Larry Pratt Columns
Michael A. Bellesiles: Anti-Gun-Nut Of The Century — Part 27
by Larry Pratt
Adding insult to injury, Emory History Professor Michael A.
Bellesiles, author of the totally discredited book Arming America:
The Origins of A National Gun Culture (Knopf, 2000), has been given
a $30,000 National Endowment For The Humanities (N.E.H.) grant by
the Newberry Library in Chicago. That’s right. His scholarship
demolished, his reputation shot full of holes, Bellesiles now has
his snout thrust deeply into the public trough. And guess what he’s
doing with this $30,000 worth of your hard-earned Federal tax
dollars and mine? He’s working on another book about guns! This one
is titled American Gun Laws: The Regulation Of Firearm Use,
1607-2000.
But, you may be thinking, as I have been: “How in the world could
such an award be given to this individual? Who could possibly
justify this expenditure of Federal tax dollars to this person?”
Well, it’s none of our business, really. Or so we were told when we
investigated the awarding of this N.E.H. grant.
In an interview, Jim Grossman, Vice President for Research and
Education at the Newberry Library, explains that Bellesiles was
given his $30,000 grant by a Review Committee and an Awards
Committee. Might we, please, have the names of those on these
committees to ask them why they decided to give this person such a
grant? No, says Grossman. Might we then, please, see a copy of
Bellesiles application for this grant? No, says Grossman, all this
information is “confidential.”
But, how can this information be kept “confidential” since
Bellesiles is being given $30,000 worth of what is called public
money? Well, says Grossman, when the Federal Government (that’s us)
gives them money, “it becomes Newberry funds.”
Still, why keep all this requested information secret? Grossman
says: “Well, if I’m Joe Smith, and I didn’t get a fellowship, and
I’m upset about it, I might call a member of the Review Committee to
complain.” He assures us, however, that the N.E.H., by giving the
Newberry Library this money (our money), has trusted them (the
Library) to award it in a way “that is fair, honest and rigorous.”
But, of course, if the names of those who awarded Bellesiles his
Federal grant are kept secret, we can’t contact and question them,
can we? And, if we can’t contact and question those who are giving
out our Federal tax dollars, we don’t know if they, in fact, did
award this grant in a way that was “fair, honest and rigorous,” do
we? No, we do not.
But, seriously, Grossman is asked: “Why give one of your grants to
Bellesiles, whose scholarship and reputation is under a huge black
cloud when, presumably, there were many applicants whose work is not
in question?”
Grossman: “Our Review Committee, which consists of scholars who are
able to assess the work of other scholars, felt comfortable with the
quality of his existing work. And most of the judgment is also made
on the quality of the proposal itself for the next project.”
Is Grossman kidding? This Committee was “comfortable” with the
“quality” of Bellesiles’ existing work?! How can this possibly be
true when Bellesiles’ existing work — specifically on Arming
America — is, to put it mildly, of an extremely poor quality!
All of which raises an interesting question. Before Bellesiles was
given his $30,000 grant, did he, in any way, have to respond to any
of the devastating criticisms of his book Arming America?
Incredibly, Grossman says: “That’s not part of our process….
There’s no interview in the fellowship process.”
Well, excuse me, but any group who has given Michael A. Bellesiles
any kind of monetary grant without, first, demanding that he prove
that what he wrote in Arming America is true, has not awarded this
grant in a way that is “fair, honest and rigorous.” No way! The
Newberry Library should immediately cancel Bellesiles’ little
excursion on the Federal Gravy Train. And if this isn’t done by the
Library, the N.E.H. should do it — now!
Surprise! Anti-Gun Junk Scientist Defends Anti-Gun Junk Historian
by Larry Pratt
Even though he may be the last human being on earth doing it, it’s
still not exactly a man-bites-dog story to learn that anti-gun
junk-scientist Dr. Arthur Kellermann is defending anti-gun
junk-historian Michael A. Bellesiles, author of Arming America:
The Origins of A National Gun Culture (Knopf, 2000). If ever birds
of the same feather have flocked together, it’s these two
characters.
When the Atlanta Journal And Constitution newspaper (12/18/01) wrote
an editorial noting that Bellesiles “has been accused of shoddy and
perhaps fabricated research,” Kellermann wrote a
letter-to-the-editor (12/27/01) saying “the case against Bellesiles
is thin and clearly driven by individuals outraged that his book
challenges long-cherished beliefs about guns in early American
history.” Kellerman, like Bellesiles, works at Emory University
where he is Director of the Center for Injury Control and Professor
of Emergency Medicine in the Department of Surgery at Emory’s School
of Medicine.
The evidence against Bellesiles is thin?! That’s what the Doc says
– even though, in reality, this evidence is roughly as thick as the
Empire State Building is high. And it’s growing even higher as you
read this.
When interviewed in mid-February, and asked if he still believes the
evidence against Bellesiles is “thin”, Kellermann says: “I think
that there are — you know, basically, what I said is what I said.
But, basically, yes.” He adds that anybody, whether an academic or
not, “is innocent until proven guilty.” Bellesiles, of course, has
now been, for all practical purposes, proven guilty. But, Kellermann
doesn’t get it.
When asked if, for example, he’s read James Lindgren’s scholarly,
detailed and well-documented demolition of Bellesiles’ probate
record data, Kellermann ignores the question saying only that he
does not know Lindgren. He says: “I have enough familiarity with
individuals’ concerns about issues relating to firearms that I take
anybody who goes to great lengths to go after another individual,
particularly on the academic front — I have to have some question
about what their motivation is.” Lindgren, of course, has been
motivated only by a search for truth — a possibility that seems not
to have occurred to Kellermann.
When asked if he read the articles about Bellesiles in the Boston
Globe, Kellermann interrupts saying, testily: “Well, I’ll tell you
what — I don’t use the Boston Globe as my source for a scholarly
critique.” He admits: “I’m not a historian or an expert in probate
records.” He says he does believe that Bellesiles has been “roundly
assailed,” deserves a review, that’s where the issue is, and “I’m
waiting for the jury.”
Kellermann says his “basic thesis” is that Bellesiles has been
“summarily judged” by the Atlanta Journal And Constitution newspaper
that did not do its own independent assessment. But, Kellermann’s
focus is much too narrow. Bellesiles has been judged by numerous
publications and scholars. Their judgment has been anything but a
summary judgment. These critiques have been documented-in-detail.
And they have been devastating.
Hmmmmm. Interesting point, this “review” business. And an
interesting question. So, Kellermann is asked: So, would Emory
really launch an official investigation of Bellesiles’ work if the
evidence against him is “thin?”
Kellermann: “I think that Emory, given the amount of heat that’s
been generated over this book, I think that Emory’s review — and,
again, my understanding is that it was done at Professor Bellesiles’
request.”
Right. Like Bellesiles really wanted this investigation so much that
he requested it. If Kellermann believes this, then, as the saying
goes, we have a bridge in Brooklyn we’d like to sell him. As for the
bit about “heat” being generated regarding Arming America, no, Doc,
it’s the light that’s been shed on his shoddy scholarship that has
caused this autopsy to be conducted.
At one point, Kellermann, amazingly, says, regarding the critiques
of Bellesiles’ work: “I suspend judgment one way or another.” When
reminded that he’s said the evidence against Bellesiles is “thin,”
and this is a judgment, he says: “Okay.” But, he’s says he’s said
this based on what he has seen.
Eventually, Kellermann admits he did read the Boston Globe articles.
So, what does he think about the Globe reporter discovering that
Bellesiles had inserted the words “old” and “broken” into his
characterization of certain old gun records in Vermont when these
words were not in the original records? Long pause. He says he’d
have to go back and re-read these articles. He doesn’t remember
this.
Finally, Kellermann is asked for some specifics. He said in his
letter-to-the-editor that the case against Bellesiles is “clearly
driven by individuals outraged that his book challenges
long-cherished beliefs about guns in early American history.” So,
who, exactly, is he talking about?
Kellermann says, ducking the question: “I think there are people
very happy to see Dr. Bellesiles trashed.”
Q: “Like who?”
A: I don’t feel that I have any need to share any particular
individual’s name.”
Kellermann adds, pathetically, that the criticism of Bellesiles is
“a cautionary note for anybody who wants to do any kind of work on
this issue.” But, this is pure, unadulterated hogwash. The
criticisms of Bellesiles are “a cautionary note” for anybody who
writes a lousy book full of lies and fabricated data!
If Dr. Kellermann Tells You Anything, Especially About Guns,
Get A Second Opinion
by Larry Pratt
Arthur Kellerman is a medical doctor. And, like Michael A.
Bellesiles, author of Arming America, he works at Emory University
where he is Director of the Center for Injury Control and Professor
of Emergency Medicine in the Department of Surgery at Emory’s School
of Medicine.
As noted in a previous column, Kellermann has said, preposterously,
that the evidence questioning Bellesiles’ scholarship is “thin and
clearly driven by individuals outraged that his book challenges
long-cherished beliefs about guns in early American history.” The
implication here is obvious: the movers and shakers behind the
critiques of Bellesiles are pro-gun people.
But, is this true? No, it is not. For example, some of the most
devastating, detailed and scholarly demolitions of Bellesiles work
has been by James Lindgren, a Northwestern University Law Professor
who is an expert on probate records, and who is pro-gun-control.
When, in an interview, it is pointed out to him that on this issue
Lindgren is on his side, Kellermann says, presumably with a straight
face: “How do you know what my side is?”
Q: “You are not for gun control?”
A: “I’ll tell you what: I’m anti-gun-injury.”
But, Kellermann speaks with a forked-tongue. He is one of the most
rabid anti-gun nuts around. And, like Bellesiles, he has played fast
and loose with the truth, and statistics, to try and make his case
against firearms as a means of personal self-defense.
Kellermann is best-known for a 1986 article in which he came up with
the bogus statistic alleging that an individual who keeps a gun in
the home “is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an
intruder.” Over the years, this absurd assertion has been
unquestioningly and mindlessly repeated zillions of times by other
anti-gun nuts.
But, like Bellesiles’ book Arming America, the methodology used by
Kellermann to come up with his “43 times” fallacy, has also been
shredded by those who, unlike Kellermann, know what they are talking
about. Here, as just one example, is some of what David K. Felbeck,
Director of the Michigan Coalition For Responsible Gun Owners, has
said about Kellermann’s flawed methodology:
“The “43 times” claim was based upon a small-scale study of firearms
deaths in King County, Washington (Seattle and Bellevue) covering
the period 1978-83. The authors (Kellermann and Donald Reay) state:
“‘Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which
burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or
display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have
purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not
identified…. A complete determination of firearm risks versus
benefits would require that these figures be known.’
“Having said this, these authors proceed anyway to exclude those
same instances where a potential criminal was not killed but was
thwarted. How many successful self-defense events do not result in
death of the criminal? An analysis by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz
(Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v. 86 n.1 [Fall 1995]) of
successful defensive uses of firearms against criminal attack
concluded that the criminal is killed in only one case in
approximately every one thousand attacks.
“If this same ratio is applied to defensive uses in the home, then
Kellermann’s ’43 times’ is off by a factor of a thousand and should
be at least as small as 0.043, not 43. Any evaluation of the
effectiveness of firearms as defense against criminal assault should
incorporate every event where a crime is either thwarted or
mitigated; thus Kellermann’s conclusion omits 999 non-lethal
favorable outcomes from criminal attack and counts only the one
event in which the criminal is killed. With woeful disregard for
this vital point, recognized by these authors but then ignored, they
conclude,
“‘The advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection
must be questioned.’ In making this statement the authors have
demonstrated an inexcusable non-scientific bias against the
effectiveness of firearms ownership for self defense. This is junk
science at its worst.
“This vital flaw in Kellermann and Reay’s paper was demonstrated
clearly just six months later, on Dec. 4, 1986 by David Stolinsky
and G. Tim Hagen in the same journal (v. 315 n. 23, p. 1483-84),
yet these letters have been ignored for fourteen years in favor of
the grossly exaggerated figure of the original article. The
continual use of the “43 times” figure by groups opposed to the
defensive use of firearms suggests the appalling weakness of their
argument.
“But there’s more. Included in the “43 times” of Kellermann are 37
suicides, some 86 percent of the alleged total, which have nothing
to do with either crime or defensive uses of firearms. Even
Kellermann and Reay say clearly
“‘… [that] the precise nature of the relation between gun
availability and suicide is unclear.’
“Yet they proceed anyway to include suicides, which comprise the
vast majority of the deaths in this study, in their calculations.
Omitting suicides further reduces the “43 times” number from 0.043
to 0.006.
“‘Reverse causation’ is a significant factor that does not lend
itself to quantitative evaluation, although it surely accounts for
a substantial number of additional homicides in the home. A person,
such as a drug dealer, who is in fear for his life, will be more
likely to have a firearm in his home than will an ordinary person.
“Put another way, if a person fears death he might arm himself and
at the same time be at greater risk of being murdered. Thus
Kellermann’s correlation is strongly skewed away from normal
defensive uses of firearms. His conclusion is thus no more valid
than a finding that because fat people are more likely to have diet
foods in their refrigerators we can conclude that diet foods ’cause’
obesity, or that because so many people die in hospitals we should
conclude that hospitals “cause” premature death. Reverse causation
thus further lowers the 0.006 value, but by an unknown amount.
“In conclusion, if we use Kellermann’s data adjusted for reality, a
firearm kept in a home is at least 167 times more likely to deter
criminal attack than to harm a person in the home. This number is
some 7000 times more positive than the “43 times” negative figure so
often quoted. Should groups and individuals that knowingly
perpetuate a figure that is at least 7000 times too large be given
any credence at all?
“With two million defensive uses of firearms each year, both inside
and outside the home, the value of protection against criminal
assault provided by firearms vastly exceeds any dangers that they
might present.”
As noted at the beginning of this column, Arthur Kellermann is a
medical doctor. But, if this guy says anything get a second opinion.
Under no circumstances take Kellermann’s word, on any subject, at
face value.
Give Zero Tolerance An F
by Larry Pratt
Just when you think you’ve heard it all, that you have already heard
the most idiotic, preposterous and just plain stupid example of
“zero tolerance” in our government-run schools, you realize,
suddenly, that you have not.
As Steve Glink, attorney for the falsely accused explains it, the
trouble started for Patrick Bryant, a student at Palatine High
School in Palatine, Illinois, when, on a parent-teacher night,
“some parent comes up to some teacher and says, basically, that they
heard Patrick has a hit-list in his locker.” The school official who
deals with the police tells the principal about this allegation. The
principal approves a search of Bryant’s locker. No hit-list is
found.
Case closed? You gotta be kidding.
What they found in Bryant’s locker are the following items,
according to the Chicago Tribune (2/6/02): “A doodle of a gun, a
photo of two swords, an essay defending the right to bear arms, and
another writing assignment that mentioned weapons.” Glink, who says
Bryant wants to be a U.S. Marine, says that part of the writings in
his locker answered the question: What did Bryant fear most about
growing old? Answer: “Getting arthritis in my trigger finger.”
Glink says that in addition to searching Bryant’s locker, school
officials also searched the files of the computer he used at school.
There they found that he had visited — horror of horrors! — some
pro-gun, pro-Second Amendment sites. This information was printed
out, says Glink, and presented at Bryant’s “expulsion hearing.”
Bryant’s expulsion hearing?! That’s right. School officials moved to
permanently expel Bryant. Says Glink: “It was unbelievable. The
worst part was the way the school made these assumptions and just
jumped all over this kid with no real evidence! Prior to this time,
not one person — no student, or teacher, or parent, nobody — had
ever complained that they were afraid of this kid, or thought he was
violent, or anything like that.”
Then, to add insult to injury, Palatine High School officials
insisted that Bryant attend, alternatively, the Connections Day
School, a school for students with emotional and behavioral
problems. Glink says that Bryant’s forced attendance at this school
stigmatized the young man, indicating that he might be a little
nuts. He adds that Bryant’s parents were “very upset” over their son
having to go to this school.
But, thank God, Patrick Bryant’s parents were more than merely
upset. They sued. They won. The judge in the case demolished the
pathetic arguments of officials at Palatine High School and the
Palatine Township High School District 211.
The Honorable Nancy J. Arnold, in the Circuit Court of Cook County
concluded, among other things, that there was “insufficient evidence
to support the factual findings by the School District, and that the
decision of the School District to expel Patrick was arbitrary and
capricious…. the judgment and proceedings of the School Board are
quashed.”
To her credit, Judge Arnold systematically took apart the School
District’s preposterous case against young Bryant:
She noted that the School Board was acting under a School Code
provision permitting expulsion for “gross misconduct” or “gross
disobedience.” The School Board’s handbook of school policy defines
these phrases as including “acts which endanger or harm the health,
safety, and welfare of others,” and “behavior in which the student
tries to harass, intimidate, or frighten, directly or indirectly,
any school employee or student.” But, she pointed out, what the
handbook here refers to are acts which endanger others, or behavior
which intimidates others. Thus, “the mere possession of literature
and photographs dealing with weapons does not rise to the level of
an ‘act’ or ‘behavior’ proscribed in the school policy.”
Part of the alleged evidence against Bryant were statements from
what other students supposedly said about Bryant. But, when asked,
school officials admitted these students never saw what they were
summarized as saying, they never signed these statements, never
reviewed, or, in any way, authenticated them! Thus, Judge Arnold
ruled that it was “arbitrary and capricious” to accept such
summaries of student statements as proof of any allegations.
Incredibly, the school psychologist refused to produce her notes
regarding students she interviewed saying she would do this only if
they were subpoenaed! She invoked some Federal law dealing with
mental health and confidentiality. But, Judge Arnold ruled there
were “no grounds” for asserting this privilege, that this law is
irrelevant to the Bryant case.
Judge Arnold says: “There was no proof brought forward of any
specific acts of intimidation by Patrick…. There are no specific
incidents outlined to establish that he committed any acts of
students in school.” And she notes that both Bryant and his accusers
concede in their arguments “that any act by Patrick must have
occurred in school to fall under the purview of the School Code and
give authority to the school to act.”
As things stand now, Patrick Bryant has been allowed to come back to
his school. And his parents may be filing a law suit against the
School Board. But, Attorney Glink says there was “something funny
about this whole deal.” He says the mascot of Palatine High School
is a pirate. And part of the School’s logo is that this pirate is
holding — a sword! Glink says that when this was pointed out at
Bryant’s expulsion hearing, school officials said nothing. He adds:
“When it goes against them, they don’t say anything. You know how
that goes.”
Well, indeed we do. And we know that this insane “zero tolerance”
policy in our government-run schools is never applied in a way that
is more malevolent than when guns — or, in this case, a “doodle” of
a gun — are involved. Never underestimate the fanaticism of the
anti-gun, anti-self-defense, anti-Second Amendment zealots, as this
case proves, with a vengeance.
In Palatine, propaganda and fanaticism have replaced education.