudd himself was even more honest when he said:
"You f*cking liberals don’t understand what the scene’s about. It’s about power and disruption. The more blood the better."
Britain's own squadristi, Unite Against Fascism (UAF), is also always talks about ‘action’ (or 'mobilisation'). As Mark Rudd said, "organising is just another word for going slow".
Che Guevara
You wonder why students and Leftists love Che Guevara so much. Is it really his politics or the fact that his face makes a saccharine and hip t-shirt?
For a start, Che appeared to be more in love with violence than Revolution. Or was it the case that Revolution was the best way to guarantee him violence and action?
Guevara often wrote about “the enemy”. Guevara himself said that
"hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective and cold-blooded killing machine."
It's also been said that Guevara loved executing the Revolution’s prisoners. For example, while Doing the Revolution in Guatemala, he wrote this to his mother:
"It was all a lot of fun, what with the bombs, speeches and other distractions to break the monotony I was living in." More powerfully, Guevara's actual motto was: "If in doubt, kill him."
Che Guevara killed so many people in his revolutionary career that Humberto Fontova said that he was "a combination of Beria [the Stalinist sadist] and Himmler".
Of course, Guevara killed far fewer people than Stalin. That's simply because Stalin ran a massive state and empire and therefore had far more political power than Guevara. So God knows how many people Guevara would have killed had he had as much power as Stalin. (The same can be said about Trotsky, etc.)
The Black Panthers
The Black Panthers were violent, anti-Semitic, misogynist, racist, militaristic, etc. Yet white middle-class students -- and many others in the US and UK -- have always been titillated by them.
This inverted-racist tradition goes back a long time. It shows itself in the love of black violence and the hatred of -- and opposition to -- “white violence”. As the white philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre put it:
"To shoot down a European is to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy an oppressor and the man he oppresses at the same time."
Malcolm X famously told his fellow blacks to employ "any means necessary" to destroy the “white oppressor”.
What about the Black Panther militarism (resurrected by Public Enemy in the 1980s)? The Black Panthers wore black shirts which included pseudo-fascistic or military ranks and titles. This was, of course, mainly play-acting and peacocking because if the Black Panthers had ever been a real and independent military force, the US military would have destroyed them overnight.
However, because the Black Panthers couldn’t have a conventional war, they settled for robbing banks, killing ‘pigs’ and ‘honkies’, kidnapping judges and children and calling for a separate black state.
Not only was there this Black Panthers fetish for violence, the movement explicitly grew out of fascism.
Marcus Garvey, for example, was the founder of the Back to Africa movement in the first decades of the 20th century. In 1922 he

wrote: "We were the first fascists."
Large sections of the Left also adored the Congolese nationalist Patrice Lumumba simply because he was against the US and represented the “black cause”. He was essentially a fascist and a killer.... though a black one! Thus the Left and the United Nations loved him.
This love of what may be called the black exotic (like the love of the brown exotic Muslim today) took on absurd and silly proportions. You often got white middle-class Leftists falling in love with all things black and sometimes even pretending to be black. In the America of the 1960s, for example, you had a white middle-class guy (John Gregory Jacobs) saying:
"We’re against everything that’s 'good and decent' in honky America."
The New Left of this period sincerely believed, and stated, that every white person was born with "skin privilege" -– and thus innately (or racially) oppressive and evil. This was pure racism, of course. Though racism against whites is fine and dandy because Marxist theory says so.
This obscene guilt-ridden glorification -- thus condescension -- of all things black was often worse than that. One Weatherman claimed that "all white babies are pigs". There’s more. When a Weatherwoman saw a ‘honky’ breast-feeing her baby, she yelled: "You have no right to have that pig male baby." Then this psychotic Weatherwoman advised the white woman to "put [the baby] in the garbage".
Everyone knows that the German National Socialists (Nazis) glorified irrationalism and had a profound political commitment to violence. So now we've seen how these two positions began to be replicated (by International Socialists) from the 1960s onwards.
Both InterNazis and Nazis have also believed in -- and used -- terrorism to advance their various political ends. It may be no surprise, then, that many (or even most) radical Leftist groups (from SWP-UAF to Respect) have supported terrorism. Nowadays that's mainly in the form of Islamic terrorism; though, in the past, it was in the form of the PLO and various Maoist/Leftist terrorist groups. (National Socialists/fascists also supported various terrorist groups in the period from the 1960s to the 1980s.)
Consequently, the most dangerous mistake a person can make is to associate violence and genocidal Leftism exclusively with Stalinism, Maoism, and the Khmer Rouge. It's clear that most of the things which characterised Stalinism -- particularly -- also characterise contemporary Trotskyist and other “progressive” movements. Indeed, in certain respects, even more so!
Note: Much of the factual detail for this piece (specifically about the situation in the United States) was discovered in Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism.
Paul Austin Murphy's blogs can be found at Counter-Jihad: Beyond the EDL and Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy. He's had pieces published in Broadside News, Intellectual Conservative, Liberty GB, New English Review, Faith Freedom, Human Events, etc. 

Got Incompetence? The Federal Gov't Has Misled Public About Milk For Decades. So, it was never settled science! Climate fraud anyone?

Got Incompetence? The Federal Gov't Has Misled Public About Milk For Decades

If you look up "whole milk" in the government's official Dietary Guidelines, it states pretty definitively that people should only drink skim or 1% milk. "If you currently drink whole milk," it says, "gradually switch to lower fat versions."
This is the same advice the government has been issuing for many years. And it's wrong.
Research published in recent years shows that people "might have been better off had they stuck with whole milk," according to a front-page story in the Washington Post on Wednesday. "People who consumed more milk fat had lower incidence of heart disease."
The story goes on to note that the government's push for Americans to eat a high-carb diet "provokes a number of heart disease risk factors."
As the Harvard School of Public Health's Walter Willett put it, the "campaign to reduce fat in the diet has had some pretty disastrous consequences."
The Post goes on to note that this "has raised questions about the scientific foundations of the government's diet advice."
It should.
Based on flimsy evidence, the USDA first started urging people to eat low-fat diets in 1977. As evidence grew that this advice was misguided — at best — it steadfastly refused to change course.
So what we have here is the U.S. government using its power and might to push Americans — quite successfully — to change their eating habits in ways that likely killed many of them.
If a private enterprise had done this, it would face massive class action lawsuits, its executives would be in jail, and its reputation permanently ruined.
But the government simply brushes off its own disasters, and goes right on telling people what they should and shouldn't eat. The public would do well to tell government officials to stay out of the kitchen.

Zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws

Zero correlation between state homicide rate andstate gun laws

By Eugene Volokh October 6

There’s been much talk recently including from President Obama about there being a substantial correlation between state-level gun death rates and state gun laws. Now correlation obviously doesn’t equal causation; there may be lots of other factors that are the true causes of both of the things that are being measured. But if we do look for now at correlation, it seems to me that the key question should focus on state total homicide rates, or perhaps (for reasons I describe below) total intentional homicide plus accidental gun death rates. And it turns out that there is essentially zero correlation between these numbers and state gun laws.
To begin with, here’s why I focus on total homicide, rather than gun homicide or all gun deaths. First, few people care much about whether they are stabbed to death or shot to death. And even if gun restrictions do decrease gun homicides, that effect may well be offset (or more than offset) by an increase in other homicides:
  1. Some killers would kill with knives or other weapons instead of guns.
  2. To the extent that today some attempted killings are stopped by defenders who have guns, those attempts might succeed if the guns become harder enough for defenders to get.
  3. To the extent that today some potential killings (or attempted robberies, rapes, or burglaries that lead to killings) are deterred by attackers’ fear of running into a gun, it might be that fewer will be deterred if guns become harder enough for defenders to get.
If put together these effects mean that tighter gun laws will mean 100 fewer gun homicides in a state but 100 more homicides with knives or other weapons, the net result would hardly be a gun law success.
page1image18408 page1image18568
Now of course you might think this won’t happen, and the 100 fewer gun homicides will be only slightly offset by, say, 20 extra knife homicides. But to determine whether that’s true (to the extent that correlations can determine such things), you’d want to see how gun laws are correlated with total homicides, not with gun homicides. If you’re right that the stronger gun laws will yield this net 80-homicide decline, that should show up in stronger gun laws being correlated with total homicide rates.
Second, suicides are quite different from homicides. Morally speaking, restraining people’s liberty, and in particular their ability to defend themselves, to prevent murder of unwilling victims deaths is quite different from restraining that liberty to prevent others from willingly killing themselves. It is no accident, I think, that the calls for gun restriction are usually specifically tied to murders whether mass killings or the aggregate of individual killings and not to suicides.
Suicide is also likely to be driven by many factors related to culture and the person’s living situation, factors very different from those involved in homicide. The age-adjusted suicide rate among blacks in the U.S., for instance, is less than 40% of the suicide rate among whites, while the homicide rate is much higher for blacks than for whites and that’s just one of many examples.
Beyond that, if you really want to commit suicide (and there’s good reason to think that people who use a gun to try to commit suicide as opposed to, say, pills really do want to commit suicide) but can’t get a gun, it’s not hard to find alternate reliable means of killing yourself. (On the latter point, see the National Academies’ Firearms and Violence report, which concludes, as of 2004, that “Some gun control policies may reduce the number of gun suicides, but they have not yet been shown to reduce the overall risk of suicide in any population.”) And, finally, even if some gun laws could decrease suicide, those would often be very different gun laws than those intended to decrease homicides. For instance, even total handgun bans or sharp restrictions on handgun purchases, which have been urged as means of reducing homicides, would be highly unlikely to affect suicides, which could just as well be committed with shotguns (a la Kurt Cobain or Ernest Hemingway). Same for bans on so-called “assault weapons,” bans on large capacity magazines, restrictions on carrying guns in public, and more.
The careful reader might be asking, “What about accidents?” The substitution effects I describe above (e.g., reduction in gun homicides might be offset by increase in knife homicides) are indeed highly unlikely for accidents, so it makes sense to look at total intentional homicides plus fatal gun accidents. Indeed, that’s what my counts of “homicides” below will refer to below. But if you want to exclude fatal gun accidents, and focus only on intentional homicides, the results are virtually identical, since fatal gun accidents are so much rarer than homicides for instance, in 2012, there were 548 fatal gun accidents but 16,688 homicides, according to CDC’s WISQARS database. (Note that I used an average of three years’ worth of accident data, 2011 to 2013, because
page2image26384 page2image26544
there are very few gun accidents in any given year in most states.)
So, given this, let’s look at how jurisdiction-level homicide rates (i.e., homicides per 100,000 people) correlate with jurisdiction-level gun laws, counting the 50 states and D.C. (I use 2012 Justice Department homicide data, from the Proquest Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2015. I use the 2013 gun law scores and grades from the Brady Campaign, with low scores meaning a low level of gun restrictions and high scores being a high level. And I use an estimate of my own for D.C. based on the Brady Campaign’s criteria, since the Brady list didn’t include D.C.; I think my estimate is if anything an underestimate of D.C.’s tight gun laws, at least as of 2012-13.) I have also run the analysis using the data from the National Journal article that has recently been in the news, and the result is virtually identical.
First, the ten lowest-homicide jurisdictions, again including both intentional homicide and accidental gun deaths:
page3image9304 page3image9464
Homicide rate
Brady score
Brady grade
New Hampshire
Now the ten highest-homicide ones:
Homicide rate
Brady score
Brady grade
South Carolina
And a scatter-plot:
The correlation between the homicide rate and Brady score in all 51 jurisdictions is +.032 (on a scale of -1 to +1), which means that states with more gun restrictions on average have very slightly higher homicide rates, though the tendency is so small as to be essentially zero. (If you omit the fatal gun accident rates, then the correlation would be +.065, which would make the more gun-restricting states look slightly worse; but again, the correlation would be small enough to be essentially zero, given all the other possible sources of variation.) If we use the National Journal data (adding the columns for each state, counting 1 for each dark blue, which refers to broad restrictions, 0.5 for each light blue, which refers to medium restrictions, and 0 for each grey, which refers to no or light restrictions), the results are similar: +0.017 or +0.051 if one omits the fatal gun accident rates. You can also run the correlation yourself on my Excel spreadsheet.
page4image68416 page4image68576

Now of course this doesn’t prove that gun laws have no effect on total homicide rates. Correlation, especially between just two variables, doesn’t show causation.
Perhaps there are other confounding factors (such as demographics, economics, and so on). Perhaps even controlling for those factors, there will be other missing factors that are hard to control for for instance, maybe as the crime rate increases, calls for gun controls increase, so high crime causes more gun restrictions, or maybe calls for more freedom to defend oneself increase, so high crime causes fewer gun restrictions (e.g., liberalized concealed-carry licensing rules). And of course when small changes in the model yield substantial changes in results (e.g., if you calculate the state gun scores differently, the results will likely be different), you know how little you should credit the output. Figuring out the actual effect of government actions, whether gun laws, changed policing rules, drug laws, or anything else, is devilishly difficult.
But since people have been talking about simple two-variable correlations between gun laws and crime, I thought it would be helpful to note this correlation or, rather, absence of correlation.
Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.
page5image12920 page5image13080