Does NBC New York Reporter Believe in Checking Facts?
There is a role in the media called a “fact checker” but strangely it seems many firearms related stories in the mainstream media just accept anything said by anti-gun types as a “fact.” Case in point, this week NBC New York offered a story on how this weekend a commercial will run featuring Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City and Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston – who happen to be the founders of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Here is what we are talking about:
Bloomberg asserted the (recent) shooting (in New York City) made clear the importance of gun control. He added: “We had too close a brush with death tonight due to illegal guns.”
And the figures prove he’s right. Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Browne told me that about 85 percent of the gun crimes committed in New York City result from gun purchases made in Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, “states with comparatively lax gun laws.”
First question, where does Paul Browne get his information? And more to the point, how do the figures prove Bloomberg is right? This number is widely cited, but without a source. Second, what numbers of those are legal vs. illegal gun purchases? In other words, are these even legal purchases that take advantage of “lax gun laws” in the first place? This point is never made clear and is often very vague. Not exactly the facts now are they?
But the facts get even more twisted:
John Feinblatt, the Mayor’s chief policy adviser, told me that states with tough gun laws are unlikely to be the source of illegal guns. He noted that, in fighting gun crimes, two measures are vital: having universal background checks for gun sales and putting all such data in the FBI files. In the case of the Virginia Tech massacre, in which 33 people were killed, the gunman, Seung-hui Cho, had a mental history that indicated he was dangerous but , Feinblatt said, that was never passed on to the FBI. Some state laws on gun sales, he added “have loopholes like swiss [sic] cheese.”
Again, this is twisting the message and points. Seung-hui Cho’s ability to get a gun wasn’t because of lax gun laws, but rather a failing in the mental health system. But what “loopholes” are like “Swiss cheese” exactly? Would this be private sales? Even in New York private sales are legal, provided both parties have licenses to own the firearms.
But another point we’d like to make on facts. States with tough gun laws may not be the source of illegal guns, but it is hard to know for sure. Illegal guns aren’t exactly tracked the way commercial sales are tracked, so this is somewhat a vague point. It is clear that guns do change hands in New York and Illinois – as there is gun violence. Clearly an illegal black market operates and no amount of gun bans or gun control is going to destroy this black market. But that’s a fact that really pushes the issue – is it Mayors Against Illegal Guns or just Mayors Against Guns, because the way these guys talk it sounds like the latter.
BBC News Notes: Colombia experiments with Bogota gun ban
Gun control say anti-gun types will make a safer world. So maybe we have a test subject in Bogota, Colombia, which is banning firearms reports the BBC this week. But what’s this… some are already saying that it won’t reduce crime? The BBC noted:
And critics of Mr (Mayor Gustavo) Petro’s ban have pointed out that most homicides involving firearms are committed with non-registered weapons, most likely smuggled into the country by left-wing guerrillas and the criminal bands that control drug trafficking.
So let’s see if we understand. The city is going to ban guns, keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, but critics note that guns are smuggled into the country and are used by criminals.
This should be required reading by groups such as Mayors Against Illegal Guns and The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Orlando Sentinel Editorial Misses the Point on “Guns rule”
This week writing for the Orlando Sentinel, Leonard Pitts offered his thoughts, “For worse or worst, guns rule.” He writes:
In a democracy, nothing is supposed to matter more than the will of the people.
So it was painful to watch last week as the will of the people was overturned and one of Arizona’s duly elected representatives was forced from office. It wasn’t a recall vote or scandal that did it. No, the people’s will was overturned by a gun.
Here we go, another anti-gun type who somehow thinks the “will of the people” must be for gun control, but somehow the gun lobby has too much power. The irony here is that he even says, “In a democracy, nothing is supposed to matter more than the will of the people,” so why doesn’t he accept that the will of the people is for their Second Amendment rights?
And normally we don’t respond to editorials, but Pitts is ripe with errors, half-truths and utter misunderstandings. So much so we’ll take them one at a time. He notes:
This episode (in Tucson) joins a long list of elections overturned and social movements derailed by men with guns, as in the shootings of Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, Huey Long, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, the Kennedy brothers, George Wallace, George Moscone, Harvey Milk andMartin Luther King Jr. Somehow, people who should never have guns never have trouble getting them. John Kennedy’s assassin, a disaffected former Marine who had once defected to the Soviet Union, bought his by mail order. King’s assassin, a wanted fugitive, bought his over the counter.
Today, you cannot easily buy a gun mail order without a Federal Firearms License. Either Pitt doesn’t know this or chose to ignore this fact, but it does deflate his argument. Likewise, background checks are now done when buying a “gun over the counter.” The vast majority of crimes are committed with “illegal guns,” so how does changing the laws as they have been changed really going to stop gun violence?
Likewise, Pitt doesn’t note the cases where guns have been used in self defense? He chooses to ignore such examples as well. Not exactly the fairest argument but we’ll move on. Pitts adds:
After all, the solution here is not rocket science.
We need meaningful background checks on all gun purchases — no loopholes. A mentally unstable man should not have legal access to a gun, period.
Actually we have these background checks in place, with a few exceptions. But it wasn’t actually a loophole that allowed Jared Lee Loughner to obtain a gun. It was a failure in the mental health system, not the background check system. So here we agree, a mentally unstable man should not have access to a gun, but why blame gun laws when he did everything legally?
Pitts also adds:
We need to ban fully automatic weapons from private use. The hunter who needs a gun that fires hundreds of rounds a minute isn’t much of a hunter. Read more
Patch.com Piece Tries to Tie Gun Buybacks and Lower Crime Together
Much of the country has seen a decline in crime, while gun sales continue to soar. And yet this week Patch.com noted that Brooklyn held a gun buyback, in which “over 100 firearms were surrendered to the NYPD,” and noted that crime is down.
The article, titled, “Brooklyn Sees Lowest Murder Rate Since 1963” offered this passage:
The NYPD/Clergy Gun Buy-Back program, which has been running since 2008, has helped remove 7,600 weapons from the streets.
Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said Brooklyn is now safer, and he has statistics to prove it.
We have to ask, does the gun buyback program have anything to do with it? Maybe a tiny small part, but couldn’t it be that many of the neighborhoods in Brooklyn have been transformed by gentrification also in no small part the reason for the drop in crime. There has been a renaissance in many parts of Brooklyn over the past decade.
It is just interesting that this aspect hasn’t been addressed.
Richard Times-Dispatch Fact Checks Rep. Jim Moran
The Richmond Times-Dispatch noted that earlier this month Rep. Jim Moran stated that the U.S. gun homicide rate was 20 higher than other western nations, and used this as a call for gun control. We always wonder how “gun control” is the answer as even places with gun control still have crime.
The paper actually rated his statement in a PolitiFact check column as “mostly true,” reporting:
If you compare the most recent data on the same group of nations, mostly based on 2009 statistics, the U.S. gun homicide rate is 15 times higher then the other countries. The number fell 10 times as high when we defined the inexact term of “western nations” as countries belonging to NATO.
So Moran’s figures are outdated and on the high side. His terminology is loose. But his point — that gun homicide rates in the U.S. tower over those of other wealthy European nations — holds up.
So his statement is “mostly true,” but even the fact check doesn’t offer all the facts. Consider that the United States was involved in two World Wars in the 20th century but has been able to avoid a full-out invasion of the nation since the War of 1812. The last major war fought on American soil was the American Civil War, which ended in 1865. While it is only debatable what issues guns had in our defense, our commitment to firearms ensures that our military is up to the task. When the Civil War came soldiers on both sides (tragically we should add) knew how to use guns.
When the Spanish-American War came, our military was small but volunteers swelled the ranks and these volunteers knew how to shoot. The same thing happened again in World War I and World War II.
But let’s also consider that Germany and Japan, two nations that have lower gun crime, fell victims to dictatorships. Both were democracies in the truth sense and yet became dictatorships, in part because there was no hope for the people to fight back.
Finally, we circle back to the issue of crime. The U.S. gun homicide rate maybe large, but crime has been falling in the United States and gun crime has been rising in places that have banned guns. So what does that say about the facts?
New York Times Editorial Suggests “gun lobby’s wrath”
The New York Times issued a farewell to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords last week, and we have to ask – why? We sort of know the answer, as it allows the Times’ editors a chance to climb on the soap box yet again, let’s keep in mind that Ms. Giffords didn’t represent the people of New York City or even New York State.
The editors of course tried to once again blame the guns and did some with the usual misreporting:
Ringing vows were made immediately after the Tucson rampage to ban the high-volume ammunition clips used by the gunman, to prod states to submit names of the mentally disturbed to the federal watch list for gun sales, and to plug the notorious gun-show loophole that allows anyone to buy high-powered military weapons without a background check. None of those have happened. Democrats, who once had the good sense to pass a ban on assault rifles, no longer fight for its renewal, wary of the gun lobby’s wrath. President Obama gave a stirring speech after the Tucson shootings, but the White House has said and done too little about gun control since then.
Our first point, yes this is an editorial and opinions are opinions. But facts don’t lie – and this editorial has one of the facts wrong. It isn’t an outright lie, but it is done to make a point. Namely the statement: “high-powered military weapons,” which isn’t fair. First, the shooter in Tucson had no such firearm. So what does it have to do with this piece?
But there is also the point of “high-powered military weapons” that suggests that the guns most can actually buy at gun-shows are “military weapons,” which they are not. The guns are civilian versions and there is a huge difference whether the editors at the Times like it or not!
Next, we note “wary of the gun lobby’s wrath.” What does this mean? It almost suggests as if the gun lobby would use said “military weapons” in a reprisal. But that’s not the case. What the gun lobby would do is stir up voters, who would send President Obama and other anti-gun types packing. But isn’t that how lobbyists are supposed to work? Isn’t that their job whether we like it or not? And at the end of the day it isn’t the majority of voters casting their ballot on the issue? Why is this point always lost in these arguments.
The paper adds:
Ms. Giffords, a supporter of gun rights, was sent off with good wishes from lawmakers who could have done something to stem the carnage. “I will recover and will return,” Ms. Gifford vowed in a her resignation letter, which was read by a colleague. Her departure offered a tragic display of how easily a brilliant career in public service was cut short because of the nation’s inadequate gun laws.
Couldn’t it be that the nation’s mental health system is what really failed here? This argument blames the guns, and whether the Times likes it or there are a lot of guns out there, so the laws seem to be fairly adequate when all is said and done. Tragedies happen, but we don’t try to ban everything.
Will cruise ships be banned because of the recent disaster in Italy? Were airplanes banned because of 9/11? Are cars or even alcohol banned because of drunk drivers? It is such an interesting argument to make, but banning the item involved is only done when it includes guns.
Who Guards the Guards: “Guns missing from Pine County Sheriff’s Office”
So far the year started off without stories like this one, but this week The Duluth News Tribune and other local outlets offered another story we hate to hear about – “Guns missing from the Pine County Sheriff’s Office.” The paper paints an even worse picture:
The ongoing firearms investigation is one of 11 internal investigations involving 15 sheriff’s office employees conducted over the past year. The investigations included complaints of domestic violence, sexual harassment, excessive force, abuse of authority, failure to follow policies and order, and failure to perform assigned duties. The investigations produced disciplinary actions ranging from oral reprimands to termination.
All of this is very upsetting, but the issue of the guns is the one we find very disturbing as it sort of takes aim at the argument that only police should have guns. In this case at least a dozen or so guns would now be in the hands of the bad guys near Duluth if “only the police” had guns.
NRA News: Support Grows for Marine Who Brought Gun to Empire State Building
Cam Edwards talks to Dave Bruce, a Boston lawyer and Former Marine who is trying to help Ryan Jerome, a fellow Former Marine who was arrested in New York City for his concealed handgun
Illinois Gun Licenses Rose Six Percent in 2011
The media is reporting an interesting story this week. Illinois residents are buying guns, as licenses rose by six percent. Even those from the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence noted to local Chicago media, “that is a pretty big increase.”
So is there more to the story? What the media is only touching upon is that Chicago ended – by way of the Supreme Court – a ban on handgun ownership. And in the Windy City gun ownership, or at least the number of people with firearms cards, increased by 16 percent in 2011.
This is a story, a big story. Now some anti-gun types are no doubt going to say, “This is bad” and cite possible increase in violence. But the truth is that Chicago has had gun violence because the criminal element ignored the gun ban. So maybe we could actually see some decrease in crime as the innocent law-abiding citizens won’t have to automatically be victims.
Indian Magazine Shows Why Some People Shouldn’t Talk About Gun
Author Lionel Shriver talked to Tehelka, independent weekly news magazine from India, on a number of topics, and the author of “We Need To Talk About Kevin” was of course asked about gun control. While her novel maybe about a fictional school massacre, she shows ignorance on the issue of firearms.
The article offered this exchange:
[Question]We Need To Talk About Kevin was published in 2003, yet little change in gun control legislation has taken place. Last year saw the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Is this issue being addressed at all?
[Shriver]I’m greatly in despair. It should not be possible for people to walk on the street and casually be able to buy a semi-automatic. The constitutional amendment has to change. Until then, there are always lunatics in every society who will wreak havoc because of the easy availability of guns in America.
This is an argument that is used all too often, which blames the guns and not the shooter. Yes, unfortunately there will always be lunatics in every society but the havoc isn’t just because of “guns in America.”
We also don’t know what she means by “buy a semi-automatic.” Does she mean handguns, long guns, assault style weapons, etc.? This is vague, but with some anti-gun types it is vague because they likely don’t know the difference and it is vague because they really mean “all guns,” when they talk about bans.
It is also interesting that someone would say, “the constitutional amendment has to change,” and then tries to suggest that violence will continue until it is changed. We’re pretty sure there were wars, crime and violence before guns.
