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.

Gun Rights Policies with John Snyder: Obama Wars Against Religion and Gun Ownership

AP and WaPo See End of “One-Gun-A-Month” as Opening Haven for Gun Runners

Review the Second Amendment of the Constitution and it says nothing along the lines of “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Buy Just One Gun A Month,” and yet that law has been on the books in Virginia for a while. Now that it is on the verge of being repealed, The Associated Press via The Washington Post noted this week:

A law Virginia passed a generation ago to end the states’ reputation as a haven for gun runners is on the verge of being repealed.

The story later offered this passage:

The bills to abolish the one-handgun-per-month law would end one of the legacy laws of former Gov. Doug Wilder. The Democratic governor pushed for it after Virginia became a prime supplier of guns used in crimes in major East Coast cities.

What isn’t noted is whether this was ever actually proven to be true, or did the story note that gun crime had not fallen as a result of the one-gun-per-month restriction, which only seemed to effect law-abiding citizens in Virginia –but of course those are facts that get in the way of anti-gun bias in reporting.

NRA News: Arizona Lawmaker Proposes New Version of Bill to Allow Guns on College, University Campuses

Cam Edwards talks to State Sen. Ron Gould (R-AZ) - NRA News

Mayors Against Illegal Guns Goes to the Super Bowl

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino will reportedly appear in a pro-gun control ad during the Super Bowl. Of course this publicity stunt is occurring as New York and New England’s teams appearing in the big game.

It should be noted that the 30 second ad will cost some $3 million dollars – so anyone who says that the NRA pushes its pro-gun message unfairly should consider the money that these super rich anti-gun zealots are throwing at their cause.

But let’s consider some too some of the media coverage so far.

The New York Times: “During Super Bowl, for 30 Seconds, 2 Mayors Will Be on Same Side,” which offers this passage:

The half-minute ad features Mr. Bloomberg and Boston’s mayor, Thomas M. Menino, ribbing each other as they cheer for their respective teams and cities. But then they turn to the purpose of their spot, declaring that one thing they agree on is the need for stricter federal gun control laws.

The New York Post: “Mayor Bloomberg to run anti-illegal gun ad during Super Bowl”

The Associated Press via The Wall Street Journal : “NYC, Boston mayors team up in gun-control ad”

All this is interesting in the way it suggests it is about “illegal guns” and how the mayors are “teaming up” and are “on the same side,” but never notes that this is against what many gun owners want. Of course do these rich anti-gun zealots care.

It should be noted that the ad will only appear in select markets and not nationally due to rules on “cause related” ads.

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

New Jersey Second Amendment Society Supports Starbucks on February 14th

Manahawkin, NJ – The New Jersey Second Amendment Society announced it will be joining many national freedom and rights groups in supporting Starbucks on February 14th.

“While some organizations have chosen to boycott Starbucks for their policies,” says Frank Jack Fiamingo, President of the NJ2AS, “we choose to support those businesses that support freedom and individual choice rather than yielding to the desires of the few who would strip law abiding citizens of rights under the guise of safety.”

Fiamingo continues, “Unlike a number of large restaurant entities Starbucks has chosen to defer to local laws regarding the right to keep and bear arms on their premises. This support of the rights of the law abiding people patronizing Starbucks is to be commended. We are pleased to see Starbucks take this common sense approach rather than cowering to the whims of the many anti freedom groups that choose to focus on the Second Amendment as their avenue for more intrusive and nanny state government and corporate policies.”

The New Jersey Second Amendment Society (http://www.NJ2AS.com) is a no compromise defender of the right to keep and bear arms formed to promote those rights protected under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States within the legislature and the community.

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?

NRA ILA Grassroots News

Next Page »