Gun Control Debate -  Democrats running on Gun Control (745 views) Notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion.Subscribe
From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host9/8/18 2:33 PM 
To: All  (1 of 25) 

Politicians Flooding Airwaves With Gun Control Ads
by Tom Knighton
15 Aug 18

Democrats have decided that gun control is the hill they want to die on come November. It seems that since support for gun control spiked following the Parkland shooting, candidates want to push down that road, thinking that’s the way to take office.

And it doesn’t look like it’s just one or two, either.

Candidates across the country and allied& outside groups are seizing on the issue of guns in advertising this election cycle, but with a twist: More spots now promote gun control than oppose it.

That messaging represents a reversal from the last midterm cycle in 2014 and even 2016, when the combined total of pro-gun-rights spots in governors, House and Senate races eclipsed those touting restrictions on guns, according to a USA TODAY analysis of data from Kantar Media.

The shift follows a rash of mass shootings, including the killing of 17 students and staff members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School six months ago Tuesday.

Democrats are driving the surge in advertising favoring gun control as polling shows the public generally supports stricter laws covering the sale of firearms and overwhelmingly supports expanded background checks.

It could be a gamble, given that curbing access to guns has long been considered the third rail of politics. For decades, prominent Democratic candidates, especially in battleground states, have sought to reassure voters of their support for protections under the Second Amendment for the right to bear arms.

In 2018, however, candidates and outside groups — particularly in House and governors races — are flooding the airwaves with pointed and sometimes dramatic messages.


Of course, that might be for the best.

You see, one thing we continually find is that while polls may show a large number of people support gun control to some extent, it’s not important enough for them to pick a candidate unless they’re pro-gun. In other words, gun control supporters are generally more lukewarm in their support, and it’s rarely why they choose a given candidate. They’re interested in other things like the economy, crime, immigration, and a whole host of other issues.

On the contrary, pro-gun voters are often driven by that pro-gun attitude. We tend to use gun rights as a litmus test to see where a candidate stands on other issues. Will they support individual liberty or will they seek a government solution to every problem? By and large, someone who supports an individual’s right to keep and bear arms will likely also side with an individual’s right to do any number of other things. Not always, but usually.

Meanwhile, candidates who jumped on the anti-gun bandwagon following Parkland are forgetting one very important thing. They’re forgetting that after a mass shooting like that, support for gun control spikes as people start clamoring to “do something,” but then drops.

That means they’re gambling on gun control not just being a critical issue for voters, but also that enough will remain committed to gun control come November despite history to the contrary.

Now, I’m not going to say there’s no way that gamble will pay off. It probably will in some places.

The question is, will it pay off enough that they can retake Congress?


  • Edited September 8, 2018 3:21 pm  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host9/8/18 3:12 PM 
To: All  (2 of 25) 
 1993.2 in reply to 1993.1 

Democrats are Running on Gun Control in 2018
 by Greg Camp
7 Sep 18

As we approach the mid-term election, an analysis of campaign advertising done by USA Today has found that so far this year, around 82,000 took a gun control stance as opposed to some 57,500 that were against. The reporting doesn’t go into detail about the exact positions taken other than to say that the spots “may call for increased restrictions on guns or opposition to the National Rifle Association.”

This comes after several decades of hesitation in the Democratic Party to be clear about their policy goals with regard to guns following the losses in 1994 after the passage of the “Assault Weapons” Ban. And it runs counter to the divisions that have shown up previously between Democrats in blue states and big cities and those running in districts that lean Republican, especially in rural districts.

But the consensus among Democratic candidates and voters is that recent high profile mass shootings such as the one in Parkland, Florida in February has given them an opportunity to win in November and to drive through new restrictions on gun rights.

Poll numbers in favor of gun control spike after an event that stays on the nightly news, and there is also a sharp partisan separation in opinions on what laws we ought to have, but a survey released by the Gallup organization in June shows the two parties as nearly perfect mirror images of each other, with 88% of Republicans and 24% of Democrats having a favorable view of the NRA and 61% of the former being satisfied with our current regulations, while 79% of the latter expressed their dissatisfaction.

This U-shaped curve in our politics worries the talking heads in the media who think that compromise and shared feeling are the highest virtues, but it is also a realistic concern, given that the law relating to the exercise of rights will be formed in a free society ultimately by the guidance of the voters, and thus forming solid majorities in favor of rights is the safest course. That being said, there is good reason to think that the Democrats are a day late and a dollar short in their current approach.

The federal judiciary is moving rightward. Assuming that Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed, his appointment is but the latest of many Trump nominees who have been placed on the bench from district courts on up. With Heller and McDonald already being treated as precedent and Kavanaugh’s position on gun control, the trend is in favor of gun rights.

As much as I hate to rest on the courts alone, the probable outcome for the next many years will be a swing against restrictions and for greater exercise. With that in mind, I have advice for the Democratic Party.

Gun control advocates have been telling us for a while now that all they really want is gun safety. I’ve always assumed that to be so much propaganda — if I’m willing to presume that the person saying it to me is knowledgeable and intelligent. But as controls are increasingly found to be unconstitutional, the groups in question will have to decide how to stay relevant, and advocating for actual safety is something that they could usefully do — promoting training classes, reliability in manufacture, and supervision of children around firearms come to mind.

The problem for advocates of control is that as the courts turn increasingly against them, they’ll have to learn how to use persuasion, not force. That may be impossible for them, and there are no guarantees in politics. How the 2018 election will go is still an open question. Those of us who value gun rights still have to remind our representatives that our support for them is contingent on their support for the basic principle of liberty that is at the heart of our national ideals.

  • Edited September 8, 2018 3:37 pm  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host9/8/18 3:15 PM 
To: All  (3 of 25) 
 1993.3 in reply to 1993.2 

GOP Lets Vote on Guns, Break the Self-Defeating Republican Election Strategy
Opinion by Jeff Knox
7 Sep 18

GOP Let's Votes on Guns, Stop the Self-Defeating Republican Election Strategy


As we pass out of Primary Season here in Arizona and enter General Election Season nationwide, I'm struck by the lack of any sort of cohesive election strategy on the part of the GOP.

While Senate Republicans are focused on confirming Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the House Republicans are milling about doing little beyond throwing rocks at each other and the President over accusations of misconduct on the part of a couple of their members, and a pair of unsourced, but sensational portraits of chaos in the West Wing.

Republicans keep following a non-strategy of just reacting to the latest media attacks, and their strategists appear to be as disdainful of their base as the Democrat elites are. They show no signs of having a plan for winning in November, so here’s a suggestion for them. For years I have encouraged state grassroots groups to adopt a double-pronged legislative agenda. The first prong is their Action Agenda – the legislation they really want to get passed — while the second prong is their Political Agenda — legislation that might not be passable, but which will force legislators to take a stand before reelection season.

Congress should be taking a similar approach. The confirmation of Kavanaugh is pretty good election season fodder for Republicans, but it is also firing-up the Democrat base. Rather than dragging it out as they are doing now, the Republican leadership should dispense with the kabuki theater of drawn-out hearings, and just move forward with a confirmation vote. No new information about Judge Kavanaugh or his positions will be revealed in these hearings, and the hearings are not going to change any minds or votes. The only purpose the hearings serve as a forum for showboating on both sides, and an opportunity for a lot of whining and outrageous accusations flowing from the left and their media allies. Senator Grassley should abbreviate the committee hearings, going through the proforma motions as quickly as possible and moving straight to a vote of the Judiciary Committee. Then Mitch McConnell should act similarly, moving the confirmation debate speedily and getting straight to a vote.

We all know that this will be a straight party-line vote and that it is not Democrats who will decide whether Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, but Republicans, specifically Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

The slim, one-seat majority Republicans hold in the Senate was, until last Monday, in reality, a 49-49 split, since John McCain was still holding a seat, even though he hadn't been present for a vote in months. That meant that one Republican defector would have been able to sink the Kavanaugh nomination. Collins and Murkowski want to keep their seats for a few more terms, and being the Republican who kept the Supreme Court in play for more anti-rights leftist abuse, would be a hard label to live down. Flake, on the other hand, is retiring from the Senate, and he's demonstrated a nasty, vindictive streak where President Trump is concerned, so there was some real worry that he might take his war with the president to a new low by voting against Kavanaugh, or just not show up for the vote. Thankfully that shouldn't matter now that Jon Kyl has been appointed to fill McCain's seat. While Kyl falls far short of being a reliable conservative, he has been shepherding Kavanaugh around to Senate offices and is unlikely to undermine his own work.

So why are Republicans drawing out the confirmation process?

The Democrats wrote the new rules, and Republicans should play by those rules. Drawing the process out does nothing to help Republican prospects in the midterms, but it is serving as a rallying point to activate the Democrat base.


  • Edited September 8, 2018 3:22 pm  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host9/8/18 3:23 PM 
To: All  (4 of 25) 
 1993.4 in reply to 1993.3 

Instead, Republicans should get the confirmation process done, and move on to an issue where there is strong bipartisan support — among voters — and serious vulnerability among Democrat incumbents: Gun Rights.

A dozen Senate Democrats are vulnerable in the coming midterms. At least 10 of those would be significantly damaged by a recorded vote against a popular gun bill. Voting for a gun bill would do no harm to the electoral prospects of any Republican senators, and would help most.

In the House, Republican prospects are not looking great. Many Republicans announced their retirements last year in anticipation of a wave of Democrats in response to the election of President Trump. That wave was growing to a tsunami late last year, but quickly lost momentum with the passage of the president’s tax bill in December, and has been rising and falling like a weak tide ever since, mainly dictated by the president’s Twitter activity. Most Americans seem pleased with the direction Congress has taken over the past two years, and the condition of the country. Republicans should be in great shape, but President Trump seems determined to keep feeding fuel to the Democrat base.

Like the Senate, Republicans in the House would significantly benefit from public debate and action on firearm-related legislation. GunVoters have been seriously frustrated by Republicans' failure to follow through on promises to pass pro-rights legislation. The National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act passed out of the House last December but has been stalled in the Senate ever since. That bill is ripe for action in the Senate as soon as Justice Kavanaugh is confirmed. The other key bill that GunVoters have been waiting for action on in the House is the Hearing Protection Act. We thought we were going to see action on that last year, but it was successfully shot down by a crazed Bernie Sanders supporter who decided to take target practice at a Republican baseball practice.

Republicans in the House should immediately start pushing through the SHARE Act, which is an omnibus hunting, fishing, and land access bill that includes the Hearing Protection Act, along with several other much-needed firearm law reforms. The SHARE Act enjoys some bi-partisan support and is an excellent vehicle for Republicans to regain the support of GunVoters. Bringing the SHARE Act back into the spotlight would give House Republicans something positive to talk about, And passing the bill out of the House would give Senate Republicans some leverage for offering Democrats a no-win choice of voting on either the National Carry bill or the SHARE Act, forcing them to either allow one of the bills to go to a vote, or take a hard stand to block them from the floor. Either choice hurts them.

As I have said repeatedly in these pages, Guns Win, and it’s high time that Republican “leadership” figured that out.


From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host9/14/18 4:19 AM 
To: All  (5 of 25) 
 1993.5 in reply to 1993.4 

The Assault on Our Rights Has NOT Ceased
by John Caile
7 Sep 18

Anti-Second-Amendment initiatives are nothing new. Federal, state and even local municipalities have long attempted to enact laws that restrict our ability to own (or carry) firearms. True, things have been trending our way for quite some time.

Many younger people are unaware that as recently as the 1980s, in most states local sheriffs or chiefs of police had the power to deny an application to carry a gun, often on a whim. Abuse of this power was rampant, with approvals often limited to political cronies or people who could “demonstrate a need” — a difficult task at best, with most applicants failing.

Today, thanks to the efforts of gun-rights activists across the nation, in concert with pro-gun-rights legislators, shall issue is the rule in all but a tiny handful of states. Unless the court can bring forth evidence as to why the applicant should be denied, the state shall issue such a permit or license. The burden of proof is back where it belongs: on the state, not the citizen.

Some states have even gone to constitutional carry, where no license or permit is needed. Many constitutional scholars agree, arguing that the Second Amendment already protects this right, as it clearly delineates between the right to “keep” (own) and “bear” (carry) arms.

But make no mistake: The battle is hardly over. As the 2018 midterm elections get closer, a surprising number of politicians have become more open about their anti-Second-Amendment views.

A perfect example is what is occurring here in Florida. Andrew Gillum, the Bernie-Sanders-backed Democrat candidate for governor, has openly declared his opposition to Florida’s so-called “stand your ground” (SYG) law.

Gillum repeats the false assertion that the law prevents police from arresting a suspect after a shooting where self-defense is claimed. But, as Marrion Hammer, the NRA representative who worked for the law’s passage, notes, “nothing in the law prohibits a Sheriff from making an arrest in a case where a person claims self-defense if there is probable cause that the use of force was unlawful.” He is correct. SYG is not some kind of legal Kevlar vest that allows you to run amok without consequence.

More to the point, Gillum, a one-term mayor of Tallahassee, has also supported other radical policies and banning so-called “assault weapons.” According to ABC News, “Gillum defeated former U.S. Rep. Gwen Graham, an heir to a Florida political dynasty — her father, Bob Graham, was once the state’s governor and U.S. senator.”

Ominously, they also report that Gillum “had the endorsement of progressive icon Bernie Sanders and a recent cash infusion from billionaire George Soros.” Surprise, surprise. This November, Gillum will face Republican Ron De Santis, who has been reliably pro-Second-Amendment, even proposing open carry without a license or permit.

Wherever you live, even if you don’t see the kind of openly hostile positions expressed by someone like Gillum, you can be assured that if the Democrats succeed in taking over the House of Representatives, their increasingly radical left-wing leadership will likely feel emboldened to come “out of the closet” on guns.

In a number of critical special elections over the past year, voter turnout has been downright embarrassing — as low as 27 percent. If you are a gun owner, especially if you carry a gun, you simply must get to the polls in November and vote.

No excuses.


From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host9/23/18 7:19 AM 
To: All  (6 of 25) 
 1993.6 in reply to 1993.5 

Gun Control Groups Putting Millions Into Elections
by Tom Knighton
17 Sep 18

Remember when the National Rifle Association was awful because it put so much money into elections? Time and time again, we’ve heard how the NRA buys pro-gun officials and how the NRA owns the pro-gun lobby. It was clear that somehow, the NRA shouldn’t be permitted to do so. Either that or any candidate who accepted NRA money was somehow tainted and should be dismissed out of hand.

But, apparently, it’s only wrong when the NRA does it.

The Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund is spending millions to support candidates in four states, underscoring the extent to which gun control is shaping up to be an issue in the November midterm election.

The fund, the political arm of the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety, plans to spend $8 million to $10 million in Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and New Mexico as an initial investment in the election. It will include contributions to candidates, as well as independent expenditures such as mail, television, radio and digital ads.

“This is not a movement of blue states. This is a movement of Americans,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit organization. “The old third-rail warnings are out the window and you can redraw the map and work on gun safety virtually anywhere in this country.”

Feinblatt said the initial sum is a “curtain raiser” on what will come between now and the election.

Everytown’s strategy to change gun laws has focused on statehouses. The focus on individual races is an outgrowth of that, Feinblatt said, and resources are being used where the group thinks it can make the most difference.

Just remember this the next time some anti-gunner goes on and on about how the NRA “owns” certain politicians.

Look, I don’t have an issue with Everytown doing this. I think its targets are kind of dumb. For example, it’s throwing money at Stacey Abrams here in Georgia, where I seriously doubt she’ll win, but Everytown’s certainly free to waste its money if it wants to.

The reason I have no issue with Everytown doing this is that I’m not a hypocrite. If I support the NRA doing this, I have to support allowing its opposition to do the same.

However, I do have a problem with the hypocrisy being spouted by so many anti-gunners. They seem to see the NRA’s money as pure evil, nothing but blood money used to pay off complicit politicians or something. Yet somehow money from their side is a different matter and works in completely different ways. Their motives, in their mind, are pure so their money is just being used just to help worthy candidates achieve greatness.

It doesn’t work that way. You don’t get to pretend your motives are pure while doing the same thing you decry your opposition doing. That’s hypocrisy at it’s finest, and I’m going to call you on it.

Gun rights are a battle for this election cycle, but we’re not going to be forced to play by a completely different set of rules.


From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host9/24/18 4:20 AM 
To: All  (7 of 25) 
 1993.7 in reply to 1993.6 

Bloomberg Presidential Run? Maybe.
Bloomberg Effort to Buy the Midterms? Definitely.

21 Seep 18

Billionaire gun control financier and former-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is once again floating a presidential run.

According to a September 17 report from the New York Times, the would-be oligarch is interested in seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2020. Though Bloomberg has previously run for political office as a Republican and an independent, the political opportunist told the Times, “It’s impossible to conceive that I could run as a Republican — things like choice, so many of the issues, I’m just way away from where the Republican Party is today.” He added, “That’s not to say I’m with the Democratic Party on everything, but I don’t see how you could possibly run as a Republican. So if you ran, yeah, you’d have to run as a Democrat.”

The title of the Times piece was, “Bloomberg May Run for President as a Democrat. Some of His Views May Cause Him Trouble.” The latter half is an understatement. The famously authoritarian Bloomberg’s views on civil rights are likely to find him as many enemies on the left as on the right.

Bloomberg used the recent Times interview to defend New York City’s controversial use of stop-and-frisk. More commonly termed a Terry Stop, it is a tactic whereby police are permitted to pat down an individual they reasonably suspect of being engaged in illegal activity if they suspect the person to be armed. Many critics of the tactic believe that it has been used as a pretext to hassle the city’s minority residents.

The racial insensitivity that many perceive in Bloomberg’s views isn’t isolated to the stop-and-frisk issue. In 2015, the Aspen Institute hosted “A Conversation with Michael R. Bloomberg.” At the forum, Bloomberg explained how governments need to restrict access to firearms for young adult minorities.

Bloomberg’s representatives were initially successful in suppressing video of the event, blocking a local Aspen, Colo. television station that had planned to broadcast the talk from airing his inflammatory statements. Later, however, an audio recording of the event was made public. In it, the former mayor can be heard saying,

It’s controversial but, first thing is all of your, 95 percent, 95 percent of your murders and murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take the description and Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male minorities 15 to 25. That’s true in New York, it’s true in virtually every city in America. And that’s where the real crime is. You’ve got to get the guns out of the hands of the people that are getting killed.

Civil rights advocates also took issue with Bloomberg’s statement that the “only way to get guns out of kids' hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them.”

Whether the septuagenarian can square his indifference to civil rights with the Democratic base enough to secure the party’s nomination in 2020 is questionable. However, the billionaire’s attempt to influence the 2018 midterm elections is not.

In June, Bloomberg announced his intent to spend at least $80 million during the 2018 election cycle, with the explicit goal of helping the Democrats take control of the U.S. House of Representatives. In a statement Bloomberg released outlining the plan, the former mayor cited “gun safety” first, among a handful of reasons, for the extravagant expenditure.

While addressing a gun control rally in Seattle, WA, last week, Bloomberg said of NRA, “We haven't knocked them out yet, but they are on the ropes.” It was an interesting choice of words. Wishful gun control supporters have long prophesied the demise of NRA. In fact, the December 9, 1988 edition of the New York Times carried an article titled, “N.R.A. On the Ropes.”

Moreover, that anti-NRA bravado is directly controverted by a June 20 New York Times article detailing Bloomberg’s political largesse. A source privy to the strategy deliberations on how Bloomberg should deploy his cash told the Times, “he is unlikely to get involved in rural, conservative-leaning districts where his views on guns and other issues could stir an uproar.”

Regardless of whether he runs for president or the falsity of his bluster about NRA, Bloomberg’s sophisticated political operation is a threat to freedom in the here and now. Combatting Bloomberg’s obscene spending will require all NRA members and other gun rights supporters to not only vote this November 6, but to ensure that their like-minded friends and family do as well.

  • Edited September 24, 2018 4:20 am  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host10/12/18 8:46 PM 
To: All  (8 of 25) 
 1993.8 in reply to 1993.7 




  • Edited October 14, 2018 9:56 am  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host10/15/18 12:56 PM 
To: All  (9 of 25) 
 1993.9 in reply to 1993.8 

Guns for self-defense threatened by Bloomberg
Commentary by Tim Schmidt, President and founder of the U.S. Concealed Carry Association
4 Oct 18

As the November elections approach, Second Amendment supporters must recognize that liberal billionaires like former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg are heavily investing in the political process to push out of office those who support the Second Amendment. Their goal is to flip vulnerable seats in Congress and state legislatures, and fill them with politicians beholden to their agenda of restricting gun rights and putting limitations on self-defense.

Mr. Bloomberg’s organization “Everytown for Gun Safety” is really not about gun safety at all but rather, advancing an anti-Second Amendment agenda. So far, they have committed more than $15 million to advertising and campaigning, and that’s likely the tip of the iceberg. The strategy is clear: Prey on the fear that there is a mass shooting around every corner, and nothing can be done to stop it, except eradicating all guns, forever.

In fact, liberal U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, Connecticut Democrat, told USA Today point blank recently, “If they don’t see us being coordinated and they don’t see us having the ability to mobilize voters and donors, they’re not going to be that scared.”

This is why it is of the utmost importance that those who value and want to protect the Second Amendment participate in the elections this fall to make their voices heard. We can’t stand by and allow this assault on our constitutional rights by failing to stand up to those who would take them from us.

The good news is that despite the best efforts of Mr. Bloomberg and his billionaire friends, there are actually an increasing number of Americans who support the right to bear arms and are embracing their right to self-defense. The number of Americans who have applied for concealed carry permits has now reached 18 million, a 60 percent increase since 2014.

There has also been a sharp increase in women applying for concealed carry permits — that rate has doubled just within the last four years.

Many new concealed carry permit applicants identify as Democrats, which shows that the issue of the Second Amendment is truly bipartisan. The desire to protect oneself and family appeals to all Americans, and cuts through party lines. We see that every day at the U.S. Concealed Carry Association, where we proudly have tens of thousands of members from both political parties.

Elections have consequences, though, and that’s why it is so important for responsible gun owners to get out and vote for candidates who respect and support the U.S. Constitution. Virginia is a prime example of the real-world consequences of anti-gun politicians.

Just recently, because of a state attorney general who was elected just last November, Lee County School Superintendent Brian Austin was denied the ability to carry his lawfully permitted firearm on school property as an armed special conservator of the peace. Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring not only disregarded Mr. Austin’s Second Amendment rights, he also showed a complete disregard for the safety of the students at Mr. Austin’s school.

Anti-gun politicians like Mr. Herring completely miss the point on issues like school safety. States like Colorado, South Dakota and Texas are already allowing trained school officials with concealed carry permits to bring their personal firearm to campus in an effort to ramp up security.

In today’s world, the government should be doing everything possible to protect students from school violence, and part of that strategy should include every available resource — including responsible gun owners who volunteer to carry their personal firearm. These individuals are willing and able respond to a crisis on the spot, in a situation where seconds matter.

The saying goes, “The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” To the anti-gun lobby, anyone with a firearm can only ever be the bad guy, never the good guy.

There are politicians in office right now who are so eager to curb Second Amendment rights that they will refuse common-sense protections for schoolchildren. There are more of these politicians running for election or re-election in November. Voter registration drives are well underway in many states, and mark your calendars for Election Day. At a time when constitutional rights are under attack, the best way to defend them is to vote for candidates who are strong proponents of the right to bear arms.

  • Edited October 16, 2018 5:50 am  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host10/16/18 5:49 AM 
To: All  (10 of 25) 
 1993.10 in reply to 1993.9 

ABC News Gun ‘Report’ Parrots Deceptive Statistics Just in Time for Midterms
by David Codrea
14 Oct 18

“Fatal police shootings 40% more likely in states with higher gun ownership,” a Saturday ABC News headline with a scarcely-disguised narrative declares. The opinion they’re hoping to establish and reinforce is that lawful gun ownership results in unlawful gun use requiring lethal intervention by the state.

“The U.S. Constitution’s second amendment gives us the ‘right to bear arms,’ but what if having a gun for protection is actually putting you more at risk of harm?” the propaganda hit piece by ABC News Medical Unit’s Dr. Tambetta Ojong asks. “A new study finds that a person’s chances of being involved in a fatal police shooting is [sic]higher in states with the highest rates of gun ownership, compared to those with the lowest.”

Dr. Ojong may be a fine Brooklyn family physician, but displaying such ignorance right out of the starting gate shows she really ought to stick to limiting her expertise to fields for which she is qualified. The Second Amendment “gives” no rights, but merely acknowledges a right that preexisted its adoption. The notion that rights are privileges bestowed (and thus revokable) by government is foreign, as demonstrated by the UN's “Universal” Declaration. In this culture, they're considered “endowed by our Creator” is you're religious, or inherent to the condition of being human if you're not.

As for the “study,” a few precautions before taking it at face value would not be inappropriate.

While ad hominem arguments can represent a logical fallacy, it wouldn’t hurt to do some independent checking of your own on the names and political sympathies of the “researchers.” It also wouldn’t hurt to understand they’re working under the auspices of the Harvard School of Public Health, and to recall the words of former dean Deborah Prothrow-Stith:

“My own view on gun control is simple. I hate guns — and can not imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”

But nobodys talking about taking your guns, just about some “commonsense gun safety laws,” right?

It is from attitudes of extreme bias and predetermined conclusions that we get the term “junk science.” And this new “study” offers more reasons to ask questions about motives and objectivity.

For instance, especially since the term “gun ownership” is being thrown around as the benchmark for violence probability, how many of the perps shooting at police and being shot by them are actual gun owners in the lawful sense of the term? There’s a difference between that and mere possession.

As long as they brought up highest rates, does anyone see an attempt to correlate what they are in Democrat as opposed to Republican strongholds? After all, the most dangerous cities in America are Bloomberg cities.

And it’s curious that Ojong makes a couple of admissions that deflate the impact of the headline, although they’re buried in the story and chances are many already influenced by that won’t dive down deeper and start questioning things.

“[A]lthough the study didn’t look into it, [“anti-gun researcher” Dr. David] Hemenway believes that the ‘combination of having weaker gun laws and owning more guns are all factors contributing to the higher rates of police shootings in these states,’” the “news report” confesses.

So we’re getting politicized opinion from a biased party with skin in the game under the guise of authoritative science? And ABC News is putting that out there in front of millions of voters right before midterms where guns will play a major factor?

Talk about “fake news.” Talk about manipulating elections.

But they’re not done.

“It was unclear from the study if the shootings were justifiable or preventable,” Ojong continues.

It might be nice to figure that out first, right? Still, it’s probably safe to stipulate your average weekend in “progressive” enclaves like Chicago or Baltimore are probably going to represent lawless violence, making it fair to ask how disarming the “law-abiding” would do anything but expand the potential victim pool.

And no attack on the right to keep and bear arms would be complete without raising the “developed countries” scam — you know, the one that cherry-picks and intentionally leaves out countries that don’t support the narrative.

“In this study, people in these states — with higher gun ownership — may also be more likely to be shot and killed by the police due to a perceived fear of the police officer that the person they are dealing with is armed,” Ojong quotes Hemenway, in a last-ditch attempt to spook anyone she can.

So our freedoms are now supposed to be defined by the fear level of the enforcers and those who deploy them? And to alleviate that, we need a state “monopoly of violence”?

All because “progressive” gunquacks have a forum with the DSM (Duranty / Streicher Media)…?


Navigate this discussion: 1-10 11-20 21-25
Adjust text size:

Welcome, guest! Get more out of Delphi Forums by logging in.

New to Delphi Forums? You can log in with your Facebook, Twitter, or Google account or use the New Member Login option and log in with any email address.

Home | Help | Forums | Chat | Blogs | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
© Delphi Forums LLC All rights reserved.