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 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.
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]
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
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… Read more »
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.
This is shit, ours guns are always gonna be ours guns. Respect police and they respect us, i know a few. Theyre great guys.
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??????