Huff and Puff: Florida Doctors Fight Back Against Gun Lobby Gag Law
This week Dennis A. Henigan offered a misleading take on the issue of guns and doctors in Florida. Writing for the Huffington Post, the Brady Center Vice President, offers this thought:
“…the gun lobby wants to prevent doctors from telling you the truth and prevent you from hearing it.”
Is this really a fair assessment? Why do doctors need to know why parents might have firearms? Henigan notes:
“Just as pediatricians have long advised parents on the best ways to reduce the risks of harm to children from household poisons, unsupervised swimming pools and riding bikes without safety helmets, they also have advised them how to best protect their kids from the lethal danger of firearms.”
This may be true, so why can’t guns just be lumped into the mix without requiring doctors to ask whether the household has a gun? Do doctors ask, “do you have household poisons?” How often do you hear the doctors ask, “do you have archery equipment?” What about power tools or lawn mowers?
This is an issue that is blown out of proportion. Why should guns be singled out? Except of course Henigan and his lot know that doctors can guilt parents by warning of the “dangers” of firearms. Isn’t that really the point?
Dennis A. Henigan Notes Obama Finally Says Something
This week Dennis A. Henigan, Brady Center Vice President, penned a piece for the Huffington Post titled, “The President on Guns: What Does it Mean?” Well, considering that the POTUS probably spent more time actually making his March Madness picks than he did writing the op-ed for last Sunday’s Arizona Daily Star – notably given that he probably had it ghost written for him – we don’t think it means much, if anything.
Of course Henigan, a true anti-gun zealot, sees this as the beginning of the end of gun ownership. But it there are some points that Henigan makes that are truly interesting.
First, he actually labels himself as “gun control advocate.” This is contrast to the very way that gun control is addressed. Note that this is the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, as that sounds less threatening to gun owners than the Brady Center for Gun Control. Henigan writes:
“Although one gets the distinct impression that the president would prefer not to receive a positive reaction from gun control advocates like myself, I can’t do him that favor.”
But let’s look deeper into this piece. Again, Henigan specifically says things that gun control advocates have denied. Here is what drew our attention most:
“But the ‘gun show loophole’ is really part of a larger loophole: in most states private sales do not require a background check, whether they occur at a gun show or not. This means that criminals and other legally prohibited gun buyers may be turned away at a licensed dealer, only to ‘effortlessly’ purchase guns elsewhere. Significantly, the president did not mention gun shows in particular, but rather said ‘we can’t allow’ the broader private sale loophole to persist. The president clearly articulated the rationale for extending Brady background checks to virtually all gun sales. It is a reform the Brady Campaign has been advocating for many years.”
For years we’ve heard about the “gun show loophole,” but here Henigan makes it clear it is really about private sales in general. To end private sales would in turn create a national database of gun ownership, where every legally owned gun would be tracked. And yet criminals would still be armed. Can any law-abiding gun owner imagine a worse case scenario?
Of course according to Henigan this is what the American people want! He writes:
“As recent polling has shown, the proposal to extend Brady background checks to all gun sales is solidly in the middle of public opinion on this issue, receiving strong support even from gun owners. An astounding 86% of Americans, and 81% of gun owners, support universal checks.”
So who conducted the poll and who released the findings? Only Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Imagine the findings if the National Rifle Association conducted the poll?
Finally, Henigan says the problem with all this is, of course, the NRA. He writes:
“Far from being part of the solution, the NRA has shown, once again, that it is the problem. If President Obama truly wants a system that no longer allows countless violent criminals to ‘effortlessly’ avoid background checks, eventually he will have no choice but to confront the gun lobby, and defeat it.”
Here we agree – in a way – with Henigan. We feel that Obama should make gun control the cornerstone of his reelection campaign. The defeat of course won’t be of gun owners, but of the POTUS.
Media Fired Up That State of the Union Didn’t Mention Gun Control
Need any further proof that the media doesn’t like guns? Here is a sampling of articles that note what wasn’t in President Obama’s State of the Union address:
CBSNews.com: What Wasn’t in Obama’s State of the Union: Gun Control
“The most glaring omission in President Obama’s State of the Union speech Tuesday night was the lack of any mention of the gun control issue.”
TPMMuckraker: Obama Doesn’t Mention Gun Control In State Of The Union
“To the dismay of groups hoping the White House would take the lead on proposed legislation to ban high-capacity magazines…”
The Huffington Post: What Obama Doesn’t Mention
“The most glaring omission in President Obama’s State of the Union speech Tuesday night was the lack of any mention of the gun control issue.” Read more
Huff and Puff on Impolite Society and Assault Weapons
He writes:
“The United States is a country with well over 200 million firearms in civilian hands, and since the demise of the federal Assault Weapon Ban in September 2004, the firepower in general circulation has become increasingly lethal.”
Horwitz has no source on this statement, nor does he really explain what an assualt weapon actually is or is not. This is an example of an anti-gun zealot who tries to twist the words. The so-called assault weapons are no more “deadly” or “lethal” than say a hunting rifle. They just look menacing, but crime has not gone up since the “demise” of the ban.
This is what is so worrisome about the gun control crowd. They must know that the weapons they discuss and rant about are no more dangerous, but they sound menacing. To ban those guns means you can ban other guns, and that’s why we should never back to zealots such as Horwitz.
Huff and Puff Puffs and Huffs About ABC News Report
Need any further proof that the Huffington Post is all huff and puff without any real credibility? The “news” site posted a short piece this week that essentially took copy from the ABC News story on the guns from Mexico. The post, titled “U.S. Role In Mexican VIolence [sic]: 3 Out Of 4 Guns In Mexico Crimes Come From U.S. Border States” offered this bit of (mis)information:
“A shocking new report obtained by ABC News says that as many as three out of four guns used in crimes in Mexico can be traced to gun stores just across the border in the U.S.”
This isn’t accurate, or actually what ABC News reported. In fact, the truth is that “of the guns sent for tracing, three out of four can be traced to the United States.” Again, the way this is written implies that all guns are sent for tracing. This most certainly is NOT the case.
Feuding Neighbors Shoot and Kill Each Other, Huff and Puff Blames CCW
In an editorial for the Huffington Post Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C., notes that two CCW holders shot and killed each other. He puts the blame not on the fact that these two men had a long-standing beef with each other, but instead points out that each had a concealed carry weapons permit.
The sad fact of this tragedy is that the two men might have met the same fate without or without the permit. So what exactly is Sugarmann trying to say?
Firing Back: Politicians and Guns – Does the Liberal Media Get it?
Apparently the liberal media will always find a way to get upset about guns, even when there isn’t much of a story. The most recent example is how gossip site TMZ reported that Levi Johnston – father of Sarah Palin’s grandson – stopped in a gun shop while on the campaign trail. Not much of a story there, especially given that this stop took place in Alaska! That in turn was picked up by liberal rag the Huffington Post. Each offered snide comments on the issue – and TMZ even Photoshopped (badly) a rifle on a photo of Johnston. Our “friends” at the Huff and Puff have noted how guns (gasp!) have turned up at various political rallies, as if it somehow indicative of a plot to overthrow the government – instead of merely being an expression of the state’s understanding of the Second Amendment.
All this begs the question, does the liberal media not get it? Read more
Paul Helmke Huffs and Puffs More About So-called Gun Show Loophole
In his latest rant for the Huffington Post, Paul Helmke asked the question, “who could possibly be opposed to closing the ‘gun show loophole?’” The president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence sounds like a broken record on this topic. He goes over the same bullet points on this issue time and time again, beginning with the argument that this would somehow stand in the way of stopping “convicted felons and other dangerous persons” from obtaining dangerous weapons. Read more
Huff and Puff Looks at “More Guns = Less Crime” Argument With Shaky Logic
In writing for the Huffington Post, Dennis A. Henigan, Brady Center Vice President and author of Lethal Logic attempts to question the concept of “more guns = less crime.” Maybe he missed the fact that gun ownership continues to climb, yet crime is down? Instead he offers some interesting, but flawed points. Read more
Huff and Puff Huffs and Puffs About Guns
No surprise that the Huffington Post didn’t care for the SCOTUS ruling, but in writing about the issue Joanne Bamberger asked some flat out stupid questions, clearly missing the point:
“I have to ask — have Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas or Kennedy ever hung out in their Supreme Court neighborhood or other Washington, D.C. inner city neighborhoods after dark? Because if they’ve spent even the least little time doing that, their view of guns might be a little different.” Read more
