Showing posts with label assault rifle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label assault rifle. Show all posts

Friday, March 7, 2014

Top 5 Gun Control Failures of 2013

Last year was an epic year of fail for gun control advocates. The anti-gun bullies
thought they sensed sea change in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting – that sweeping gun control restrictions were all but a done deal. In retrospect, nothing was further from the truth. They relied on lies and deception to sell their case, pushed an agenda in defiance of the people’s desires, and policies that would have done nothing to make the public safer.
Ultimately, liberal, anti-gun zealots lost in nearly every arena in which they attempted to force new restrictions: whether it was a national assaults weapon ban that died in the Senate or gun control measures that stalled in state legislatures.

Gun control advocates made at least five significant mistakes in the gun control debate in 2013:

1 Colorado recall

Though at first, it seemed the anti-gun lobby won in Colorado, they ended up suffering a significant loss in the state. Initially, state Democrats successfully pushed through two gun control measures. But the people of Colorado responded by recalling the two state lawmakers that spearheaded the legislation.  The Colorado recall election garnered attention, money, and input nationally as a broad referendum on gun control. The special elections were widely seen as a test of whether swing-state voters would accept gun restrictions. Particularly noteworthy is that anti-gun organizations outspent pro-gun groups by a margin of 6-to-1 ($3 million by anti-gun activists compared to $540,000 by recall proponents) and still lost the recall. The Colorado Republican Party said the vote sends “a loud and clear message to out-of-touch Democrats across the nation.” The recall results seem to confirm that assessment.

If the recall effort is truly a referendum nationally, then the message is that gun control is a losing policy for liberals. Colorado Democrats arrogantly pushed their own agenda, in defiance of strong opposition from the people they represent, and from the Colorado Sheriff’s association warning that the bill was not enforceable. They paid for their mistake with their seats in the legislature.

2 Throwing a Fit about Good Guys with Guns

The NRA’s response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown was to recommend more armed good guys at schools – whether police officers or teachers and other school staff. Liberal politicians, media and school officials went ballistic over the suggestion. The executive director of the Connecticut Association of Schools and the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, said the NRA comments hit her “like a punch in the stomach.” Talking heads had a heyday, trying to spin the NRA as insensitive monsters ‘out of touch’ with the rest of America. Wasn’t it obvious, they mused, that the last thing we need was more guns near children?

It turns out the NRA’s critics were the ones out of touch.

America already makes ample use of armed good guys in schools. According to the Department of Justice, nearly 17,000 officers from police and sheriff departments serve as School Resource Officers (SRO’s) in roughly half of all schools. Following the tragedy at Columbine High School in 1999, President Clinton signed a bill that provided millions in additional funding through the ‘COPS in Schools’ program to do exactly as the NRA suggested following Sandy Hook.

And it turns out, these armed good guys do in fact stop and minimize harm to our children. In February, a 14 year old student was non-fatally shot in the back of the neck at an Atlanta Middle School. However, “an armed guard disarmed the shooter moments after the shooting,” resulting in zero loss of life. Had there been no armed guard able to respond within moments, the incident could have been very different. Likewise, in December, an armed SRO stopped a school shooting at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, CO, where one student was shot and later died. Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson said: “The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school.” The officer’s quick response meant the incident was over “in less than 80 seconds.” By contrast, the Columbine incident lasted almost an hour. The shooter, a student, clearly intended more harm, bringing a pump-action shotgun, 125 shotgun shells, a machete, and three molotov cocktails with him. It likely would have been much worse without an ‘armed good guy’ to respond.

These real-life stories drive home the point to regular people whose children attend public schools It makes a difference in policy. Following Newtown, some districts have also allowed for school staff to be armed while at school as well. Even Newtown’s school board unanimously voted for more armed security, clearly demonstrating the public believes the anti-gun lobby is on the wrong side of this issue.

3 Background checks falsehoods

President Obama and others falsely claimed “40% of guns were bought without a background check at gun shows”. He was given three Pinocchio’s by the Washington Post Fact Checker, meaning there are “significant factual errors and/or obvious contradictions” The measures, which reportedly enjoyed support of 90% Americans, failed to get out of the Democrat-controlled Senate. They would have surely failed in the Republican-controlled House even if they had passed in the Senate.

The President’s claim rested on falsely citing a 20 year old study of 251 people that was taken from before Federal law even required dealers to run background checks on all sales. Even the study’s authors confirmed the range President Obama cited is false. Department of Justice studies show that less than 1% of criminals obtain guns from gun shows.

Second, it was a myth that 90% of Americans supported “universal” background checks. Multiple articles in the Washington Post cited this as though it were ‘fact’. Given that the public was misled about the truth about the percentage of guns bought at gun shows “without background checks”, this response might have been understandable. But digging into the survey questions revealed that people were only asked if they would support background checks “at gun shows” – not universally. So the surveys didn’t show what they were claimed to show. This was ultimately evident in the failure to get the amendment out of committee in the Senate.

Finally, there are actually no gun show or online gun sale loopholes. According to the ATF, Federal law requires FFL’s to run background checks on all sales, even at gun shows. Online sales are subject to all Federal law requirements as well. Any firearm shipped over state lines must ship to a FFL who must then run a background check. It is pure myth that one can go to “GunsRUs.com” and have a gun shipped to their doorstep.

The fact that anti-gun advocates lost so decisively – even on this issue that was supposedly had almost total public support, shows what a mistake it was to pursue this grossly misguided policy.

4 Obsessing on the “evil” AR-15

Liberal anti-gun organizations, politicians and media love the ‘evil’ AR-15 narrative; that the AR-15 is a “weapon of war”, meant only for soldiers and mass killing. Any news story featuring an AR-15 gets ample airtime; shootings without one quickly fade from headlines. For example, following the Navy Yard shooting, media immediately exploited the supposed role of the AR-15 rifle, prominently displaying images of AR-15 rifles on the front page, and showing computer simulations of how the shooter reportedly “used” an AR-15 – until the FBI confirmed there was no AR-15 used in the shooting.

Anti-gun politicians routinely lie about the AR-15′s capabilities, calling it a a military weapon (it isn’t), designed for close-quarters combat (it’s not), and claiming it can fire “.30 caliber clip in a half-second”, which isn’t even a grammatically – much less technically – accurate sentence. The AR-15 rifle has similar cosmetic appearance to the military M4 rifle. This makes it easy for unscrupulous agenda-pushers to make sound scary to the general public who may be unfamiliar with them.

Appearances aside, the facts reported by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports show that rifles are used to kill very little in the U.S. – just over 300 out of nearly 13,000 murders in both 2011 and 2012, and so-called “assault rifles” are a subset within that category. Even if these anti-gun bullies were to get their way on this issue, there would be almost no reduction in our murder rate. Handguns, not rifles, are used far more often in homicides, accounting for nearly 70% of murders in 2011 and 2012. Mass murder, though sensational, is responsible for less than 100 out nearly 13,000 annual homicides. Focusing on “evil” rifles may be sensational, drive ratings and sell media advertising, but they aren’t responsible for very much homicide in the U.S. Ultimately, anti-gun politicians and lobbyists lost on their renewed push for a so-called “assault weapons ban”, which didn’t even make it out of committee in Congress.

5 Lying to inflate “gun deaths”

Lying is key to the liberal anti-gun agenda, which including lying about the number of “gun deaths” that occur each year. Mainstream media outlets, politicians, and anti-gun organizations all routinely cite “30,000 annual U.S. gun deaths.” when hyping the dangers of guns and the need for more gun control. The truth is 20,000 of these “gun deaths” are self-inflicted suicides with a gun (approximately half of the 40,000 annual suicides). While gun homicides are less than 9,000 in each of the last 3 years, which represents nearly an all time low in the U.S. murder rate.

Suicide is a genuine public health issue, but it is not related to crime, homicide and gun control policy. Magazine capacity, banning certain models of guns (particularly rifles), gun shows and background checks have no bearing on suicides. Mental health professionals confirm a person determined to die will find a way. A Harvard-published study of 36 developed nations by professors Don Kates and Gary Mauser found that gun availability had no effect on suicide rates. Many nations with low gun availability have higher suicide rates than nations with higher gun availability. Many nations with strict gun control and almost no legal guns available have significantly higher suicide rates than the U.S. Does. In fact, though gun sales are setting records in the U.S., the suicide rate is declining and is lower today than it was in the 1950′s, 60′s, 70′s or 80′s.

Anti-gun zealots conveniently leave out the truth that a full two-thirds of the deaths they cite have nothing to do with murder and crime. More importantly, the gun control legislation they propose does nothing to address suicide deaths. They resort to conflating suicide data with homicide crime data to make the case for gun control seem like it’s a bigger problem than it really is.

So what does this all mean?

These five mistakes share some common factors: they almost all involve lies and deception to sell the problem. In the lone exception – Colorado – they skipped selling it altogether and went straight to instituting policy without popular support. This is the second shared characteristic: they all involve attempts to push policy without broad support from ‘We the People’. Finally, each of the proposed policies do nothing to make people legitimately safer. While outside the scope of this article, they all, in fact, are counter-productive. Professors Kates and Mauser’s study found that gun control was counter-productive to reducing crime, homicide and suicide.

But in short, good guys with guns do stop bad guys, background checks at gun shows might stop less than 1% of criminal purchases at best, AR-15 rifles are rarely used in murder, and our murder rate is near an all-time low. Any public policy must be subject to interest-balancing: is the cost of adopting the policy worth the benefit received from doing so. All of these measures fail this test miserably.


As an added bonus that didn’t make it into the original article:

6. Record Gun Sales in 2013

The effect of the anti-gun Left’s rabbid mouth-frothing is to boost gun sales to record-breaking 23 million NICS checks in 2013. The record was previously set in 2012 in the run-up to the election. Gun dealers reported at least a quarter of the sales were to first-time buyers. Naysayers may note that not all NICS checks pass – meaning a sale may be prohibited. That’s true, but it’s an insignificant percentage. And of note is that more than one firearm may be purchased at the same time and the entire transaction will get one single NICS check. So in all probability, more than 23 million firearms were bought in 2013. Special Thanks to Obama, Feinstein, Jumpin’ Joe Biden, Moms Demand Stupidity, Mayors Who’ve Broken the Law, and others.






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 TowersThe Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.
https://twitter.com/2AFighthttp://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight


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 March 6, 2014).

Top 5 Gun Control Failures of 2013

Top 5 Gun Control Failures of 2013
2013 was an epic year of fail for gun control advocates. The anti-gun bullies thought they sensed sea change in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting – that sweeping gun control restrictions were all but a done deal. In retrospect, nothing was further from the truth. They relied on lies and deception to sell their case, pushed an agenda in defiance of the people’s desires, and policies that would have done nothing to make the public safer.
Ultimately, liberal, anti-gun zealots lost in nearly every arena in which they attempted to force new restrictions: whether it was a national assaults weapon ban that died in the Senate or gun control measures that stalled in state legislatures.
Gun control advocates made at least five significant mistakes in the gun control debate in 2013:
1 Colorado recall
Though at first, it seemed the anti-gun lobby won in Colorado, they ended up suffering a significant loss in the state. Initially, state Democrats successfully pushed through two gun control measures. But the people of Colorado responded by recalling the two state lawmakers that spearheaded the legislation.  The Colorado recall election garnered attention, money, and input nationally as a broad referendum on gun control. The special elections were widely seen as a test of whether swing-state voters would accept gun restrictions. Particularly noteworthy is that anti-gun organizations outspent pro-gun groups by a margin of 6-to-1 ($3 million by anti-gun activists compared to $540,000 by recall proponents) and still lost the recall. The Colorado Republican Party said the vote sends “a loud and clear message to out-of-touch Democrats across the nation.” The recall results seem to confirm that assessment.
If the recall effort is truly a referendum nationally, then the message is that gun control is a losing policy for liberals. Colorado Democrats arrogantly pushed their own agenda, in defiance of strong opposition from the people they represent, and from the Colorado Sheriff’s association warning that the bill was not enforceable. They paid for their mistake with their seats in the legislature.
2 Throwing a Fit about Good Guys with Guns
The NRA’s response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown was to recommend more armed good guys at schools – whether police officers or teachers and other school staff. Liberal politicians, media and school officials went ballistic over the suggestion. The executive director of the Connecticut Association of Schools and the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, said the NRA comments hit her “like a punch in the stomach.” Talking heads had a heyday, trying to spin the NRA as insensitive monsters ‘out of touch’ with the rest of America. Wasn’t it obvious, they mused, that the last thing we need was more guns near children?
It turns out the NRA’s critics were the ones out of touch.
America already makes ample use of armed good guys in schools. According to the Department of Justice, nearly 17,000 officers from police and sheriff departments serve as School Resource Officers (SRO’s) in roughly half of all schools. Following the tragedy at Columbine High School in 1999, President Clinton signed a bill that provided millions in additional funding through the ‘COPS in Schools’ program to do exactly as the NRA suggested following Sandy Hook.
And it turns out, these armed good guys do in fact stop and minimize harm to our children. In February, a 14 year old student was non-fatally shot in the back of the neck at an Atlanta Middle School. However, “an armed guard disarmed the shooter moments after the shooting,” resulting in zero loss of life. Had there been no armed guard able to respond within moments, the incident could have been very different. Likewise, in December, an armed SRO stopped a school shooting at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, CO, where one student was shot and later died. Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson said: “The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school.” The officer’s quick response meant the incident was over “in less than 80 seconds.” By contrast, the Columbine incident lasted almost an hour. The shooter, a student, clearly intended more harm, bringing a pump-action shotgun, 125 shotgun shells, a machete, and three molotov cocktails with him. It likely would have been much worse without an ‘armed good guy’ to respond.
These real-life stories drive home the point to regular people whose children attend public schools It makes a difference in policy. Following Newtown, some districts have also allowed for school staff to be armed while at school as well. Even Newtown’s school board unanimously voted for more armed security, clearly demonstrating the public believes the anti-gun lobby is on the wrong side of this issue.
3 Background checks falsehoods
President Obama and others falsely claimed “40% of guns were bought without a background check at gun shows”. He was given three Pinocchio’s by the Washington Post Fact Checker, meaning there are “significant factual errors and/or obvious contradictions” The measures, which reportedly enjoyed support of 90% Americans, failed to get out of the Democrat-controlled Senate. They would have surely failed in the Republican-controlled House even if they had passed in the Senate.
The President’s claim rested on falsely citing a 20 year old study of 251 people that was taken from before Federal law even required dealers to run background checks on all sales. Even the study’s authors confirmed the range President Obama cited is false. Department of Justice studies show that less than 1% of criminals obtain guns from gun shows.
Second, it was a myth that 90% of Americans supported “universal” background checks. Multiple articles in the Washington Post cited this as though it were ‘fact’. Given that the public was misled about the truth about the percentage of guns bought at gun shows “without background checks”, this response might have been understandable. But digging into the survey questions revealed that people were only asked if they would support background checks “at gun shows” – not universally. So the surveys didn’t show what they were claimed to show. This was ultimately evident in the failure to get the amendment out of committee in the Senate.
Finally, there are actually no gun show or online gun sale loopholes. According to the ATF, Federal law requires FFL’s to run background checks on all sales, even at gun shows. Online sales are subject to all Federal law requirements as well. Any firearm shipped over state lines must ship to a FFL who must then run a background check. It is pure myth that one can go to “GunsRUs.com” and have a gun shipped to their doorstep.
The fact that anti-gun advocates lost so decisively – even on this issue that was supposedly had almost total public support, shows what a mistake it was to pursue this grossly misguided policy.
4 Obsessing on the “evil” AR-15
Liberal anti-gun organizations, politicians and media love the ‘evil’ AR-15 narrative; that the AR-15 is a “weapon of war”, meant only for soldiers and mass killing. Any news story featuring an AR-15 gets ample airtime; shootings without one quickly fade from headlines. For example, following the Navy Yard shooting, media immediately exploited the supposed role of the AR-15 rifle, prominently displaying images of AR-15 rifles on the front page, and showing computer simulations of how the shooter reportedly “used” an AR-15 – until the FBI confirmed there was no AR-15 used in the shooting.
Anti-gun politicians routinely lie about the AR-15′s capabilities, calling it a a military weapon (it isn’t), designed for close-quarters combat (it’s not), and claiming it can fire “.30 caliber clip in a half-second”, which isn’t even a grammatically – much less technically – accurate sentence. The AR-15 rifle has similar cosmetic appearance to the military M4 rifle. This makes it easy for unscrupulous agenda-pushers to make sound scary to the general public who may be unfamiliar with them.
Appearances aside, the facts reported by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports show that rifles are used to kill very little in the U.S. – just over 300 out of nearly 13,000 murders in both 2011 and 2012, and so-called “assault rifles” are a subset within that category. Even if these anti-gun bullies were to get their way on this issue, there would be almost no reduction in our murder rate. Handguns, not rifles, are used far more often in homicides, accounting for nearly 70% of murders in 2011 and 2012. Mass murder, though sensational, is responsible for less than 100 out nearly 13,000 annual homicides. Focusing on “evil” rifles may be sensational, drive ratings and sell media advertising, but they aren’t responsible for very much homicide in the U.S. Ultimately, anti-gun politicians and lobbyists lost on their renewed push for a so-called “assault weapons ban”, which didn’t even make it out of committee in Congress.
5 Lying to inflate “gun deaths”
Lying is key to the liberal anti-gun agenda, which including lying about the number of “gun deaths” that occur each year. Mainstream media outlets, politicians, and anti-gun organizations all routinely cite “30,000 annual U.S. gun deaths.” when hyping the dangers of guns and the need for more gun control. The truth is 20,000 of these “gun deaths” are self-inflicted suicides with a gun (approximately half of the 40,000 annual suicides). While gun homicides are less than 9,000 in each of the last 3 years, which represents nearly an all time low in the U.S. murder rate.
Suicide is a genuine public health issue, but it is not related to crime, homicide and gun control policy. Magazine capacity, banning certain models of guns (particularly rifles), gun shows and background checks have no bearing on suicides. Mental health professionals confirm a person determined to die will find a way. A Harvard-published study of 36 developed nations by professors Don Kates and Gary Mauser found that gun availability had no effect on suicide rates. Many nations with low gun availability have higher suicide rates than nations with higher gun availability. Many nations with strict gun control and almost no legal guns available have significantly higher suicide rates than the U.S. Does. In fact, though gun sales are setting records in the U.S., the suicide rate is declining and is lower today than it was in the 1950′s, 60′s, 70′s or 80′s.
Anti-gun zealots conveniently leave out the truth that a full two-thirds of the deaths they cite have nothing to do with murder and crime. More importantly, the gun control legislation they propose does nothing to address suicide deaths. They resort to conflating suicide data with homicide crime data to make the case for gun control seem like it’s a bigger problem than it really is.
So what does this all mean?
These five mistakes share some common factors: they almost all involve lies and deception to sell the problem. In the lone exception – Colorado – they skipped selling it altogether and went straight to instituting policy without popular support. This is the second shared characteristic: they all involve attempts to push policy without broad support from ‘We the People’. Finally, each of the proposed policies do nothing to make people legitimately safer. While outside the scope of this article, they all, in fact, are counter-productive. Professors Kates and Mauser’s study found that gun control was counter-productive to reducing crime, homicide and suicide.
But in short, good guys with guns do stop bad guys, background checks at gun shows might stop less than 1% of criminal purchases at best, AR-15 rifles are rarely used in murder, and our murder rate is near an all-time low. Any public policy must be subject to interest-balancing: is the cost of adopting the policy worth the benefit received from doing so. All of these measures fail this test miserably.

An added bonus that didn’t make it into the original article:


6. Record Gun Sales in 2013
The effect of the anti-gun Left’s rabbid mouth-frothing is to boost gun sales to record-breaking 23 million NICS checks in 2013. The record was previously set in 2012 in the run-up to the election. Gun dealers reported at least a quarter of the sales were to first-time buyers. Naysayers may note that not all NICS checks pass – meaning a sale may be prohibited. That’s true, but it’s an insignificant percentage (historically less than 2%). And of note is that more than one firearm may be purchased at the same time and the entire transaction will get one single NICS check. So in all probability, more than 23 million firearms were bought in 2013. Special Thanks to Obama, Feinstein, Jumpin’ Joe Biden, Moms Demand Stupidity, Mayors Who’ve Broken the Law, and others.

This article was originally published on The Bell Towers. Original publish date Mar 6, 2014. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Gun Control 2013: Suicide Stats Are Irrelevant to Gun Control Policy


gun, control, 2013:, suicide, stats, are, irrelevant, to, gun, control, policy, The shooting tragedies at Sandy Hook Elementary and in Aurora, Colo. have reignited a serious gun debate in the United States. Many have called for, and our nation deserves, an honest, fact-based, and logical discussion.

However, accurate citation of facts is a prerequisite to genuinely having that discussion. Unfortunately many politicians, major news media outlets, and gun-control advocacy organizations are less than fully honest and selectively present information. Worse, some of their information is fabricated, half-truths, or outright lies.

Recently, several major news outlets have invoked images of the Sandy Hook or Aurora massacres and cited that each year 30,000 Americans die from “gun-related deaths” or “gun violence.” The truth is that two-thirds of these deaths are self-inflicted suicides that do not have any true connection to either mass-murder shootings (which make up a fraction of 1% of homicides), or "regular," non-mass shootings (which make up the vast majority of homicides). Suicide is a genuine public-health issue that should demand our collective attention, but its causes are wholly different from those of crime. As such, any policy that might have an impact on suicide is likely to be very different from policies meant to address crime and homicide. We ought to be honest about keeping crime data separate from suicides.

Unfortunately, few news sources do this. New York Times contributor Craig Whitney's article, “A Way Out of the Gun Stalemate,” cited 30,000 gun deaths annually in the U.S. and called for “moderation” in the gun-control debate. "Moderation" by his definition includes policy to restrict so-called “high capacity" magazines, and more regulation for gun shows, machine guns, and military-style rifles. CNN's Frida Ghitis also referenced 30,000 gun deaths, invoking imagery of homicides and crime using the words “brandishing,” “slaughtering each other,” and “at the hands of other Americans” (emphasis mine). Slate has a running tally of “firearm-related deaths” since Newtown that includes suicides. An article by Chris Christoff and Ilan Kolet in Bloomberg states that according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), “shooting deaths in 2015 will probably rise to almost 33,000.” The article further states that gun deaths “by homicide, suicide or accident peaked at 37,666 in 1993 before declining to a low of 28,393 in 2000, the data show....At the same time, violent crime and murder rates have fallen in the U.S.

Similarly, gun-control groups such as GunPolicy.org, the Brady Campaign, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Violence Policy Center, and the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence all cite the 30,000 annual gun deaths figure. GunPolicy.org states gun-related deaths have increased from a 2000 low of 28,663 deaths, to a high of 32,163 deaths in 2011. The Violence Policy Center attributes this to “specific classes of firearms” and advocates a variety of gun-control policies. Virtually all of Mayors Against Illegal Guns' policy positions address gun crimes such as illegal gun trafficking, ATF trace data, and straw purchases.

It sounds pretty solid, right? Even the CDC backs up these claims, right? Not quite.

The CDC's Non-Vital Statistics Report from, 2009 (Tables 10 and 18) reported 31,347 total firearm deaths in 2009, but of those, 18,735 were suicide by firearm deaths. There were 554 deaths from “accidental discharge of firearms.” The CDC statistics are very similar for 2010, showing “Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms" resulting in 19,392 deaths out of a total of 38,364 suicide deaths (table 10, p.23). Technically, this is an increase of 657 suicide deaths from 2009 to 2010. Homicides are another story. FBI statics reported in the Uniform Crime Reports show firearm homicide deaths average about 8-9,000 per year. Homicides have come down a little since 2000, but have been cut in half since 1992. This includes both the raw number of homicides (24,526 in 1993 to 12,664 in 2011) and the rate per 100,000 people (9.5 per 100,000 to 4.7 per 100,000).

Suicide is a big problem by itself — the tenth-largest cause of death in the U.S. on the CDC list. However, let's be honest about our facts and figures and report data that is relevant to gun control when talking gun control. Likewise, let's be honest by using words that don't imply violence done to others.

What do so-called “high capacity” magazines, gun show regulations, machine guns, and military-style weapons have to do with suicide, which represents two-thirds of gun deaths? What effect would banning .50-caliber rifles have on reducing the two-thirds of gun deaths that are suicides? What effect would closing the so-called “gun-show loophole” have on reducing suicides?

None. Nothing. No effect.

Suggesting or implying that 30,000 gun deaths might be addressed by such proposed bills and amendment is tantamount to lying. It is disingenuous to talk about a horrific crime incident and conflate data by counting deaths that have nothing to do with with the horrific crime. Relying on suicide stats to make a case against "gun violence" as characterized by mass shootings like Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, and street homicides, is completely bogus.





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 TowersThe Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.
https://twitter.com/2AFighthttp://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight


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

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





This article also appears on PolicyMic. (Original publication May 6, 2013). 

Suicide Stats Are Irrelevant, Disingenuous to Gun Control Policy

Suicide Stats Are Irrelevant, Disingenuous to Gun Control Policy
The shooting tragedies at Sandy Hook Elementary and in Aurora, Colo. have reignited a serious gun debate in the United States. Many have called for, and our nation deserves, an honest, fact-based, and logical discussion.
However, accurate citation of facts is a prerequisite to genuinely having that discussion. Unfortunately many politicians, major news media outlets, and gun-control advocacy organizations are less than fully honest and selectively present information. Worse, some of their information is fabricated, half-truths, or outright lies.
Recently, several major news outlets have invoked images of the Sandy Hook or Aurora massacres and cited that each year 30,000 Americans die from “gun-related deaths” or “gun violence.” The truth is that two-thirds of these deaths are self-inflicted suicides that do not have any true connection to either mass-murder shootings (which make up a fraction of 1% of homicides), or “regular,” non-mass shootings (which make up the vast majority of homicides). Suicide is a genuine public-health issue that should demand our collective attention, but its causes are wholly different from those of crime. As such, any policy that might have an impact on suicide is likely to be very different from policies meant to address crime and homicide. We ought to be honest about keeping crime data separate from suicides.
Unfortunately, few news sources do this. New York Times contributor Craig Whitney’s article, “A Way Out of the Gun Stalemate,” cited 30,000 gun deaths annually in the U.S. and called for “moderation” in the gun-control debate. “Moderation” by his definition includes policy to restrict so-called “high capacity” magazines, and more regulation for gun shows, machine guns, and military-style rifles. CNN’s Frida Ghitis also referenced 30,000 gun deaths, invoking imagery of homicides and crime using the words “brandishing,” “slaughtering each other,” and “at the hands of other Americans” (emphasis mine). Slate has a running tally of “firearm-related deaths” since Newtown that includes suicides. An article by Chris Christoff and Ilan Kolet in Bloomberg states that according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), “shooting deaths in 2015 will probably rise to almost 33,000.” The article further states that gun deaths “by homicide, suicide or accident peaked at 37,666 in 1993 before declining to a low of 28,393 in 2000, the data show….At the same time, violent crime and murder rates have fallen in the U.S.
Similarly, gun-control groups such as GunPolicy.org, the Brady CampaignMayors Against Illegal Guns, the Violence Policy Center, and the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence all cite the 30,000 annual gun deaths figure. GunPolicy.org states gun-related deaths have increased from a 2000 low of 28,663 deaths, to a high of 32,163 deaths in 2011. The Violence Policy Center attributes this to “specific classes of firearms” and advocates a variety of gun-control policies. Virtually all of Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ policy positions address gun crimes such as illegal gun trafficking, ATF trace data, and straw purchases.
It sounds pretty solid, right? Even the CDC backs up these claims, right? Not quite.
The CDC’s Non-Vital Statistics Report from, 2009 (Tables 10 and 18) reported 31,347 total firearm deaths in 2009, but of those, 18,735 were suicide by firearm deaths. There were 554 deaths from “accidental discharge of firearms.” The CDC statistics are very similar for 2010, showing “Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms” resulting in 19,392 deaths out of a total of 38,364 suicide deaths (table 10, p.23). Technically, this is an increase of 657 suicide deaths from 2009 to 2010. Homicides are another story. FBI statics reported in the Uniform Crime Reports show firearm homicide deaths average about 8-9,000 per year. Homicides have come down a little since 2000, but have been cut in half since 1992. This includes both the raw number of homicides (24,526 in 1993 to 12,664 in 2011) and the rate per 100,000 people (9.5 per 100,000 to 4.7 per 100,000).
Suicide is a big problem by itself — the tenth-largest cause of death in the U.S. on the CDC list. However, let’s be honest about our facts and figures and report data that is relevant to gun control when talking gun control. Likewise, let’s be honest by using words that don’t imply violence done to others.
What do so-called “high capacity” magazines, gun show regulations, machine guns, and military-style weapons have to do with suicide, which represents two-thirds of gun deaths? What effect would banning .50-caliber rifles have on reducing the two-thirds of gun deaths that are suicides? What effect would closing the so-called “gun-show loophole” have on reducing suicides?
None. Nothing. No effect.
Suggesting or implying that 30,000 gun deaths might be addressed by such proposed bills and amendment is tantamount to lying. It is disingenuous to talk about a horrific crime incident and conflate data by counting deaths that have nothing to do with with the horrific crime. Relying on suicide stats to make a case against “gun violence” as characterized by mass shootings like Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, and street homicides, is completely bogus.

This article was originally published on PolicyMic.com, now Mic.com. Original publish date May 6, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

5 Reasons Why Captain Mark Kelly is Not the Gun Control Moderate We Hoped For

5 Reasons Why Captain Mark Kelly is Not the Gun Control Moderate We Hoped For

Friday, March 8, Captain Mark Kelly, former astronaut and Navy captain, and husband to former-Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) posted a photo on his Facebook page in which he is filling out a background check form at a Tucson gun store. Captain Kelly purchased a .45 caliber handgun and AR-15 so-called 'assault rifle.' The AR-15 rifle has been the subject of controversy in the renewed gun control debate since the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut. Gabrielle Giffords was also shot in an attempt on her life in Arizona in 2011; a tragedy in which seven people were killed. After Newtown, Giffords and Kelly created a non-profit organization focused on tightening gun control.

Many had hoped that Giffords and Kelly would be voices of sanity in the gun debate, which is so often dominated by emotion, sensationalism, and empty political rhetoric and dumbed down, trite cliché sound bytes. Unfortunately, as their Senate testimony and Facebook posts demonstrate, they are failing to offer a reasonable voice to the debate on gun control or raising awareness for genuine solutions to gun violence, instead opting for political rhetoric, misinformation and cliché sound byte that is unlikely to actually help others.




Exhibit A: Kelly posted the picture of himself buying the guns with this caption:
I just had a background check a few days ago when I went to my local gun store to buy a 45. As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15. Bought that too. Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes. I don't have possession yet but I'll be turning it over to the Tucson PD when I do. Scary to think of people buying guns like these without a background check at a gun show or the Internet. We really need to close the gun show and private seller loop hole.
 There are several problems with his statement and obvious attempt at propaganda:

Problem 1: AR-15 are not "assault weapons":


As a former military officer, Kelly is aware that AR-15's are not military rifles; they are civilian rifles that cosmetically look like the military M4A1 rifle. They do not have the same functionality. I have written previously in detail about this very issue, as has fellow PolicyMic pundit Elaine Hays. Captain Kelly is a very educated man (MS in aeronautical engineering from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School). NASA pilots tend to be very intelligent people. So if Captain Kelly isn't dumb, he's playing dumb. This indicates a decision to engage in emotional wordplay designed to scare people who are generally ignorant about firearms.

A second issue on this point: Captain Kelly claims as a combat vet, he has knowledge of so-called "assault weapons" capability. However, he was a Navy pilot, not a Marine with ground combat experience. He is again playing up his credentials to make it sound like he's a subject matter expert while simultaneously putting forth misleading, inaccurate information about the very topic he claims expertise in. Score: political rhetoric; 1, voice of reason: 0:

Problem 2: Background check time frame:


Captain Kelly is really playing dumb with this one: "the background check only takes a matter of minutes." How long is a background check supposed to take? Hours? Days? We'll get back to you in Neverbrurary? As a former Navy Captain and NASA pilot, Kelly has been through federal background checks to obtain security clearance. NASA pilots represent a very small group of people entrusted with sensitive tasks; security clearance is required. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is designed to prevent convicted felons, the mentally ill and other prohibited persons from obtaining firearms. A NICS check is required for every purchase from Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) gun sellers – this includes at retail stores as well as gun shows, according to 18 U.S.C. 922(t), 27 CFR 478.102. A NICS check – as it is designed – runs a check for a person based on their social security number to the NICS system to ensure they aren't prohibited; it's designed to only take minutes. Federal law (the Brady Bill) doesn't even provide for a waiting period, although some states require various waiting periods before the buyer make take possession of the firearm. So the NICS check did what it's supposed to do when Kelly purchased his firearms (unless Kelly has committed felonies since leaving the Navy and NASA, or has  been adjudicated mentally ill).  Kelly is again playing on the ignorance of those generally not familiar with the legal process under federal law to purchase firearms by bemoaning that the check "only took minutes." What?! Call the FBI! Oh, wait ...that's what the gun store did when they ran the NICS check. Score: political rhetoric: 2, voice of reason: 0.

Problem 3: Gun show loophole:


There is no gun-show "loophole" as I have previously written. Loophole implies something nefarious or sneaky is being done to circumvent a rule, when in actuality it is — and always has been — legal for an individual (non-FFL holder) to sell their own firearms (personal property) to another person. NICS checks only became the law for FFL holders in 1994, but doesn't apply to regular, average citizens with no FFL. Unscrupulous politicians and celebrity spokespeople (perhaps with political office aspirations?) claim that "up to" 40% of gun sales are purchased with no NICS background check. This is not the case. The study from 1994 of 251 people has an actual range of 14-22% with a +/- error margin of 6%, which means the final range is as low as 8% to as high as 28%; neither figure is 40%.

Secondly – and more importantly – the law requires FFL holders to run a background check on every sale, gun show or retail store. Private sales can occur at gun shows, but private sales can occur anywhere under the law. Score: political rhetoric: 3, voice of reason: 0.

Problem 4: Internet sales:


This is a new creative lie pushed by those with an anti-gun agenda. It is true that one may purchase (as in pay for) a firearm online and there are many vendors that do this, such as Atlantic Firearms, Centerfire Systems, Gunbroker, Guns America and others. However, this does not mean a firearm will be delivered to your doorstep like your last order from Amazon.  No internet vendors will ship the firearm directly to you – it must go to a licensed FFL holder who will then run a NICS check by law. Only after the buyer has passed the NICS check can they take possession of the firearm and go home.

What about Craigslist? You can't even buy a kitchen knife under the Terms of Use on Craigslist. What about other less-popular online classified ad sites? Firearms can be legally listed and sold private party in person locally, but firearms cannot be shipped over state lines to a private party legally. If shipping out of state, the firearm must go to a local FFL holder where the buyer must arrange to take possession of it after a NICS check. Score: political rhetoric: 4, voice of reason: 0.

Problem 5: The many flaws in NICS:


As I have written previously, as well as fellow PolicyMic pundits Jack Lee and David Susman, NICS has several flaws that must be addressed for background checks to have any chance at producing a positive end result. Gabrielle Giffords was shot by a mentally ill person who had not yet been diagnosed and classified as a prohibited person under NICS rules. He was able to legally purchase his handguns even after going through a NICS check. The shooter in Aurora, Colorado also similarly legally purchased his handgun, shotgun, and AR-15 rifle even after a NICS check. The Sandy Hook shooter murdered his mother and stole her guns; NICS could not have prevented that, although he was denied a retail purchase previously. NICS is not fully funded; many states do not fully report data to NICS; the Justice Department only prosecutes a fraction of 1% of NICS fraud cases; NICS doesn't address illegal trafficking, straw man purchases and illegal transfer, and theft (including theft from the police and military). The majority of criminals obtain weapons via straw man, illegal transfer, or illegal trafficking.

NICS doesn't effectively prevent felons or the mentally ill from obtaining firearms now as these examples illustrate. In order for NICS to work, these issues must be addressed. Without fixing these problems, the proposed solution is guaranteed to not work, because we already know it is not working. Further, we can readily identify what needs to be fixed. Attempting a partial solution is insanity. Taking only a partial dose of antibiotics is often more dangerous than not taking any antibiotics. NASA wouldn't send a shuttle to space with only some of the fuel or parts required to work. We need real medicine on this issue, a real solution not more of the same empty political rhetoric. Score: political rhetoric: 5, voice of reason: 0.

Captain Mark Kelly and Gabrielle Giffords have an opportunity to genuinely be a voice of reason on gun control, or to engage in half-truth propaganda and rhetoric, as is standard for most. They have only just begun their non-profit efforts; they may still yet choose a more reasoned approach that doesn't entail band-aid, partial solutions, or false solutions — which won't actually help anyone. They, perhaps more than most ought to be raising awareness of mental illness as it affects gun violence. Addressing the other underlying causes, like gang violence (responsible for half of all violent crime in America), drug abuse (the single largest predictor of violence), and concentrated urban population and poverty could also be advocated. If Giffords and Kelly are serious about helping others, they ought to advocate for real solutions to the issue.





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 TowersThe Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.
https://twitter.com/2AFighthttp://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight


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

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





This article also appears on PolicyMic. (Original publication March 11, 2013).


5 Reasons Why Captain Mark Kelly is Gun Control Fraud and Liar

5 Reasons Why Captain Mark Kelly is Gun Control Fraud and Liar
Captain Mark Kelly, former astronaut and Navy captain, and husband to former-Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) posted a photo on his Facebook page in which he is filling out a background check form at a Tucson gun store. Captain Kelly purchased a .45 caliber handgun and AR-15 so-called ‘assault rifle.’ The AR-15 rifle has been the subject of controversy in the renewed gun control debate since the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut. Gabrielle Giffords was also shot in an attempt on her life in Arizona in 2011, a tragedy in which seven people were killed. After Newtown, Giffords and Kelly created a non-profit organization focused on tightening gun control.
Many had hoped that Giffords and Kelly would be voices of sanity in the gun debate, which is so often dominated by emotion, sensationalism, and empty political rhetoric and dumbed down, trite cliché sound bytes. Unfortunately, as their Senate testimony and Facebook posts demonstrate, they are failing to offer a reasonable voice to the debate on gun control or raising awareness for genuine solutions to gun violence, instead opting for political rhetoric, misinformation that is unlikely to actually help others.
Exhibit A: Kelly posted the picture of himself buying the guns with this caption:
I just had a background check a few days ago when I went to my local gun store to buy a 45. As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15. Bought that too. Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes. I don’t have possession yet but I’ll be turning it over to the Tucson PD when I do. Scary to think of people buying guns like these without a background check at a gun show or the Internet. We really need to close the gun show and private seller loop hole.
There are several problems with his statement and obvious attempt at propaganda:
Problem 1: AR-15 are not “assault weapons”:
As a former military officer, Kelly is aware that AR-15’s are not military rifles; they are civilian rifles that cosmetically look like the military M4A1 rifle. They do not have the same functionality. I have written previously in detail about this very issue, as has fellow PolicyMic pundit Elaine Hays. Captain Kelly is a very educated man (MS in aeronautical engineering from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School). NASA pilots tend to be very intelligent people. So if Captain Kelly isn’t dumb, he’s playing dumb. This indicates a decision to engage in emotional wordplay designed to scare people who are generally ignorant about firearms.
A second issue on this point: Captain Kelly claims as a combat vet, he has knowledge of so-called “assault weapons” capability. However, he was a Navy pilot, not a Marine with ground combat experience. He is again playing up his credentials to make it sound like he’s a subject matter expert while simultaneously putting forth misleading, inaccurate information about the very topic he claims expertise in. Score: political rhetoric; 1, voice of reason: 0:
Problem 2: Background check time frame:
Captain Kelly is really playing dumb with this one: “the background check only takes a matter of minutes.” How long is a background check supposed to take? Hours? Days? We’ll get back to you in Neverbrurary? As a former Navy Captain and NASA pilot, Kelly has been through federal background checks to obtain security clearance. NASA pilots represent a very small group of people entrusted with sensitive tasks; security clearance is required. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is designed to prevent convicted felons, the mentally ill and other prohibited persons from obtaining firearms. A NICS check is required for every purchase from Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) gun sellers – this includes at retail stores as well as gun shows, according to 18 U.S.C. 922(t), 27 CFR 478.102. A NICS check – as it is designed – runs a check for a person based on their social security number to the NICS system to ensure they aren’t prohibited; it’s designed to only take minutes. Federal law (the Brady Bill) doesn’t even provide for a waiting period, although some states require various waiting periods before the buyer make take possession of the firearm. So the NICS check did what it’s supposed to do when Kelly purchased his firearms (unless Kelly has committed felonies since leaving the Navy and NASA, or has  been adjudicated mentally ill).  Kelly is again playing on the ignorance of those generally not familiar with the legal process under federal law to purchase firearms by bemoaning that the check “only took minutes.” What?! Call the FBI! Oh, wait …that’s what the gun store did when they ran the NICS check. Score: political rhetoric: 2, voice of reason: 0.
Problem 3: Gun show loophole:
There is no gun-show “loophole” as I have previously written. Loophole implies something nefarious or sneaky is being done to circumvent a rule, when in actuality it is — and always has been — legal for an individual (non-FFL holder) to sell their own firearms (personal property) to another person. NICS checks only became the law for FFL holders in 1994, but doesn’t apply to regular, average citizens with no FFL. Unscrupulous politicians and celebrity spokespeople (perhaps with political office aspirations?) claim that “up to” 40% of gun sales are purchased with no NICS background check. This is not the case. The study from 1994 of 251 people has an actual range of 14-22% with a +/- error margin of 6%, which means the final range is as low as 8% to as high as 28%; neither figure is 40%.
Secondly – and more importantly – the law requires FFL holders to run a background check on every sale, gun show or retail store. Private sales can occur at gun shows, but private sales can occur anywhere under the law. Score: political rhetoric: 3, voice of reason: 0.
Problem 4: Internet sales:
This is a new creative lie pushed by those with an anti-gun agenda. It is true that one may purchase (as in pay for) a firearm online and there are many vendors that do this, such as Atlantic FirearmsCenterfire SystemsGunbrokerGuns America and others. However, this does not mean a firearm will be delivered to your doorstep like your last order from Amazon.  No internet vendors will ship the firearm directly to you – it must go to a licensed FFL holder who will then run a NICS check by law. Only after the buyer has passed the NICS check can they take possession of the firearm and go home.
What about Craigslist? You can’t even buy a kitchen knife under the Terms of Use on Craigslist. What about other less-popular online classified ad sites? Firearms can be legally listed and sold private party in person locally, but firearms cannot be shipped over state lines to a private party legally. If shipping out of state, the firearm must go to a local FFL holder where the buyer must arrange to take possession of it after a NICS check. Score: political rhetoric: 4, voice of reason: 0.
Problem 5: The many flaws in NICS:
As I have written previously, as well as fellow PolicyMic pundits Jack Lee and David Susman, NICS has several flaws that must be addressed for background checks to have any chance at producing a positive end result. Gabrielle Giffords was shot by a mentally ill person who had not yet been diagnosed and classified as a prohibited person under NICS rules. He was able to legally purchase his handguns even after going through a NICS check. The shooter in Aurora, Colorado also similarly legally purchased his handgun, shotgun, and AR-15 rifle even after a NICS check. The Sandy Hook shooter murdered his mother and stole her guns; NICS could not have prevented that, although he was denied a retail purchase previously. NICS is not fully funded; many states do not fully report data to NICS; the Justice Department only prosecutes a fraction of 1% of NICS fraud cases; NICS doesn’t address illegal trafficking, straw man purchases and illegal transfer, and theft (including theft from the police and military). The majority of criminals obtain weapons via straw man, illegal transfer, or illegal trafficking.
NICS doesn’t effectively prevent felons or the mentally ill from obtaining firearms now as these examples illustrate. In order for NICS to work, these issues must be addressed. Without fixing these problems, the proposed solution is guaranteed to not work, because we already know it is not working. Further, we can readily identify what needs to be fixed. Attempting a partial solution is insanity. Taking only a partial dose of antibiotics is often more dangerous than not taking any antibiotics. NASA wouldn’t send a shuttle to space with only some of the fuel or parts required to work. We need real medicine on this issue, a real solution not more of the same empty political rhetoric. Score: political rhetoric: 5, voice of reason: 0.
Captain Mark Kelly and Gabrielle Giffords have an opportunity to genuinely be a voice of reason on gun control, or to engage in half-truth propaganda and rhetoric, as is standard for most. They have only just begun their non-profit efforts; they may still yet choose a more reasoned approach that doesn’t entail band-aid, partial solutions, or false solutions — which won’t actually help anyone. They, perhaps more than most ought to be raising awareness of mental illness as it affects gun violence. Addressing the other underlying causes, like gang violence (responsible for half of all violent crime in America), drug abuse (the single largest predictor of violence), and concentrated urban population and poverty could also be advocated. If Giffords and Kelly are serious about helping others, they ought to advocate for real solutions to the issue.

This article was originally published on PolicyMic.com, now Mic.com. Original publish date Mar 11, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Disqus