Liberals exploit bogus mental health talking points to push for gun control

Liberals exploit bogus mental health talking points to push for gun control. Another school shooting, this time in Troutsdale, Oregon, where one student was fatally shot by another student, who later shot himself when pinned down by armed school guards. Another flare-up in the gun control debate and whether mental illness plays an important role in gun violence, and if so, to what extent? Mainstream media pundits and liberal politicians alike are, again, off the mark.
CNN’s Fareed Zakaria wrote:

Every time there is a serious gun massacre in the United States — and alas, these are fairly common — the media focuses on the twisted psychology of the shooter and asks why we don’t pay more attention to detecting and treating mental illness… The question we should be really focused on is… why there are so many of them in America… America’s per capita gun homicide rate in 2009 was 12 times higher than the average of Canada, Germany, Australia and Spain. Does anyone think that we have 12 times as many psychologically troubled people as they do in these countries?

Likewise, President Obama also touched on mental illness in his remarks following the shooting, “The United States does not have a monopoly on crazy people. It’s not the only country that has psychosis.”

There are several points in which both Mr. Zakaria and President Obama are wrong.

First, the word choice “massacre.” Massacre is defined by Merriam-Webster as “the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty.” One person, although tragic, is not “a number of” people.

Second, the word choice of “fairly common.” This would depend on whose information one bases their assessment. If one bases it on the list of 74 supposed “school shootings” since Newtown compiled by anti-gun rights activist and billionaire-funded group Moms Demand Action, then more than one per week sounds fairly common. The problem? The list is bogus according to analysis done by Politifact, who found they included incidents such as a 2013 Clarksville, Tennessee incident, where authorities were called to a high school parking lot at 2 a.m. and “found the body of a 38-year-old homicide victim with no links to the school.” CNN found the number of actual school shootings since Newtown to be just 15.

Third, the “gun homicide” rate is an arbitrary and misleading comparative to gauge countries’ overall homicide rate, since nations have differing gun laws. We would expect nations with restrictive gun laws to have less murder with a gun, but what about the murder rate overall? Do we feel better if people are murdered, just not with a gun? Of course not! A Harvard-published study of 36 European nations, which have stronger gun control than the U.S., found there is no link whatsoever between gun availability and the countries’ homicide rate. They note this is because guns (or any weapon type) don’t cause crime, socio-cultural and economic factors do. This is why in the U.S., the homicide rate in very restrictive gun controlled Chicago’s South side is so high (over 500 murders in 2012).

Fourth, there is a problem with putting the blame for all murders on “psychologically troubled people” or as President Obama put it, “crazy people.” Arguably, most or all mass murderers are psychologically troubled, but mass murder typically results in “less than 100 victims” out of nearly 13,000 murders reported annually by the FBI.

This amounts to yet another disingenuous, weak-sauce attempt by the left to subtly make the point that “it’s the guns.” The “reasoning,” if we deign to call it that, is obvious: “Gee, if the U.S. doesn’t have a monopoly on crazy people, but more gun murders, it must be the guns. We need gun control.”

This fails a basic fact that the left only seems to remember when it’s convenient, that correlation does not equal causation. Guns don’t cause crime, socio-cultural and economic factors do. Knowing this requires more thought than blindly accepting that “it’s the guns,” and that is what the left is counting on – that people are too stupid to critically think about their talking points.

Brenner Brief recently reported that even if absolutely all legally owned civilian guns were banned and confiscated, we should expect little reduction in criminal activity. The Department of Defense states 80 percent of criminals obtain guns illegally, the FBI reports gangs traffic guns along with narcotics into the U.S., and criminologists find that 90 percent of adult murderers have adult criminal records with multiple contacts to the Justice system. In addition, the CDC says that law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves, reduce injury, save lives at least a half million to several million times annually, and that lawful carrying of a gun is a deterrent to crime. Therefore, besides very little to no reduction in criminal activity, we would also remove the lawful deterrent and expect to see an increase in crime, injury and lost lives.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication June 12, 2014).

Liberals Exploit Bogus Mental Health Talking Points to Push Gun Control

by Matt MacBradaigh | Jun 12, 2014 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

Liberals exploit bogus mental health talking points to push for gun control. Another school shooting, this time in Troutsdale, Oregon, where one student was fatally shot by another student, who later shot himself when pinned down by armed school guards. Another flare-up in the gun control debate and whether mental illness plays an important role in gun violence, and if so, to what extent? Mainstream media pundits and liberal politicians alike are, again, off the mark.

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria wrote:

Every time there is a serious gun massacre in the United States — and alas, these are fairly common — the media focuses on the twisted psychology of the shooter and asks why we don’t pay more attention to detecting and treating mental illness… The question we should be really focused on is… why there are so many of them in America… America’s per capita gun homicide rate in 2009 was 12 times higher than the average of Canada, Germany, Australia and Spain. Does anyone think that we have 12 times as many psychologically troubled people as they do in these countries?

Likewise, President Obama also touched on mental illness in his remarks following the shooting, “The United States does not have a monopoly on crazy people. It’s not the only country that has psychosis.”

There are several points in which both Mr. Zakaria and President Obama are wrong.

First, the word choice “massacre.” Massacre is defined by Merriam-Webster as “the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty.” One person, although tragic, is not “a number of” people.

Second, the word choice of “fairly common.” This would depend on whose information one bases their assessment. If one bases it on the list of 74 supposed “school shootings” since Newtown compiled by anti-gun rights activist and billionaire-funded group Moms Demand Action, then more than one per week sounds fairly common. The problem? The list is bogus according to analysis done by Politifact, who found they included incidents such as a 2013 Clarksville, Tennessee incident, where authorities were called to a high school parking lot at 2 a.m. and “found the body of a 38-year-old homicide victim with no links to the school.” CNN found the number of actual school shootings since Newtown to be just 15.

Third, the “gun homicide” rate is an arbitrary and misleading comparative to gauge countries’ overall homicide rate, since nations have differing gun laws. We would expect nations with restrictive gun laws to have less murder with a gun, but what about the murder rate overall? Do we feel better if people are murdered, just not with a gun? Of course not! A Harvard-published study of 36 European nations, which have stronger gun control than the U.S., found there is no link whatsoever between gun availability and the countries’ homicide rate. They note this is because guns (or any weapon type) don’t cause crime, socio-cultural and economic factors do. This is why in the U.S., the homicide rate in very restrictive gun controlled Chicago’s South side is so high (over 500 murders in 2012).

Fourth, there is a problem with putting the blame for all murders on “psychologically troubled people” or as President Obama put it, “crazy people.” Arguably, most or all mass murderers are psychologically troubled, but mass murder typically results in “less than 100 victims” out of nearly 13,000 murders reported annually by the FBI.

The overly simplistic statements that ‘the U.S. doesn’t have a monopoly on mentally disturbed people’ also utterly fail to conduct even a cursory examination of how other nations handle mental illness – like involuntary detainment for observation, for instance – compared to the United States. The killer in the Isla Vista Santa Barbara massacre was reported to authorities by family that was genuinely worried he was a danger to himself or others, and law enforcement met with him three separate times, but failed to detain him for observation, or to get a warrant to search his residence, where he kept a journal with detailed plans for his murder rampage. How might other nations handle a similar situation?

This amounts to yet another disingenuous, weak-sauce attempt by the left to subtly make the point that “it’s the guns.” The “reasoning,” if we deign to call it that, is obvious: “Gee, if the U.S. doesn’t have a monopoly on crazy people, but more gun murders, it must be the guns. We need gun control.”

This fails a basic fact that the left only seems to remember when it’s convenient, that correlation does not equal causation. Guns don’t cause crime, socio-cultural and economic factors do. Knowing this requires more thought than blindly accepting that “it’s the guns,” and that is what the left is counting on – that people are too stupid to critically think about their talking points.

As this author recently wrote, even if absolutely all legally owned civilian guns were banned and confiscated, we should expect little reduction in criminal activity. The Department of Justice states 80 percent of criminals obtain guns illegally, the FBI reports gangs traffic guns along with narcotics into the U.S., and criminologists find that 90 percent of adult murderers have adult criminal records with multiple contacts to the Justice system. In addition, the CDC says that law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves, reduce injury, save lives at least a half million to several million times annually, and that lawful carrying of a gun is a deterrent to crime. Therefore, besides very little to no reduction in criminal activity, we would also remove the lawful deterrent and expect to see an increase in crime, injury and lost lives.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Jun 12, 2014. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Obama’s False Tears For Gun Violence Victims – Betrayed By Innocent Civilians And Children Killed In Drone Strikes

Obama’s false tears for gun violence victims is predictably exploited to push his agenda, which are non-solutions for gun violence; his 400th ordered drone strike – which causes the murder of innocents, including children, betrays their falsehood.

President Obama’s biographer magnanimously says Obama is showing his “soft side”. Conjuring false tears to exploit others in order to push agenda is the less gracious way of putting it. He cried during the Press conference addressing the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary. He lent his shoulder to cry on forthe families who lost loved ones at Benghazi. He reprised the role most recently following the Navy Yard shooting. He’s outwardly shows emotion when it suits him.

Obama’s obsession for gun control is also palpably evident, despite the policy proposals being shown to not be actual solutions. He was “visibly angry” when speaking about the failure of background checks earlier this year. Referencing Chicago gun violence over the weekend in which 20 have been shot and five killed since Friday, he urged the Congressional Black Caucus to “keep marching” for gun control. Addressing the families of the Naval Yard shooting, he said gun control “ought to obsess us.” Nevermind that Chicago already has some of the strictest gun controls in the nation – or that that Washington Navy Yard is a gun-free zone as a military installation, located within Washington D.C., effectively a gun-free zone, and the shooter used a shotgun that would have been exempted on the failed so-called “assault weapons ban” Democrats proposed. Ironically, these “solutions” would not solve gun violence. Yet is “saving even one life” really the objective?

 

The same President Obama has ordered an exponential increase in drone strikes; strikes which kill inordinate numbers of civilians over actual terrorists – this includes innocent children. He has just ordered his 400th drone strike. Bush ordered about 50 strikes. Obama has authorized 193 drone strikes in Pakistan alone. According to Global Research, over the past 4 years Obama has authorized attacks in Pakistan which have killed more than 800 innocent civilians and just 22 Al-Qaeda officers, or roughly 36 civilians per terrorist target. A new study fromBureau of Investigative Journalism shows how many children have died in these attacks. In just two countries, Pakistan and Yemen (neither of which the U.S. is at war with), there have been 45 children killed  by drone strikes. In Pakistan, the total children killed, ages 12 and under numbers 27 (2 girls and 25 boys; as young as age 3).  In Yemen, the total children killed, ages 12 and under numbers 18 (13 girls and 5 boys; as young as age 1). Note: Excluded from this number are teenagers, aged 13-19; the Bureau of Investigative Journalism also lists this number.

 The U.S. wasn’t specifically targeting these children for the most part.  The vast majority of these children were killed tragically, as accidental “collateral damage”. How many tears has President Obama shed over this tragedy?

 

Addressing the Navy Yard shooting families he said once again, “Our tears are not enough… If we really want to honor these 12 men and women, if we really want to be a country where we can go to work and go to school and walk our streets free from senseless violence without so many lives being stolen by a bullet from a gun, then we’re going to have to change.” Nothing was mentioned about mental illness, though the shooter “heard voices”, thought he was being followed, and contacted police who, in turn, advised him to steer clear of these imaginary people instead of taking him in for mental health screening.

Addressing the people of Newtown, Obama said:

We gather here in memory of 20 beautiful children…

I am very mindful that mere words cannot match the depths of your sorrow, nor can they heal your wounded hearts…

I can only hope it helps for you to know that you’re not alone in your grief, that our world, too, has been torn apart … we have wept with you. We’ve pulled our children tight… Newtown, you are not alone…

 Imagine if instead of “Newtown”, he had substituted it with “Pakistan”; ‘Pakistan, you are not alone’. Perhaps this line is telling from his address to the parents who lost children at Sandy Hook: Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose? Maybe the qualifier is “this country”.

Like the murder of innocents at the Navy Yard, and the children at Sandy Hook Elementary, the murder of civilian adults and children in drone strikes is illegal. Washington-based human rights and international lawyer, Paul Wolf, states that there is no legal or moral argument to justify drone attacks, since the U.S. isn’t at war with Yemen or Pakistan. The children have not been declared enemy combatants. One wonders how a one-year old could be rightly declared an enemy combatant?  No, it must be concluded that  President Obama sheds tears (or pretends to; seriously, who flicks tears away from the outside of their eyes?) when it is politically expedient to, when he has an agenda (not solutions) to push, and when he doesn’t get what he wants.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication September 24, 2013).

The trial of George Zimmerman over the shooting of Trayvon Martin has stirred national debate on race relations and on guns and violence in America. President Obama, who by many accounts has lost politically in his push for tighter gun control, has exploited the incident stating after the not-guilty verdict that “We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis.”

Anecdotal stories are interesting because they’re relatable; they help us see the human side of things by putting names and faces to what can otherwise be boring information. But no serious scientist, researcher, or analyst will rely on anecdotes because for every one that makes a certain conclusion seem right, there’s another that makes a conflicting conclusion seem right. In many ways, coverage of the Zimmerman trial is about moving one agenda or narrative forward, and the gun control narrative is no different; but the facts demonstrate that citizens plus guns is not bad for society. In fact, it’s quite the opposite – both anecdotes as well as the substantial body of hard data demonstrate that the Zimmerman narrative of reckless gun use is the aberration, not the model, of defensive gun use

In contrast to the anecdote evidence that guns embolden overzealous neighborhood watch members to harm innocent people, consider this: In January this year, Melinda Herman shot Paul Ali Slater, an ex-con, while defending herself and her two 9-year old children in their Loganville, Georgia home. Though she shot at him six times, striking him five times, he survived. CNN reported that “Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman — whose office responded to the shooting at the Hermans’ home — said he believes the mother and her two children were in a life-and-death situation and she had no choice but to exercise her constitutional right to self-defense.”

In Magnolia, Texas, Erin (who asked to be identified only by her first name), a mother of a 6-year old boy, Kaden, defended herself against three home invaders with a gun. She shot one and the other two fled the scene. She told local Houston news reporters she believes that having a gun, “saved my life.” These anecdotes were all in the context of being at home, but what about outside of one’s home?
In July this year in Philadelphia, police say an armed man turned the tables on three gunmen who tried to rob him. The would-be victim shot at his three attackers, wounding one, and causing them to flee the scene. Investigators say two of the suspects dropped the wounded attacker of at a local hospital before also fleeing from the hospital. The local Philadelphia NBC news channel reported the wounded suspect would be charged.

The Associated Press reported in June, an armed man trying to rob customers outside an Atlanta shoe store was fatally shot by one of the patrons waiting in line to buy LeBron James sneakers. Witnesses told police a man armed with a gun tried to rob people standing outside the store when another customer drew his own handgun and shot the robber, who died after fleeing just a few yards. Atlanta police officer John Chafee says the shooter won’t be charged because investigators determined he fired in self-defense.

These stories didn’t garner the national attention the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case did, but they do illustrate the point that real life people use guns for legitimate self-defense and allow us to ask how we would feel in a similar situation.

Anecdotes can help us to relate the overall data to, but what does the data says about how often Americans defend their lives with guns? Research shows that defensive gun use is a common occurrence—a fact that’s even acknowledged by those typically opposed to gun rights. For example, gun control advocates tend to favor David Hemenway, a skeptic of gun ownership. That reliance is misplaced. Hemenway’s methodology has come under attack for among other things, refusing to release the data behind his studies, and his conclusions have even been rejected by the 7th Circuit . However, even Hemenway’s study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology suggests that defensive gun use (DGU) occurs more than 152,000 times annually. That means that even according to a leading gun skeptic with bias against gun ownership and questionable methodology, private citizens used guns to protect their lives and the lives of others in over 152,000 individual cases. And from most accounts, Hemenway drastically underestimates the number of defensive gun use.

Other researchers have found defensive gun use is more widespread. Another study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, contends that the correct number of DGU is between 256,000-373,000. A Department of Justice study conducted by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig found 1.5 million “genuine” instances of DGU. Cook and Ludwig’s study was done in contrast to the classic Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, which found 2.5 million annual instances of DGU. Presumably because of how large the number of DGU in Kleck and Gertz’ study, it is widely dismissed by gun control advocates as though Kleck and Gertz were on the NRA payroll. However the study was commissioned by President Clinton and Kleck is a liberal Democrat.

A July 2013 report “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence” from the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which was ordered by President Obama, states “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year,  in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms.”

Moreover, the data demonstrates that firearms are used only in small portion of violent crimes. FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that approximately 9,000 homicides per year that involve firearms. There were a total of  1.2 million violent crimes in 2011, of which homicides is one type of violent crime. However, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), a Department of Justice agency, reports “less than 10% of all nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011” involved a firearm. This means less than 1 out of every 10 violent crimes is committed with a firearm, and the vast majority of violent crimes – more than 9 out of 10 – is committed without any firearm.

What does this all mean? With the number of firearm homicides approximately 9,000 and less than 10% of non-fatal violent crime involving guns, the fact that research shows the number of defensive gun uses from “almost all annual survey[s]…rang[es] from 500,000 to 3 million” is significant. Even at 152,000, it’s significant. Gun control advocates would like to exploit the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case to argue that guns make us less safe, but the stories of Melinda Herman, Erin a mother of a 6-year old, a Philadelphia man accosted by three armed assailants while walking alone, and attempted armed robbery while waiting in line to buy shoes tell a different story. We can imagine what if would feel like if we were in those situations with our children, shopping, or walking alone. Against the national backdrop of crime statistics and defensive gun use, these stories – not the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman one – paint the more realistic picture that guns are often used for legitimate self-defense and saving lives.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Bell Towers. (Original publication July 25, 2013).

George Zimmerman is NOT the Typical Story of Defensive Gun Use

by Matt MacBradaigh | Jul 25, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

The trial of George Zimmerman over the shooting of Trayvon Martin has stirred national debate on race relations and on guns and violence in America. President Obama, who by many accounts has lost politically in his push for tighter gun control, has exploited the incident stating after the not-guilty verdict that “We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis.”

Anecdotal stories are interesting because they’re relatable; they help us see the human side of things by putting names and faces to what can otherwise be boring information. But no serious scientist, researcher, or analyst will rely on anecdotes because for every one that makes a certain conclusion seem right, there’s another that makes a conflicting conclusion seem right. In many ways, coverage of the Zimmerman trial is about moving one agenda or narrative forward, and the gun control narrative is no different; but the facts demonstrate that citizens plus guns is not bad for society. In fact, it’s quite the opposite – both anecdotes as well as the substantial body of hard data demonstrate that the Zimmerman narrative of reckless gun use is the aberration, not the model, of defensive gun use

In contrast to the anecdote evidence that guns embolden overzealous neighborhood watch members to harm innocent people, consider this: In January this year, Melinda Herman shot Paul Ali Slater, an ex-con, while defending herself and her two 9-year old children in their Loganville, Georgia home. Though she shot at him six times, striking him five times, he survived. CNN reported that “Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman — whose office responded to the shooting at the Hermans’ home — said he believes the mother and her two children were in a life-and-death situation and she had no choice but to exercise her constitutional right to self-defense.”

In Magnolia, Texas, Erin (who asked to be identified only by her first name), a mother of a 6-year old boy, Kaden, defended herself against three home invaders with a gun. She shot one and the other two fled the scene. She told local Houston news reporters she believes that having a gun, “saved my life.” These anecdotes were all in the context of being at home, but what about outside of one’s home?

In July this year in Philadelphia, police say an armed man turned the tables on three gunmen who tried to rob him. The would-be victim shot at his three attackers, wounding one, and causing them to flee the scene. Investigators say two of the suspects dropped the wounded attacker of at a local hospital before also fleeing from the hospital. The local Philadelphia NBC news channel reported the wounded suspect would be charged.

The Associated Press reported in June, an armed man trying to rob customers outside an Atlanta shoe store was fatally shot by one of the patrons waiting in line to buy LeBron James sneakers. Witnesses told police a man armed with a gun tried to rob people standing outside the store when another customer drew his own handgun and shot the robber, who died after fleeing just a few yards. Atlanta police officer John Chafee says the shooter won’t be charged because investigators determined he fired in self-defense.

These stories didn’t garner the national attention the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case did, but they do illustrate the point that real life people use guns for legitimate self-defense and allow us to ask how we would feel in a similar situation.

Anecdotes can help us to relate the overall data to, but what does the data says about how often Americans defend their lives with guns? Research shows that defensive gun use is a common occurrence—a fact that’s even acknowledged by those typically opposed to gun rights. For example, gun control advocates tend to favor David Hemenway, a skeptic of gun ownership. That reliance is misplaced. Hemenway’s methodology has come under attack for among other things, refusing to release the data behind his studies, and his conclusions have even been rejected by the 7th Circuit . However, even Hemenway’s study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology suggests that defensive gun use (DGU) occurs more than 152,000 times annually. That means that even according to a leading gun skeptic with bias against gun ownership and questionable methodology, private citizens used guns to protect their lives and the lives of others in over 152,000 individual cases. And from most accounts, Hemenway drastically underestimates the number of defensive gun use.

Other researchers have found defensive gun use is more widespread. Another study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, contends that the correct number of DGU is between 256,000-373,000. A Department of Justice study conducted by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig found 1.5 million “genuine” instances of DGU. Cook and Ludwig’s study was done in contrast to the classic Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, which found 2.5 million annual instances of DGU. Presumably because of how large the number of DGU in Kleck and Gertz’ study, it is widely dismissed by gun control advocates as though Kleck and Gertz were on the NRA payroll. However the study was commissioned by President Clinton and Kleck is a liberal Democrat.

A July 2013 report “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence” from the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which was ordered by President Obama, states “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year,  in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms.”

Moreover, the data demonstrates that firearms are used only in small portion of violent crimes. FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that approximately 9,000 homicides per year that involve firearms. There were a total of  1.2 million violent crimes in 2011, of which homicides is one type of violent crime. However, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), a Department of Justice agency, reports “less than 10% of all nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011” involved a firearm. This means less than 1 out of every 10 violent crimes is committed with a firearm, and the vast majority of violent crimes – more than 9 out of 10 – is committed without any firearm.

What does this all mean? With the number of firearm homicides approximately 9,000 and less than 10% of non-fatal violent crime involving guns, the fact that research shows the number of defensive gun uses from “almost all annual survey[s]…rang[es] from 500,000 to 3 million” is significant. Even at 152,000, it’s significant. Gun control advocates would like to exploit the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case to argue that guns make us less safe, but the stories of Melinda Herman, Erin a mother of a 6-year old, a Philadelphia man accosted by three armed assailants while walking alone, and attempted armed robbery while waiting in line to buy shoes tell a different story. We can imagine what if would feel like if we were in those situations with our children, shopping, or walking alone. Against the national backdrop of crime statistics and defensive gun use, these stories – not the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman one – paint the more realistic picture that guns are often used for legitimate self-defense and saving lives.

This article was originally published on The Bell Towers. Original publish date Jul 25, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Gun Control Debate: Loopholes, Part I - There Is No “Gun Show Loophole”

The ATF states “A licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensee at a gun show without first complying with the requirements of the Brady law. ”

Since the shootings at Newtown, the gun control debate has been intensely reignited in America. Many have called for an open and honest national dialogue. Honesty is a prerequisite to any such discussion.

Despite the failure of the so-called “assault weapons” ban and “high capacity” magazine legislation, and the failure of the Manchin-Toomey amendment which was touted as a “compromise”, gun control advocates have vowed to continue to push for more legislation. Bottom line: we can expect to see many of the same arguments witnessed recently to resurface later in the year. One we are virtually guaranteed to see again addresses closing the so-called “gun show loophole.”

President Obama and others have falsely claimed “up to 40%” of guns are bought without a background check via the so-called “gun show loophole”. The Washington Post Fact-Checker gave Obama three “Pinocchios” for this statement. According to the rating system used, this means there are “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions”. This false claim comes from a 1994 study of 251 people from before the Brady Bill required Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) retail sellers to run background checks on all sales. The Washington Post reconnected with the original study authors who informed them the actual range is 14-22% with a +/- error margin of 6%, meaning the final range is 8-28%; neither end of the range approaches 40%. Further factor in the low sample size (251 people), the age of the study (1994), and that the survey was from before the Brady Law was enacted, and it’s apparent how weak this claim is.

Political wordplay in the choice of words must be considered. Loophole is defined as “A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.” Therefore, this would only be accurate if there were a law meant to restrict sales at gun shows that someone were evading.

What does the law say? According to the ATF, federal law 18 U.S.C. 922(t), 27 478.102 requires “Federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, and dealers must comply with the Brady law prior to the transfer of any firearm to a non-licensed individual.” This means that all FFL holders must run a background check on every sale, regardless of the location of the sale. Period. Specifically regarding gun shows, the ATF states “A licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensee at a gun show without first complying with the requirements of the Brady law. ”

The ATF Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide, last updated in 2005, states that it is already a federal crime for a licensed gun dealer (FFL) to fail to run a background at a gun show, or anywhere else. Per 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1), “a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer shall not transfer a firearm” (p.13) unless they run a check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The penalty per § 924(a)(5) includes fines and up to a year in prison per violation (p.19). If the gun dealer knowingly sells to a prohibited person (§ 922(d)) which covers prohibition to felons, mentally ill, and certain other classes from possessing guns, they are subject to a fine and up to 10 years imprisonment per § 924(a)(2).

This means we already have a law that requires gun dealers to run background checks at gun shows. No loophole. The only other guns available at gun shows are available from private citizens wishing to sell personally owned guns. This is 100% legal from any location including one’s driveway, a parking lot, a back alley, or at a gun show – either inside at a table, or even in the parking lot outside of a gun show. Again, no loophole. Private sales are legal at any location and have been since the nation’s founding.

There is nothing special about gun shows. Gun control advocates’ focus on guns shows as a problematic location for private sales is specious: the Department of Justice studies show that less than 1% of felons acquire firearms from gun shows. The majority — nearly 80% — of them gets them from (already) illegal transfer via family or friends, or from the illegal trafficking on the black market.

There never has been a law making private sale firearms subject to background checks. The Brady Law requiring FFL licensed dealers wasn’t even enacted until 1994, and only covers licensed gun dealers. The law already requires FFL dealers to conduct background checks even at gun shows. The law does not require private sellers to conduct background checks at any location.

If gun control advocates wanted to close private sales, then it should be rightly referred to as such. Use of the words “gun show” in addition to “loophole” is political wordplay aimed at scaring those who don’t understand the law as it is currently written. Focusing on guns shows as the location associated with this so-called “loophole” only serves to obfuscate the fact that all private sales are legal, and it is a far cry from open and honest discussion

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This  article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication May 31, 2013). 

There Is No “Gun Show Loophole”

by Matt MacBradaigh | May 31, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

The ATF states “A licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensee at a gun show without first complying with the requirements of the Brady law. ”

Since the shootings at Newtown, the gun control debate has been intensely reignited in America. Many have called for an open and honest national dialogue. Honesty is a prerequisite to any such discussion.

Despite the failure of the so-called “assault weapons” ban and “high capacity” magazine legislation, and the failure of the Manchin-Toomey amendment which was touted as a “compromise”, gun control advocates have vowed to continue to push for more legislation. Bottom line: we can expect to see many of the same arguments witnessed recently to resurface later in the year. One we are virtually guaranteed to see again addresses closing the so-called “gun show loophole.”

President Obama and others have falsely claimed “up to 40%” of guns are bought without a background check via the so-called “gun show loophole”. The Washington Post Fact-Checker gave Obama three “Pinocchios” for this statement. According to the rating system used, this means there are “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions”. This false claim comes from a 1994 study of 251 people from before the Brady Bill required Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) retail sellers to run background checks on all sales. The Washington Post reconnected with the original study authors who informed them the actual range is 14-22% with a +/- error margin of 6%, meaning the final range is 8-28%; neither end of the range approaches 40%. Further factor in the low sample size (251 people), the age of the study (1994), and that the survey was from before the Brady Law was enacted, and it’s apparent how weak this claim is.

Political wordplay in the choice of words must be considered. Loophole is defined as “A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.” Therefore, this would only be accurate if there were a law meant to restrict sales at gun shows that someone were evading.

What does the law say? According to the ATF, federal law 18 U.S.C. 922(t), 27 478.102 requires “Federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, and dealers must comply with the Brady law prior to the transfer of any firearm to a non-licensed individual.” This means that all FFL holders must run a background check on every sale, regardless of the location of the sale. Period. Specifically regarding gun shows, the ATF states “A licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensee at a gun show without first complying with the requirements of the Brady law. ”

The ATF Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide, last updated in 2005, states that it is already a federal crime for a licensed gun dealer (FFL) to fail to run a background at a gun show, or anywhere else. Per 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1), “a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer shall not transfer a firearm” (p.13) unless they run a check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The penalty per § 924(a)(5) includes fines and up to a year in prison per violation (p.19). If the gun dealer knowingly sells to a prohibited person (§ 922(d)) which covers prohibition to felons, mentally ill, and certain other classes from possessing guns, they are subject to a fine and up to 10 years imprisonment per § 924(a)(2).

This means we already have a law that requires gun dealers to run background checks at gun shows. No loophole. The only other guns available at gun shows are available from private citizens wishing to sell personally owned guns. This is 100% legal from any location including one’s driveway, a parking lot, a back alley, or at a gun show – either inside at a table, or even in the parking lot outside of a gun show. Again, no loophole. Private sales are legal at any location and have been since the nation’s founding.

There is nothing special about gun shows. Gun control advocates’ focus on guns shows as a problematic location for private sales is specious: the Department of Justice studies show that less than 1% of felons acquire firearms from gun shows. The majority — nearly 80% — of them gets them from (already) illegal transfer via family or friends, or from the illegal trafficking on the black market.

There never has been a law making private sale firearms subject to background checks. The Brady Law requiring FFL licensed dealers wasn’t even enacted until 1994, and only covers licensed gun dealers. The law already requires FFL dealers to conduct background checks even at gun shows. The law does not require private sellers to conduct background checks at any location.

If gun control advocates wanted to close private sales, then it should be rightly referred to as such. Use of the words “gun show” in addition to “loophole” is political wordplay aimed at scaring those who don’t understand the law as it is currently written. Focusing on guns shows as the location associated with this so-called “loophole” only serves to obfuscate the fact that all private sales are legal, and it is a far cry from open and honest discussion,

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date May 31, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.