U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “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”?
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.