U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Newly released research suggests four gun safety policies supported by gun owners and non-gun owners that could reduce overall gun-related homicides by 28% and gun-related suicides by 6.7%,” ABC News dutifully parrots. “One of the proposals alone, called closing the misdemeanor loophole, has the potential to reduce overall gun-related homicide rates by as much as 19% according to research.”
“What’s not to like?” those impressed by such promises might ask. “Let’s do it!”
“Not so fast,” some of us who have been down this road before might respond. “Could” also means “could not” and “has the potential” means someone is talking out of their… ear. Just who are these “gun control”-loving “gun owners”?
And what the hell kind of invented new scare term is “misdemeanor loophole”?
The “Gun Violence/Epidemic” video accompanying this unabashed advocacy piece masked as news gives us our first clue that Disney-owned ABC is continuing with its decades-long hostility to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We then need to look at who’s behind this latest push, and unsurprisingly, the name “97percent” features prominently. This is the Astroturf group I warned about in my Firearms News exposé from a year-and-a-half ago, “’Gun Safety Symposium’ Promises Kinder, Gentler Citizen Disarmament.”
“Today, 97Percent, a bipartisan gun safety organization, released their Policy Roadmap, a set of four research-backed gun safety policies: closing the violent misdemeanor loophole, creating a state-level permit system, implementing a revamped universal background check system, and creating a red flag law with due process protections. New academic research found this package could reduce gun-related homicides by up to 28% and gun suicide rates by more than 6%,” a Wednesday press release from the group claims.
At least we can see where ABC News and other media outlets are getting their talking points from. And to paraphrase Bill Clinton lying under oath about Monica, it depends upon what the meaning of the word “bipartisan” is.
But let’s go to the “study” and see what gun owners will have to give up in order to achieve the “benefits” of “could” and “has the potential,” assuming they’re not just ignoring factors they have no solutions for and aren’t just making sh… uh… stuff up.
Let’s open the “roadmap” and see where it leads.
“We are guided by three main criteria, we are told:
- To focus on the core principle shared by gun owners and non-gun owners: Gun policies should ensure that people who are at high risk for violence cannot access guns.
- To identify a limited set of policies, that when combined, were demonstrated to have the greatest impact on reducing gun violence.
- To respect the rights of law-abiding citizens to purchase and possess guns.
The first point is shared. It’s just that anyone who actually understands the problem understands those who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian and need to be kept away from not just guns, but more importantly, from victims. And it’s not like NICS checks and “red flags” have slowed down any feral gangbangers in Chicago, Baltimore, or any other “table-running” Bloomberg Mayor cities “boasting” shooting death tolls measured in the hundreds.
As for the second point, good luck with that. If you’re talking homicides, see the first point. If you’re talking suicides, those tasked with enforcing citizen disarmament pose higher risks than the general population. If you’re talking “assault weapon”/magazine bans, you’ll get better results banning fists and feet. And if you’re talking reality:
“In 2004, the US National Academy of Sciences … failed to identify any gun control that reduced violent crime, suicides or gun accidents.” This was “from a review of 153 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the US Centers for Disease Control…”
The third point is the most deceptive of all, if you consider that one of the four “pillars” the “roadmap” rests on requires expanding the number of Americans declared not “law-abiding” enough to own a gun. You’ll note they purposely avoid telling you which guns they’re working on not allowing you to “purchase and possess.”
Hey, if you want to do a good swindle, you need to know how to talk to your marks.
In Part Two of this report, we’ll talk about the “policies” 97 percent would see imposed on their countrymen.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
Lucy McBath maintains, as do most of the left-wingnuts that there is some sort of health crisis involving guns. I have always maintained that we give these idiots a cross section of firearms so that they can submit them to their healthcare facilities for testing and evaluation while we maintain our freedom and liberty as we await the results of their findings. Also, it is a simple fact that people that do not believe in, God will ALWAYS remain ignorant of the rights endowed by, God as it is a given fact that if they don’t believe in or understand,… Read more »
Another gun grabber with a big “but.” As in “I support the 2nd Amendment but not the parts I don’t support.” Can we for once get them to cut to the bottom line and tell us just how many of us bitter clinger deploreables they’re willing to kill in order to achieve their gun free paradise? At least Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn of Weather Underground were honest enough to give us an estimate. In return, Mike Vanderboegh was honest with them. “On February 26th, Vanderboegh printed an article entitled “America as a Free Fire Zone: A Critical Examination of… Read more »
The progressive anti-freedom democrats are gunning to take away your guns again, by adding an Assault Weapon Ban to the LGBTQ-alphabet soup bill they deceptively and hypocritically titled “Respect for Marriage Act”. They want to sneak this through the lame duck session. Call congress and suggest the following: “Republicans must submit an amendment to the bill, to substitute their own bill, that states ‘We respect Marriage, and hereby immediately decriminalize marijuana, abolish the BATFE, and overturn the Gun Control Act, the National Firearms Act, and the Hughes Amendment.‘ Let Democrats be the mean ones who vote down a combination legalized… Read more »
We must close the “innocent” loophole, and the “never committed a crime but just might, any day now” loophole. How about the “trained, armed and potential killer” loophole?
Here’s a common sense solution, how about you disarm only the criminals and not the law-abiding. Don’t release thugs from jail and I won’t question your ability for irrational thinking.
OK. So we will discuss proposals which have been proven effective and which will not impact our rights…. Which means we can automatically discard any proposals, or existing bills, I’ve seen to date.
Following their suggestion, seems we should rescind NFA and large parts of FOPA – while reinforcing the actual firearms-owners and industry protections in FOPA. Simple – guess we’ve found a compromise we can all agree on, with moderate, reasonable and common sense first steps.