ABC News Gun ‘Report’ Parrots Deceptive Statistics Just in Time for Midterms

You don't need a study to find most fatal police shootings take place in cities with the highest rates of gun-grabbing Democrat politicians.

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”?

All because “progressive” gunquacks have a forum with the DSM (Duranty / Streicher Media)…?


About David Codrea: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.

  • 22 thoughts on “ABC News Gun ‘Report’ Parrots Deceptive Statistics Just in Time for Midterms

    1. ABC, CBS, nbc, cnn, msnbc, ny times Hollywood are all fake news, anti American, anti 2A ! You’re all going to be drowning in the Red Tsunami this Nov! Still waiting for you posers to leave my country! Have a nice day !

    2. You know if ABC reported this information it is BULL$HIT. If Harvard claims it that too confirms it is BULL$HIT. If any citizens wants to avoid being shot by police they should: 1. Do not display a gun and point it at an Officer, 2. When a Police Officer stops you for a traffic violation-DO NOT try to run, attack the Officer with your vehicle or assault the Officer.
      These acts will get you days in a hospital or permanent residency in a coffin selected by your family. YOUR CHOICE!

    3. Without over analyzing from a pure numbers perspective it makes sense the where there are more firearms owned per capita there would be a higher incidence of police/citizen interaction, but what is obviously left out is what percentage of the interactions involve citizens who do not own their forearms legally. I know for a fact that none of the legal firearms owners I have known over my years of ownership and use … I am 72 and have used firearms under the tutelage of my father since I was 14 and have owned firearms since 18 … have ever had a run in with law enforcement.

    4. The AMA or a court should revoke her license to practice medicine for malpractice. Just like a general phisician cannot perform open heart surgery, this fraud has no business making firearm legislation recommendations under the guise of being a medical professional on a topic she is not trained and licensed for. Qualification’s wise, this idiot is practicing without ANY training, practice or authority AT ALL.

    5. joefoam; The reason that suicides are included in the gun stats is a convenient and weapon of choice by the left to promote their agenda, that is the only reason!!!!!!!!!!

    6. I’ll out my self as an Oregunian. As a skeptic, l tend to question authority to some extent. As for the ABC report, l would question how those statistics were arrived at. Something tells me law abiding citizens don’t go out and get shot by police no matter how many guns or gun owners there are in ANY state. So the ABC report to me is like David eluded to, it’s politically charged, biased anti-gun propaganda directed to the masses to influence voters.
      I admit l don’t know Oregon Firearms Federation’s criteria for their candidate rating, only that it’s based on a candidate’s response to a survey or perhaps from reviewed voting records of an incumbent. I lay skepticism aside and trust Democrat incumbents have at some point voted to restrict gun rights or that Dem candidates have in some way voiced their anti-gun position in order to get that F rating from OFF. As for Republican candidates, l can only speculate as to their position on gun owners, ownership, gun control or gun safety. The lines have become blurry!

    7. Every damn law enforcement officer in this country, from municipal to federal, is armed. Bearing that FACT in mind, one would think, according to ABC,law enforcement officers should be shooting one another on a higher rate than that of all us regular deplorable folks.
      [W3]

    8. I didn’t catch that bit of fake news, Dave, but it’s remarkable that no mention of gun rights, gun control, or gun safety is in any part of the political ads from our gubernatorial candidates. It is interesting that both Republican candidates for governor and my district House Representative have received F ratings for their position on guns from Oregon Firearms Federation.

      Had l seen the ABC news report, l would have seen through the BS. l’m a highly trained skeptic and certifiably cynical. It’s those millions who would believe that report as gospel that worry me.

      Greetings to JD

      1. Jim, and what ratings do your Democratic candidates have from that group and the NRA. If they are also “F”s I would like to know in which state you reside so as to avoid it.

    9. Statistics and the associated data can be cherrypicked. Most health-related data and law-enforcement data are highly questionable in the sample sizes and data integrity. The statistic seldom reveals the numbers of citizens who use guns to defend themselves and their families, which far outweighs gun-related accidental deaths and gun violence combined in populations with law-abiding gun owners. Suicide rates should be a statistic in themselves and not grouped with accidents, or gun crime statistics. I had a gun control advocate try to argue gun control by telling me suicides would be less effective without guns? Wow. I will never see eye to eye with stupid. Give me an agenda and I can project a sense of urgency with numbers and statistics.. Understanding the phenomenon and deriving meaning from statistics is another story that requires hard work and science. It’s just too easy to jump to conclusions that are nonsensical, and in the end, you have to ask yourself if the data and statistics have causation? We can’t always identify causes in complex systems with no way to quantify them. Linking crime to poverty for example. Is it low income, poor housing, poor education, poor culture, lack of faith, lack of nutrition? Good luck answering that definitively and proving it.

      1. I also have question why suicides are included in gun deaths. They amount to 2/3 of the total and completely skew the results of any poll or survey.

    10. By her name I would think she came from a different culture than what we were raised under. That is ok for her to not like guns but when she joins our culture she should flow with the circumstances of this culture rather than try to turn this culture to what she ran away from. There are many of these types here now that threatens the fabric of our country because they are trying to change it based on their reflection of where they came from. I call BS, when in Rome do as the Romans do.

    11. Another one that needs hard psychiatric help and very heavy medication, also kept away from anything that could do bodily harm to themselves or anybody else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and they have the nerve to say someone else needs help??????

    12. It doesn’t matter what fancy name you put on this doctors name. they are simply out of touch with reality and the MSM is willing to broadcast anything anti-gun that they can. The good doctor should stick to medicine. You’ve got to ask her what it’s like to treat a person that has been beaten to death, or cut to ribbons. What we should do about fists and knives?

    13. Two things in the report SCREAM complete BULLSHIT… #1 ABC and #2 HARVARD RESEARCHERS… You can’t get a more glaring line of BULLSHIT unless you show it on CNN or NBC ! Typical scare tactic by the left, pumped up for midterms.

    14. ABC equals mainstream media. Mainstream media equals agenda driven lies. Quod est demonstratum: ABC equals agenda driven lies. But thanks to David Codrea for bringing this intel report to us.

    15. Just the same old song and dance that has been around since the beginning of time. Those that wish to have absolute power do not want their subjects to be able to resist them.

    16. Dr. Tambetta Ojong, just another Hoplophobic fake news generator.
      Hoplophobia
      Hoplophobia is a political neologism coined by retired American military officer Jeff Cooper as a pejorative to describe an “irrational aversion to weapons.” It is also used to describe the “fear of firearms” or the “fear of armed citizens.” HOPLOPHOBIA. (1966) From the Greek___(weapon) plus __ (terror).

      An unreasoning, obsessive neurotic fear of weapons as such, usually accompanied by an irrational feeling that weapons possess a will or consciousness for evil, apart from the will of their user. Not equivalent to normal apprehension in the presence of an armed enemy. Hoplon also means instrument, tool or tackle, but it is the root of hoplite (man-at-arms, gendarme) and thus principally signifies “weapon” in English derivations.
      Col. Jeff Cooper, widely acclaimed as “The Father of the Modern Technique of Shooting,” introduced the two-handed grip at eye level, when it was standard for people to shoot one-handed, and often from the hip. Far less known, Cooper was a historian with a Master’s Degree in History from the University of Calif. at Riverside and he held a B.A. from Stanford in Political Science.
      Hoplophobia, n. Irrational, morbid fear of guns (c. 1966, coined by Col. Jeff Cooper, from the Greek hoplites, weapon; see his book Principles of Personal Defense). May cause sweating, faintness, discomfort, rapid pulse, nausea, sleeplessness, nondescript fears, more, at mere thought of guns. Presence of working firearms may cause panic attack. Hoplophobe, hoplophobic.

      Hoplophobes are common and should never be involved in setting gun policies. Point out hoplophobic behavior when noticed, it is dangerous, sufferers deserve pity, and should seek treatment. When confronted about their condition, hoplophobes typically go into denial, a common characteristic of the affliction. Sometimes helped by training, or by coaching at a range, a process known to psychiatry as “desensitization,” a useful methodology in treating many phobias.

      Hoplophobic behavior is often obvious from self-evident irrational responses to real-life situations and is frequently seen in the news media and public debate. When a criminal commits a crime using a gun, hoplophobes often seek to disarm, or make lists of, innocent people who didn’t do anything, a common, classic and irrational response.
      The idea of creating an enormously expensive government-run 90-million-name database of legitimate gun owners — which would not include armed criminals — is a prime example of an irrational hoplophobic response to the issue of crime. How writing your name in such a list would help stop crime is never even addressed. (See, “The Only Question About Gun Registration”)

      An effort is underway nationally to have Hoplophobia recognized in the DSM, the official directory of mental ailments. Resistance from elements in the medical profession suggest this may be quite difficult, but that does not reduce the importance of recognizing a widespread, virulent, detrimental mental condition commonly found in the populace. The actual number of undiagnosed hoplophobes is unknown but believed to be in the tens of millions.
      People who are terrified of and hate guns — hoplophobes — don’t care about anything rational, and we waste our time on such arguments. They want guns to go away. They don’t trust guns. They don’t trust people who have guns, and especially people who like guns. The only exception is “official” people with guns, meaning, they’re from the government, a source of relief.

      They will seize on anything else, because Hoplophobia is an irrational fear. Conveniently for them, the language of the report itself says that the limits of this individual right have not been clearly defined.
      Hoplophobic behavior in government, schools, and all facets of public life must be recognized for what it is, exposed, and rooted out or treated. Seemingly utopian pacifists are free to profess their love of a weapon-free world, but they must start by disarming the evil, criminal and tyrannical. Disarming the public is a vent for their twisted fear and hatred, a grotesque affront to freedom, and unacceptable. Disarming an innocent person is an act of violence.

      Guns save lives. Guns stop crime. Guns are why America is still free. The history of freedom is inextricably tied to the development of weapons (an interesting study, by the way, if you have the time to examine it). Good people need guns. Efforts to end that are immoral and unjust, and when done by government, is a direct failure to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” That’s a violation of the oath of office, which should lead to removal from office and possibly even criminal charges.

      The people we elect or hire for public service should be screened for latent or overt gun hatred, and disqualified if such hatred is found, before it can do any more harm to our nation and its values.

    Leave a Comment 22 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *