By David Codrea
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “A group of Oregon State University researchers recently concluded gun violence prevention groups in the United States are ‘middle-of-the-ground’ in ideology,” the Corvallis Gazette-Times parrots unquestioningly. “This surprised the professors as it contradicts some depictions of gun violence prevention groups as ‘anti-gun,’ they said.”
“The researchers spent two years studying national and regional gun violence prevention groups and concluded they are motivated to reduce death and injury by firearms, but that they want to do so while reserving the right to own guns,” the article assures readers.
So they all have big “buts”? You know, I believe in the Second Amendment but…
In other words, (if you’re willing to turn a blind eye to the end game gun ban goals) all the Bloomberg Moms and Bradyites want are “common sense gun safety laws” and “reasonable regulations.” Which are demonstrably code words for: opposing the bearing of arms; ending private sales; bankrupting the firearms industry; imposing prior restraints; banning the very types of weapons needed by a citizen militia; ignoring due process; and treating freedom like a disease…
Left unadressed is why the most effective “gun violence prevention” seems to be an armed response.
The selected example the authors gave of a being “’in the middle’ of the gun debate” is telling:
“[O]ther constitutional rights have restrictions, the researchers said. “You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater …That is a restriction on the First Amendment right to free speech.”
Oh bull. Not that ridiculous and tired old strawman again. Of course you can — there are no prior restraints. It’s just that there had better be a fire. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ conveniently misstated quote was:
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” [Emphasis added]
You can’t open fire in a crowded theater either, at least not unless it’s also legally justifiable. No one but a deceiving gun-grabber would try to get people to think otherwise.
And that leads us to question if the “researchers” are truly unbiased fact-finders, or if they might have indications of personal biases and motives that merit further scrutiny of their conclusions (rather than just blindly swallowing what the Gazette-Times regurgitates on their behalf).
The title of the “study” in question:
“Addressing the Wicked Problem of American Gun Violence: Consumer Interest Groups as Macro-social Marketers.”
“Wicked”? Bursting right out of the starting gate with virtue signaling hardly suggests room for acknowledging when the application of violence with a firearm (or its deterrence) might be “righteous” and “beneficial.”
Featured author Aimee Huff’s credibility for fair-mindedness would be less susceptible to skepticism if she didn’t use her Twitter account to retweet a link from a Hillary Clinton donor calling President Trump “a megalomaniac”; to applaud Facebook and other sites for banning gun ads; to promote slick Saatchi and Saatchi propaganda spots from “Evolve”; and to promulgate as legitimate another “PSA” that my 2015 FOIA request proved specified “actors” on the filming permit.
Might Ms. Huff have some predispositions on the subject?
By presenting such “researchers” as the arbiters of what is moderate, it makes opponents seem unreasonable and extreme, which is the goal. Having that message crafted by professional marketeers means we’re being fed selected information by people who areusing their skills to influence, to manipulate and to promote a disarmament agenda.
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.
In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.