This essay and others are available for syndication.
Contact Us for more information.

Florida Will Soon Be a “Constitutional-Carry” State.

Should I and My Fellow Floridians Be Worried? 

Last month, Florida passed House Bill 543, which eliminated the requirement for Floridians to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

RF, my brother-in-law, who is not a DeSantis fan, was not happy about it. “Did you hear what your boy just did?” he asked me.

I hadn’t. He told me.

“That’s scary,” I admitted. I imagined all hell breaking loose when it takes effect on July 2, with people shooting one another in malls, on supermarket checkout lines, in movie theaters, and up and down the entirety of I-95.

Since I had recently done a bit of research on the general effect of gun control laws and found only the weakest evidence that they reduced injuries and deaths, I thought I’d do another, more specific, search. I wanted to find out if the violence increases when citizens are allowed to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

The first thing I discovered is that it’s not easy to study the issue. Like just about everything else today, gun control has become so politicized that the stuff you find when you go scouting – reports, and anecdotal evidence, and summaries of studies – is almost always biased.

One way this happens is with the terminology. In the legal literature, a distinction is made between “shall-issue” states and “may-issue” states. (Shall-issue states are those that allow citizens to carry without permits.) In the political literature, “shall-issue” laws are called “constitutional-carry” (versus “no-permit”). And other sources equate “may-issue” with “right-to-carry.”

Another problem is that some studies are countrywide and statewide, but gun control regulations often vary by smaller jurisdictions (like counties).

But the biggest problem is that there have been so many studies on the subject, from many different perspectives and using different metrics. On top of that, the results of those studies are often misinterpreted.

For example, the idea that “more guns = less violence” originated from a study published in 1997 that compared gun violence to permit-less concealed-carry regulations from 1977 to 1992. The study concluded that “states implementing shall-issue laws saw significant decreases in rates of violent crime, murder, rape, and assault.”

Apparently, this finding did not sit well with gun control advocates, who raised funding for several more studies that found the opposite result: States that legalized permit-less concealed-carry protocols saw increases in gun assaults by 11% to 15%.

Today, those studies are quoted by gun control advocates. But when I looked at them, I noticed the same “trick” you see in studies published by the medical-industrial complex. They quote differences in relative terms, which is misleading. In the case of those 11% to 15% increases, the actual numbers were something like 5.6 assaults for every 100,000 people, versus 4.9 assaults. That sort of difference is statistically meaningless.

More recently, two meta-studies were done of most of the previous studies – one by the National Research Council and one by the US Dept. of Health and Human Services. They both came to the same conclusion: If there is a difference between jurisdictions that have shall-carry versus will-carry regulations, it is too small to draw any definitive conclusions.

That made me feel better. And here’s a second thing that eased my mind: In becoming a shall-carry state, Florida will not be some rogue outlier. It turns out that 25 other states already have shall-carry regulations.

So where does that leave me?

I’m not going to worry about getting caught in a gun fight every time I walk into a 7-Eleven. But I need to remember that anyone anywhere might be packing.

As for gun control regulation? I’m in favor of it. Notwithstanding the data, which I do believe, I’d like to see more, not fewer, requirements. I like the child-protection requirements. I like the cool-down provisions. I also like required gun safety training.

I respect the Second Amendment. Americans have a right to carry guns. But gun control doesn’t negate that right. People also have a right to start businesses, drive cars, operate heavy machinery, and cut hair. And all of those activities require permits and training. (Interesting: In Florida today, it takes 1,200 hours of training to obtain a license to cut hair, 500 hours of training to obtain a massage therapist license, and 240 hours of training to become a licensed manicurist.)

And yes, the bad guys will be able to buy guns without permits and even guns without serial numbers. That won’t prevent the good guys from having guns, too. Everyone will have guns. But if the bad guys get caught carrying illegally, they can be prosecuted. And if they get caught using their guns to commit crimes, they’ll get extra years attached to their sentences.

Continue Reading

American Graffiti 

Directed by George Lucas

Produced by Francis Ford Coppola

Starring Richard Dreyfuss, Ron Howard, Paul Le Mat, Charles Martin Smith, Candy Clark, Mackenzie Phillips, Cindy Williams, Wolfman Jack, and Harrison Ford

Released (US) Aug. 11, 1973

Available on various streaming services, including Netflix and Amazon Prime

I absolutely loved this movie when I first saw it in 1973. I’ve thought about rewatching it a thousand times since then. But I never did. I think I was afraid that I would be disappointed. Like experiencing again the cuisine of the restaurant where, 20 years ago, you enjoyed the best meal of your life.

American Graffiti takes place in California in the mid-1950s. It is a small town coming-of-age story. And a story about America’s coming-of-age about ten years before the era of Vietnam.

I attended middle school and high school from 1963 to 1968. So, my coevals and I were able to experience the happy, halcyon days depicted in this movie and the transition to the Vietnam/counterculture/hippie era, all in a short span of time.

And that is probably why I think of American Graffiti as a coming-of-age movie about America. As compared, for example, to Lolita, another great movie about American culture, but about the previous era, from the end of WWII to the early 1950s.

As you know, I like to think about good movies in terms of verticality and horizontality, with verticality representing how well they capture an era, and horizontality representing how well they present something deep and true about human nature.

In terms of verticality, American Graffiti is a feast of audio and visual reminders of how teenage life was back then –  the drive-in diner, the school dance, the style of dressing, etc. I remembered it as being true to human nature in some meaningful way, too, but I couldn’t remember exactly how.

I got that when I watched it this time. What makes American Graffiti special in terms of horizontality is the way the relationships between the four main characters are depicted. I saw in them all the primary archetypes of teenage boy-ness that I recognized back then: the alpha guy, the beta nerd, the button-down kid, and the thoughtful, promising one that grows up to make something of himself.

But even more than that, I thought the movie nailed the underlying, complicated, invisible-to-others culture that binds together groups of young boys, who are very different from one another, as they move through adolescence by inventing and participating in their own initiation rites to manhood.

American Graffiti doesn’t present itself as important. It presents itself as a nostalgic romp. But when I saw it in 1973, I felt it was more than that. And, having seen it again, after nearly 50 years, I’m happy to say that I have the same opinion.

The movie doesn’t have much of a plot. It’s a series of anecdotes. More than could ever have happened in a single evening in a single town. But they are held together, as so many coming-of-age movies are, by the beautiful and very believable bond connecting the main characters.

It’s believable and it’s beautiful, but it is also deep. Watch it closely and you will see that all the important relationships – and several of the secondary relationships, too – skate across the fun and funny events of that imaginary evening on a very thin sheet of ice over a deep, dark lake. It is that contrast between the brightness of everything that is going on at the surface and the darkness of what is developing underneath that makes American Graffiti, for me – still, after so many years – great.

You can watch the trailer here.

Continue Reading

The COVID Response: What We Got Wrong.

The Impact of Vaccines on Mortality 

A large meta study of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reported by vaccine manufacturers found that the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines did not impact overall mortality.

As reported in the latest issue of the journal iScience, the two vaccines, both based on messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, protected against deaths from COVID-19. But that effect was offset by vaccinated trial participants being more likely to die from cardiovascular problems.

“In the RCTs with the longest possible blinded follow-up, mRNA vaccines had no effect on overall mortality despite protecting against some COVID-19 deaths. On the other hand, the adenovirus-vector vaccines were associated with lower overall mortality,” the researchers said.

The researchers compared the overall deaths in the vaccinated groups with the placebo groups. They also broke deaths down into different categories: those attributed to COVID-19, to cardiovascular problems, to other non-COVID-19 causes, to accidents, and to non-accident, non-COVID-19 causes.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, they found, were associated with lower COVID-19 mortality but higher cardiovascular and non-accident, non-COVID-19 mortality. There was no difference in overall mortality between the vaccinated and the placebo groups.

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine was associated with lower overall mortality and with lower non-COVID-19 mortality, with no effect on COVID-19 mortality. AstraZeneca’s shot, never authorized in the US but cleared in some other countries, performed well against overall mortality and other categories across several trials, except for one trial where slightly more vaccinated people died from non-COVID causes or non-accident, non-COVID-19 causes.

Interesting: The study was published ahead of peer review in 2022, but the authors struggled to find a journal that would accept the paper. Several rejected it without explaining why, causing a delay in publication.

Read more here.

Continue Reading


"Were it not for hypocrisy I’d have no advice to give."
"Were it not for sciolism I’d have no ideas to share."
"Were it not for arrogance, I’d have no ambition."
"Were it not for forgetfulness, I would have no new ideas to write about."