Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
Welcome to CaturSaturday, October 17, 2026, shabbos for Jewish cats, and International Raw Milk Cheese Appreciation Day. Here’s a selection of cheeses, some made with unpasteurized milk, photographed in Paris six years ago. I wish this store were close to me in Chicago; I’d go for the goat cheeses on the bottom shelf.
A guy gets a new dog and he can’t wait to show him off to his neighbor, when the neighbor comes over, the guy calls the dog into the house, bragging about how smart the critter is.
The dog quickly comes running and stands looking up at his master, tail wagging furiously, mouth open in classic doggie-smile position, eyes bright with anticipation.
The guy points to the newspaper on the couch and commands, “Fetch!”
Immediately the dog sits down, the tail wagging stops, the doggie-smile disappears; he hangs his head, looks balefully up at his master and says in a whiney voice, “Oy! My tail hurts from wagging so much and that dog food you’re feeding me tastes absolutely terrible. Also I can’t remember the last time you took me out for a walk…”
The neighbor looks puzzled.
“Oh”, explains the dog owner, “he thought I said ‘Kvetch!”
Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the October 17 Wikipedia page.
Oh, and here’s a clay doll a friend found in a thrift store in Asheville, North Carolina. Look familiar? Pure coincidence! It’s made by an artist named Diana Manning, it’s clay, and my friend is going to get it for me!
There’s a Google Doodle today celebrating the WNBA playoffs. Click below to see where it goes:
Da Nooz:
*Another day, another school shooting: this time in Oregon, where a 16-year-old killed four people, including a teacher and three children, and critically wounded two more.
A 16-year-old blasted his way through locked doors into an Oregon elementary school on Thursday, killing three children and a teacher before an armed bystander pursued him inside and shot him dead, the police said.
The suspect, who has not been named, forced his way into Silver Rail Elementary School in Bend, Ore., around 1 p.m., officials said at a news conference on Thursday. Minutes later, officers responding to the scene found three children, aged 5, 8 and 11, and a teacher dead. A 7-year-old and another teacher were critically injured.
The spasm of violence is part of a long string of school shootings that have stricken the nation over the past three decades, leaving deep and lasting scars on communities, and in some cases on the entire country.
“Like so many in our community, I’m struggling to make sense of a loss that feels unimaginable,” Mayor Melanie Kebler of Bend said at the news conference.
The violence unfolded in minutes before the bystander put an end to it.
The police said they first received a call at 12:59 p.m. from a person in a car who said they had been shot at by someone with a long gun. In the moments that followed, dozens of 911 callers told the police a shooter was in the school.
By 1:02 p.m., the school was in lockdown, and police officers were on scene. There, they found the three children and the teacher dead, Chief Mike Krantz of the Bend Police Department said at the news conference.
The chief did not name the victims, the shooter or the bystander who killed him. Gov. Tina Kotek called the bystander a hero and addressed him directly.
If guns were banned, or restricted as severely as they are in Great Britain or Norway, this would happen less often (and we’d have fewer suicides, too). Yes, I know the arguments for guns, with the claim that America is special, and bad people would get guns anyway, but nobody’s tried the experiment. And I bet that the gun that shooter used was obtained legally, like many of the parental guns that kids bring to school. All of this, of course, is in the Constitutionally mandated need for a “well regulated militia.”
*Over at It’s Noon in Israel, Amit Segal intimates that Trump is planning a huge strike on Iran before the midterm elections might, by changing Congress, take away his power to wage war. His piece is called “Something is coming for Tehran.”
It’s Friday, October 16, and on January 3, the members of the new US House of Representatives will walk into their offices. By all signs, several dozen Democrats will move into offices vacated by Republicans routed in the fall. The nearly certain loss of the House, alongside the fairly likely loss of the Senate, will make the president’s life hell. Not only his, perhaps.
U.S. law permits the president to launch military action, but after 60 days approval is required on Capitol Hill. The president, certainly the current one, can continue, but in that case he is exposed to legal risks and especially to budgetary ones. A hostile Congress can block budgets, and America, as is well known, does not fight with only its fingernails.
What can be done in two months that would change the picture? And if the goal is to get ahead of the hostile Congress, is it worth it for Trump, against all odds and analyses, to open a campaign even before then?
A growing buzz has surrounded Washington and Jerusalem in recent days. It is no longer false rumors and speculation. Something is happening. On its face, that runs counter to all logic. The Iranians don’t want to escalate before the elections in Israel, and Trump doesn’t want to escalate before the elections in America. But if you start a campaign at the end of October and then get approval from the still-Republican Congress at the end of December, perhaps that is the way to topple the regime? After all, the Iranians work for the long term, and two months to them is nothing.
Or perhaps the story is a limited, pinpoint event that won’t send fuel prices soaring but will bring a significant achievement that will, hopefully, end the debate over the war’s necessity and results. What could be short and elegant? How do you avoid getting entangled in a third round that ends with no clear decision, at a sensitive time for two politicians whom the polls predict a hard blow, on both sides of the ocean?
I haven’t heard anything elsewhere about this “growing buzz,” which I take to mean that the U.S. is going to take military action against Iran, or get permission from Congress to do so, before the New Year. He’d have to do that pretty soon, because if Congressional approval is needed to escalate or re-start attack on Iran, that will not be forthcoming from a Democratic Congress, which is a real possibility.
*As always on Saturday, I will steal a few items from Nellie Bowles’s news-and-snark column at the Free Press, called this week, “TGIF: The new school of American diplomacy.” Note that Greta has a brand new bag.
→ Greta pops up everywhere now: Greta Thunberg is now in France with the student protesters. I’m actually curious: Who pays for all this? On whose dime does Greta sail all around Europe? It’s an endless Euro Summer. Who is keeping her in keffiyehs? Who is she wearing? The protesters she was there to support, meanwhile, continue to just burn down Paris, including its oldest covered food market, a beautiful place called Marché des Enfants Rouges. (Okay it’s not confirmed who did, but I’m going out on a limb and assuming it’s the roving arsonists lighting their schools on fire.) But back to Greta. How does it work? She just sees stuff on TikTok and her mysterious benefactor is like, “I’m getting you on a sailboat there immediately!” Why? Why must we now listen to Greta explain school funding issues in France? The only thing that makes me believe in a globalist conspiracy is Greta and the fact that she rounds the corner anytime someone switches on a bullhorn. Why have I seen so many portraits of her in so many print magazines? Why was her face on a building in San Francisco looming over me and then she’s on the Gaza flotilla and now she’s in Paris. It actually sounds like a fun party circuit. Could she sell it as a cruise?
→ Churchill to be replaced by an animal, potentially a hedgehog: Following a public survey that drew more than 2.5 million selections, Winston Churchill, Jane Austen, J.M.W. Turner, and Alan Turing will be replaced on British banknotes by the puffin, barn owl, buff-tailed bumblebee, and hedgehog. The hedgehog proved the public’s favorite mammal, receiving 259,665 selections, so it is likely to be the one to dethrone Churchill. The Nazis couldn’t best this man in life, but a glorified porcupine is about to steal his money throne. They can’t pick any national heroes, so they just celebrate little animals. The great man who was Winston Churchill, ousted by a hedgehog. After surviving an armored train ambush, I doubt he expected his downfall to be a two-pound living pincushion.
And one about the odious Francesca Albanese, who won’t go away:
→ Where exactly are Israelis supposed to live? They can’t have vacation homes?: Here is the much-celebrated Francesca Albanese, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, commenting on a story about Israelis literally just buying vacation homes.
Hmm. So Jews are evil no matter where they go, is what you’re saying? An Israeli couple buying a bungalow in Serbia is globalizing apartheid. Got it. These folks want a genocide so bad—sorry, they want to “globalize the intifada”—and they’re getting worse at hiding it. (She deleted it.)
Meanwhile, take a look at the new medieval antisemitism that’s so hot for Halloween. That’s right, it’s witches with Stars of David on them! It’s Dr. Evil, but his ring is now a Jewish star! He wants 100 million shekels! How clever. Modern! I think I’ll go as the Jewish lady who pretended to be Palestinian.
. . . .Co-directed by Fielder and Lance Oppenheim (“Primetime”), “You Can See Everything” is the closest Fielder has come to making a traditional documentary. A thrillingly cringe-tastic interviewer, he blurts out blunt questions like a bungee jumper leaping off a bridge, including asking Holmes’ romantic and business partner Billy Evans, the heir to a San Diego boutique hotel chain, whether it’s possible a woman convicted of fraud might be with him for his money.
At nearly three hours long, “You Can See Everything” won’t bore you for a minute. The hook is right there in the title, Fielder’s challenge to the audience: Here’s how Holmes held up to his scrutiny — do we think she’s telling the truth? But be alert. Fielder remains a trickster. One shot in particular proves you can see everything while being blind to what you’re actually watching.
In the first half of the movie, Holmes and Evans, the father of her two young children, give the small crew complete access to their lives during her last weeks of freedom, including inviting Fielder to sleep in their guest bedroom. It’s an act of “radical transparency,” Evans says. As evidence, there’s a fully nude shot of Evans in the shower, testifying to the intimacy the subjects claim they’re granting the team and the confidence they have that the documentary will make them look great. (Evans also boasts that he’s “excellent” in the sack.)
Holmes maintains both her innocence and her eerie smile, a rictus of empathy. She constantly nods, subliminally snake-charming the listener into a sense of agreement. That assessment might be fair or it might be her reputation making you over-analyze her tics. Doubling down, she even insists she’s never told a lie in her life — a claim that momentarily leaves Fielder at a loss for words.
Yet at times, Holmes really does appear to be sincere. Once she surrenders herself to the Bryan Federal Prison Camp in Texas (where, in an unmentioned coincidence, Epstein collaborator Ghislane Maxwell is also incarcerated), the tone shifts into film noir as Fielder struggles to reconcile Elizabeth Holmes’ dual identities. Is she the sweet-natured scientist, the only version of her he’s ever met, or a femme fatale who may still be running a scam?
. . .But thinking differently is Fielder’s awkward superpower. Sooner or later, all of his projects circle around to his concern that he’s simply wired to be unpleasant. His interactions with Holmes are pure cringe comedy, like when she starts to cry perhaps a bit on cue and he stiffly sputters, “Do you want, like, a tissue?” For the record, he brings her one.
. . . Ultimately, suspicion reigns. “You Can See Everything” is an absorbing study of public presentation and private doubts, a documentary that asks more questions than it answers. I hope Fielder will smile and nod approvingly at me if I say I left the film distrusting him, too, especially Seyfried’s re-staging of a long monologue Holmes delivered in prison where recording devices aren’t allowed. [JAC: Amanda Seyfried played Holmes in a biographical movie.] Can we believe that Holmes really did say, “I’m tired of having other people speak for me,” or was that laugh line written by the master manipulator himself? I’m now as paranoid as he is — and what a pleasure.
Yes, I will be seeing this movie. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a nearly perfect rating from a large sample of both critics and moviegoers (click to go to page):
Americans are becoming more open to socialism, but they have not broadly embraced it. In August, positive impressions of socialism topped 40 percent for the first time since Gallup began tracking that figure in 2010. In contrast, negative views of capitalism have sharply increased.
This leads one to wonder, “What do Americans think that those systems mean?” See second figure below:
In 1948, when Gallup asked Americans to describe their understanding of socialism in their own words, about one-third defined it as government ownership or control; by 2018, just 17 percent defined it that way.
In practice, Americans have varying ideas about what constitutes socialism. Most Americans agree that free health care for all is socialism; more say public schools and libraries, both of which are taxpayer-funded services provided through the government, are not socialism than say that they are.
So how do you explain the changes in definition over time? I’d attribute the increase in “equality” to the Left, which is more socialistic but also more adherent to the concept of equality (or equity). The article says this later on:
A softening view of socialism has gained ground as voters have expressed increasing disenchantment with the political and economic system. About two-thirds of voters in a Times/Siena poll from May said that the system needed major changes or to be torn down entirely, up from 59 percent in October 2024.
And in a reversal from 2024, Democrats are now more likely than Republicans to say they want the system torn down entirely.
Those deeply disillusioned voters were more likely to view socialism positively than voters who said the system just needed to be changed, suggesting that Americans’ deep and growing frustration may be driving some voters to consider socialism.
Fine; let’s see how governance by the Democratic Socialists works out. Do voters know it goes with antisemitism?
Finally,
Not all of the politicians who are described as socialists are affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America, and some of them do not even identify as socialists.
In fact, some of the most well-known democratic socialists are not always thought of that way. Less than two-thirds of Americans identified Senator Bernie Sanders, who ran as a democratic socialist in the 2016 presidential election, as a socialist. Only a small majority used that label for Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York City and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, both of whom are members of the D.S.A.
The question is whether an association with the word “socialism” — whatever it might mean — matters at the ballot box.
When asked if a candidate’s D.S.A. affiliation mattered, just under half of voters in the Times/Siena poll from September said it did not matter either way. Still, voters were about twice as likely to say that they would not vote for a democratic socialist (29 percent) than that they would (14 percent).
Democrats are more likely than independents or Republicans to say they would support a democratic socialist candidate or that it does not matter. But even among Democrats, socialism is at the root of a persistent and heated debate about the future of that party.
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is making threats:
Andrzej: Hili, don’t disturb me right now.
Hili: Well, if I’m disturbing you, I can move out.
In Polish:
Ja: Hili, nie przeszkadzaj mi teraz.
Hili: Jeśli ja ci przeszkadzam, to mogę się wyprowadzić.
From Masih; a final letter from an imprisoned protestor in Iran written shortly before his execution. It is indeed heartbreaking.
“WHY?”
It is very heartbreaking to read this handwriting letter.
That was the last question 25-year-old Majid Nikandish asked the night before the Islamic Republic executed him:
“Tonight, I feel like a little child terrified of an injection. Only one question is on my mind: Why?”
We, the people of Iran, are living in horror. Every day, another execution. Another mother destroyed. Another life stolen.
In his final letter he asked his mother to smile at his funeral.
“I, Majid Nikandish, leave the few belongings I have in prison as keepsakes for my family.
Hello, my dear Mom.
I know you have had a very difficult life. I’m sorry if I wasn’t a good son. Please forgive me. Please don’t be sad. Stay strong, and please be happy at my funeral.
Take care of Mahnaz, Abolfazl, and Razieh.
Tonight, I feel like a little child who is afraid of getting an injection.
There is only one question left in my mind:
WHY?
To my sisters, Mahnaz and Razieh, I love you so much.
To my brother, Abolfazl, I love you so much.
I miss you all.
My final wish is that you take care of one another and stay together, no matter what.”
Why did he have to die? Why was his life stolen? Why must another mother bury her child?
I have no answer for his mother. We have no answer to his brother and sisters.
But let’s ask this question to the leaders of the democratic world:
Why are you silent? Why don’t you stop legitimizing the regime that is hanging innocent protesters every day?
Don’t look away. Don’t leave the people of Iran alone with their executioners.
From Luana; there’s an independent investigation of Jason Arday after Cambridge decided not to go too deeply into the affair:
🚨BREAKING: CAF has commissioned an independent investigation into Cambridge’s appointment of Dr Jason Arday as its youngest ever black professor, amid growing professional disquiet over his academic record, the circumstances of his appointment, the University’s handling of concerns raised about his scholarship and, more recently, the scope and direction of Cambridge’s own inquiry.
The investigation will be chaired by Professor Swaran Preet Singh, Lord Singh of Solihull, a former Commissioner of the Equality and Human Rights Commission who previously led the independent investigation into allegations of discrimination within the Conservative Party.
He will be joined by a distinguished panel comprising Harvard psychologist Professor Steven Pinker, UCL sociologist Professor Alice Sullivan, Cambridge historian Professor Robert Tombs and Labour peer Professor Maurice Glasman.
Award-winning investigative journalist Nick Wallis, whose work helped expose the Post Office Horizon scandal, will lead the investigation with a dedicated research team.
CAF has been contacted by numerous Cambridge academics who are deeply concerned that the University’s own investigation will fail to confront the wider institutional culture in which the Arday affair unfolded.
Whether these concerns are justified is for the independent investigation to determine. But Cambridge is one of the world’s oldest and greatest universities, and what happens to its academic culture has implications for higher education as a whole. So we think it’s worth going the extra mile to make sure the right questions are asked and the right lessons learned.
CAF strongly encourages current and former academics, students and other members of the University community, as well as others with relevant knowledge, to come forward with information.
This might include policy documents, internal correspondence or first-hand accounts concerning Arday’s academic record and appointment, the University’s response to concerns about his scholarship and its treatment of those who raised them, and the operation of institutional policies relating to recruitment, promotion, academic misconduct, research integrity and EDI.
Anyone wishing to contribute can contact the Investigator directly at:
investigator@ardayinvestigation.net
The investigation website provides further guidance on submitting information, including arrangements for particularly sensitive material:
John Oliver makes a very weak argument for allowing trans-identified males to compete in women’s sports. J. K. Rowling replies, but with mixed feelings because Oliver had previously helped her with one of her charities.
Nothing about this feels good, because John Oliver generously gave his time for my charity Lumos and I liked him very much when I met him, but God knows, if you ever need an example of motivated reasoning and confirmation bias, this video’s for you. An undoubtedly intelligent person spouts absolute bullshit to support something he wants to be true, but isn’t.
According to the UN, female athletes have lost nearly 900 medals to trans-identified men competing against them in women’s sporting categories. Girls have been ousted from teams to make way for boys. Women have suffered serious injury playing against trans-identified men (see Payton McNabb, mentioned below).
Again and again I’ve come up against men who argue exactly what Oliver does here, using the very same talking points. With a straight face, the ‘believe the science’ guys will say ‘actually, we don’t yet have enough data to say whether men and boys are stronger and faster than women and girls’. The ‘be kind’ crew can’t see what the issue is. ‘Why are you bothered, it only affects a tiny minority of females?’
To prove to their progressive credentials – and (coincidentally, I’m sure) indemnify themselves against repercussions from cultural elites in the media, academia and publishing who’ve showed themselves more than ready to kick people to the kerb for failing to mouth the approved mantras – people with a lot to lose are currently prepared to make idiots of themselves. They’ll stare unabashedly into a camera and insist that their audiences’ eyeballs are incapable of seeing what’s plain as day, and that there’s something wrong with the great unwashed for believing that girls are being robbed of opportunities and put at physical risk.
If you want to tell the world you’re happy to watch females suffer injury, humiliation and the loss of sporting opportunities to bolster an elitist post-modern ideology embraced by a minute fraction of the world’s population, fair enough; you’re allowed your opinion. But if you’ve just told girls they don’t deserve fair sport, maybe rethink using all too real and common sexual predation against young women as a punchline for your ‘edgy’ closing joke.
And two from Doctor Cobb. Apparently the 30th anniversary edition also had DNA of the wrong chirality (I’m seeing Dawkins speak in Chicago’s Symphony Hall on Sunday). The topic is “Genes and the Meaning of Life.”
Look at this from the link!
Tips to Prepare for Richard Dawkins Events
Attending a Richard Dawkins event is an exciting experience, but it’s important to be prepared. Here are some tips to help you make the most of your Richard Dawkins concert:
Arrive early: To ensure you get a good spot, it’s best to arrive at the venue early. This will give you time to find your seat or secure a prime spot on the floor.
Dress comfortably: Richard Dawkins concerts are known for their high-energy performances, so it’s important to dress comfortably. Opt for clothes and shoes that you can move and dance in.
Stay hydrated: With all the excitement and dancing, it’s easy to forget to stay hydrated. Make sure to bring a water bottle with you to the concert and drink plenty of water throughout the night.
Follow the rules: Each venue may have different rules and restrictions, so it’s important to familiarize yourself with them before attending the concert. This can include restrictions on cameras, bags, or outside food and drinks.
Bring earplugs: While Richard Dawkins concerts are known for their loud music, it’s important to protect your hearing. Consider bringing earplugs to help reduce the risk of hearing damage.
You know a gene is selfish when its DNA twists the wrong way, as demonstrated by the left-handed double-helix proudly adorning the 50th Anniversary Edition of the multimillion copy bestseller on this topic.
What happens to a good guy with a gun who kills another good guy with a gun whom he thinks is the bad guy with a gun?
Is that a legal case or collateral damage?
That’s always been my thought experiment. In the Oregon case, what happens when a second good guy with a gun shows up and sees the first good guy with a gun. How does the second guy know the first guy is a good guy and not the bad guy?
This is my primary concern with open carry. How do you know that a guy walking down the street isn’t a malfactor? Of course, the odds are that he isn’t, since the vast majority of gun owners are not criminals. Still, it’s an issue.
Raw milk cheese: Would the cheese-making and fermentation process kill any pathogens that might be left behind in the raw milk?
Yes, you have to have that clay doll. It’s amazing!
What a horror in Bend. It’s not the kind of place where such a thing is expected, but there are crazies (or evil people) on the loose everywhere. Amazing that a bystander—a father—killed the shooter. And lucky. The police could have shot him, thinking that he, too, was a perpetrator.
Greta Thunberg: Grifts her way from place to place and cause to cause. I wonder if anyone really takes her seriously or if she’s in the news simply because she’s such a clown.
To Francesca Albanese, United Nations Special Rapporteur, even my house in the U.S. must be sitting on occupied territory. What a piece of work she is.
Richard Dawkins concerts! Love to attend one, but who there would wear earplugs? His Creationist fans?
“If guns were banned, or restricted as severely as they are in Great Britain or Norway, this would happen less often [ in the United States ] (and we’d have fewer suicides, too).”
This is just my supposition. Of course gun crimes are much lower in Great Britain and Norway than in the US, but you could respond by saying “it’s different cultures”. But I think the experiment is worth a try. And in fact there have been trials within cultures, and the data offer limited support for my claim.
This is what Grok said when I asked about it. You can reject the “evidence” if you want (the names of sources are also given).
Is there a correlation between banning guns and reduced gun deaths?
Yes, there is a correlation between stricter gun control measures (including certain bans, licensing, purchase restrictions, and storage rules) and lower firearm death rates, though the strength varies by outcome, the policies involved, and study design. Causation is clearer for some effects (especially suicides and youth deaths) than others, and confounders matter.US State-Level EvidenceMultiple analyses of state policy changes find associations between more restrictive regimes and lower firearm mortality:A 2024 JAMA Network Open comparative effectiveness study estimated that moving from the most permissive to the most restrictive set of policies was associated with roughly a 20% reduction in firearm deaths (80% credible interval roughly 10–28%), with high probability of any reduction. Individual policies often showed smaller or more uncertain effects; combinations mattered more. Child-access prevention (safe storage) laws stood out as relatively effective.
jamanetwork.com
Earlier work (e.g., analyses covering 1991–2016) linked additional restrictive regulations to lower rates of overall gun deaths, gun homicides, and gun suicides, estimating thousands of averted deaths in a given year under the policies enacted.
ovid.com
RAND’s systematic reviews rate the evidence as supportive that child-access prevention laws reduce self-inflicted firearm injuries/deaths (including suicides) and unintentional deaths among youth, plus firearm homicides among youth. There is moderate evidence that waiting periods reduce firearm suicides and total homicides, and that background checks (especially dealer) reduce firearm and total homicides. Stand-your-ground laws have supportive evidence of increasing firearm and total homicides in some syntheses.
rand.org
States with the strictest laws generally show lower gun death rates, while high-ownership, more permissive states (especially rural Southern and Mountain states) often show higher rates. These patterns are not purely causal—poverty, demographics, urbanization, culture, drug markets, and policing differ substantially.International and National Ban ExamplesAustralia’s 1996 National Firearms Agreement: This banned semi-automatic and pump-action rifles/shotguns and included a large buyback (~650,000–700,000 firearms, roughly 20% of the stock). Firearm deaths (especially suicides) declined at an accelerated rate afterward, and fatal mass shootings largely stopped for more than a decade (13 had occurred in the prior 18 years). Multiple studies support reductions in firearm suicides; effects on homicides are more mixed or smaller, and some analyses note pre-existing downward trends or limited large causal impact beyond the trend. RAND’s review finds the strongest consistent evidence for reduced firearm suicides, mass shootings, and female homicide victimization.
rand.org
Cross-national data show higher civilian gun ownership rates strongly associated with higher gun homicide rates. The link to total homicide rates is weaker or non-significant once socioeconomic factors (inequality, poverty) and cultural variables are controlled. A recent large global panel study found a positive, robust association with gun homicide but none with overall homicide.
sciencedirect.com
Countries with very strict regimes (Japan, UK, Australia post-reform) have extremely low gun death rates. High-ownership, low-violence outliers like Switzerland exist, but Swiss rules are stricter than typical U.S. state laws (permits, training, storage requirements, military-linked culture rather than self-defense emphasis), inequality is lower, and social conditions differ.
Important Nuances and LimitationsMost U.S. gun deaths are suicides: Recent data show suicides comprise roughly 55–62% of firearm deaths and homicides 35–40%. Guns are involved in a majority of both homicides and suicides, but the lethality advantage of guns raises suicide completion rates more reliably than it drives overall homicide rates (where substitution to other weapons is more feasible). Reducing access therefore has clearer effects on suicides.
pewresearch.org
Weapon type: Handguns account for the large majority of firearm homicides. Rifles (including those labeled “assault weapons”) are involved in a small share of murders—typically a few percent. Bans focused narrowly on certain rifles therefore address a limited portion of total gun deaths.
Confounders and method: Ecological studies (states or countries) can show correlation without proving the laws themselves caused the outcome. Socioeconomic conditions, demographics, and culture are powerful predictors of violence. Permissive policies like stand-your-ground show associations with higher homicide in multiple studies, while some restrictive ones show the opposite.
Enforcement and black markets: Laws reduce legal access and can lower certain risks, but illegal markets and non-compliance persist. Complete or near-complete bans in high-violence contexts do not eliminate violence.
In short, the data support a correlation between tighter restrictions (especially storage, purchase, and possession rules) and lower gun death rates, with the most consistent evidence around suicides and youth outcomes. Effects on overall homicide are smaller and more context-dependent, and other factors explain substantial variation. The evidence is not uniform or free of debate, which is why RAND and others emphasize that many specific policies still have limited or inconclusive high-quality studies.
Yes, the shooter used a shotgun purchased for him by his mother. He was apparently a special needs student from that school (former?).
I think the best argument for the continuance of the Second Amendment is that, invariably, when an authoritarian regime takes power, the first thing they do is seize all the guns. This truth—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government—would be meaningless without the means to affect the change.
Yeah but if Trump decided to be a dictator, would the government’s weapons be overcome by the peoples’ weapons? And, if so, can we allow people to have tanks, grenades, missiles, and the like?
If guns were banned, or restricted as severely as they are in Great Britain or Norway, this would happen less often (and we’d have fewer suicides, too).
Almost certainly true although criminals still seem to get hold of guns, and knife crime is rife in the UK. The question is whether or not it is practical to get to restricting guns in the USA from where you are now.
What happens to a good guy with a gun who kills another good guy with a gun whom he thinks is the bad guy with a gun?
Is that a legal case or collateral damage?
That’s always been my thought experiment. In the Oregon case, what happens when a second good guy with a gun shows up and sees the first good guy with a gun. How does the second guy know the first guy is a good guy and not the bad guy?
This is my primary concern with open carry. How do you know that a guy walking down the street isn’t a malfactor? Of course, the odds are that he isn’t, since the vast majority of gun owners are not criminals. Still, it’s an issue.
Excellent Jewish joke! New to me!
Raw milk cheese: Would the cheese-making and fermentation process kill any pathogens that might be left behind in the raw milk?
Yes, you have to have that clay doll. It’s amazing!
What a horror in Bend. It’s not the kind of place where such a thing is expected, but there are crazies (or evil people) on the loose everywhere. Amazing that a bystander—a father—killed the shooter. And lucky. The police could have shot him, thinking that he, too, was a perpetrator.
Greta Thunberg: Grifts her way from place to place and cause to cause. I wonder if anyone really takes her seriously or if she’s in the news simply because she’s such a clown.
To Francesca Albanese, United Nations Special Rapporteur, even my house in the U.S. must be sitting on occupied territory. What a piece of work she is.
Richard Dawkins concerts! Love to attend one, but who there would wear earplugs? His Creationist fans?
“If guns were banned, or restricted as severely as they are in Great Britain or Norway, this would happen less often [ in the United States ] (and we’d have fewer suicides, too).”
What is the evidence for this?
This is just my supposition. Of course gun crimes are much lower in Great Britain and Norway than in the US, but you could respond by saying “it’s different cultures”. But I think the experiment is worth a try. And in fact there have been trials within cultures, and the data offer limited support for my claim.
This is what Grok said when I asked about it. You can reject the “evidence” if you want (the names of sources are also given).
I hope the cowboy Jerry Coyne doppelganger doll is wearing appropriate boots! I didn’t see them in the photo.
The tag that is missing says it was a fisherman. The hat isn’t right for a cowboy.
The English Language Police:
“Valid Until Quantity Lasts!” makes no sense.
Bingo.
Yes, the shooter used a shotgun purchased for him by his mother. He was apparently a special needs student from that school (former?).
I think the best argument for the continuance of the Second Amendment is that, invariably, when an authoritarian regime takes power, the first thing they do is seize all the guns. This truth—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government—would be meaningless without the means to affect the change.
Yeah but if Trump decided to be a dictator, would the government’s weapons be overcome by the peoples’ weapons? And, if so, can we allow people to have tanks, grenades, missiles, and the like?
Almost certainly true although criminals still seem to get hold of guns, and knife crime is rife in the UK. The question is whether or not it is practical to get to restricting guns in the USA from where you are now.
There are not lots of mass knifings in the UK.
Is International Sloth Day a day to honor sloths or a day to be slothful? I honor sloths every day by wearing an apron depicting many sloths.