Gun-Banners Cherry-Pick ‘Developed Nations’ Data to Manipulate Public Opinion

Even assuming gun-grabbers aren't being deceptive when they tell us who they consider “developed,” which they are, what does that have to do with your right to keep and bear arms? (UN Human Development index)

U.S.A. –( “The Florence, South Carolina, shooting shows America’s gun problem hurts police too,” a Thursday hit piece on the right to keep and bear arms in “liberal-leaning” Vox declares. “If you’re worried about police getting killed in the line of duty, look at America’s easy access to guns.”


“[P]olice officers in America may be uniquely susceptible to shootings, relative to other developed nations, due to the US’s abundance of guns,” the “explanation” goes. “But in America, they may be more likely to run into a person who is armed and could open fire — so these kinds of deadly incidents may happen more often.”

OK, so evidently the Founders were wrong about what was “necessary to the security of a free State,” and the Bill of Rights needs to defer to making sure government enforcers are the ones protected. It’s curious though because “progressives” then turn around and decry “police racism” and shootings of “people of color.” If you really believe that, taking the position they should be the “Only Ones” armed seems like major cognitive dissonance bordering on a complete breakdown of reality.

As far as “running into a person who is armed and could open fire,” if they’re “law-abiding,” statistically you’re in more danger if that person has a badge. If they’re criminals, which the ones that would open fire are, then what, short of total citizen disarmament, does Vox have in mind?

Based on what they advocate, that’s pretty much it. Never mind that it wouldn’t work and would result in many more deaths and open the door to nightmare dystopian scenarios. But Vox sure sounds like its basing its opinions on ‘science” when it refers to “developed nations” as the ultimate benchmark for demonstrating how barbaric America's gun laws are when compared to the rest of the world—which also no doubt explains why so many from there want to come here badly enough to break our laws to do it.

Note the charts they use to “prove” their point – a “breakthrough analysis” by “researchers at U.C. Berkeley (and there’s an objective broker for you) illustrated by rates of “crime” and “homicides” in “15 industrialized countries.” By adding that arbitrary qualifier to the comparison of international homicide rates, gun-hating “statisticians” can omit or include countries as they see fit to support whatever conclusions they aim to reach. And this is not the first time Vox has pulled this stunt.

Anybody see Russia or Mexico listed, both with more restrictive gun laws and higher violent crime than the U.S.? Whether one consults the UN, the IMF, the World Bank or the CIA Factbook, they both have a larger GDP than some of the nations that qualify as “developed” when it suits gun-grabber purposes. Also rated above many countries in term of “economic complexity,” Mexico includes cars, computers, video displays and delivery trucks among its top exports. It boasts a literacy rate of 93.4 percent.

And somebody had better tell Vladimir Putin that Third World jerkwater he rules over has no business exporting rocket engines to the U.S., or as we've recently seen, threatening us more “developed” people with an “‘invincible' intercontinental cruise missile and a nuclear torpedo that could outsmart all American defenses.” How were these primitives able to cheat Hillary out of the presidency and throw the election to Trump, unless the “progressives” are lying about that, too?

What Vox and gun-grabbers are counting on is most DSM “reporters” are too biased and lazy to dig into the numbers or, heaven forbid, challenge them. That way, most readers and viewers will absorb enough of the narrative talking points to repeat that view as if it’s “settled science” only an uncivilized extremist would doubt.

Don’t let them get away with that around you.

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.

  • 14 thoughts on “Gun-Banners Cherry-Pick ‘Developed Nations’ Data to Manipulate Public Opinion

    1. You under estimate the power of indoctrination.
      As an N.R.A. Certified Handgun Instructor I once helped give a Basic
      Handgun Course that was attended by three Brits on vacation in the USA.
      During a break, everyone was invited to examine a variety of carefully checked
      to insure they were unloaded handguns. I supervised. The three Brits nervously
      approached, and were clearly very freighted to so much as touch a real gun.
      Never underestimate the power of a half century of carefully applied indoctrination.

    2. The people who like to throw around the term “settled science” are usually the same people who simultaneously affirm that there are 47 genders and that there is no difference between men and women. Just throw that back at them.

    3. I don’t know where this Vox came from but they are one of the most leftist leaning, fake news, Trump haters going. I see an article written by them I just disregard it because I know it is full of negative trash.

    4. First off I love my guns and I vote Dumbocrap most of the time, reason: Complete denial of science and no respect or US. Now I voted for Trump in the last election, because I like most people on here are not fans of Hillary. Everyone on here talks about agenda and conspiracy theories. Guess what you people are the issue not the gun hating left or right whoever it may be. The biggest problem that we as gun loving people have is denying that there is a gun problem in this country. Gun laws do nothing to stop criminals and never will, If we want to keep our guns though WE need to admit that GUNS KILL, We all needed to take a test to drive right? How has that worked out? Look at all the asshole out there that suck at driving, guess what you idiots think it is ok for that guy/woman to buy a gun with no background check or training? ARE YOU SERIOUS? 85% of the U.S population has ZERO common sense and lacks way behind with an education, thanks to the over breeding of our welfare system among other things. It is pathetic that we as a broken country care more about getting an AGENDA in supreme court than what kind of person he IS, he is a LIAR plain and simple, and should not have even been a choice. Put some other conservative judge in as long as he or she has no skeletons in their closet or they have at least not been made public. Stop the whole your party is trash, Trump is an embarrassment and will not get a vote from me next election, he lied and did nothing he promised. FYI I assume most gun owners are hunters, why would you not care about the environment? How stupid do people have to be to believe a politician over a SCIENTIST? Run your car in the garage with it closed, that pollution WILL eventually kill you. The Earth is no different it is a big garage and the ATMOSPHERE is the garage door. Read some books educate yourself, demand more from the people we put in charge, THEY THINK WE ARE ALL STUPID. Lets remind them, also Obama sold more guns than any other president, How many of you could not find ammo at cabelas or bass pro? I know I couldn’t, if they want to take our guns from us they had multiple opportunities to do so and DID NOT, stop being so paranoid.

      Not so proud american

      1. & from your rant you are doing the exact same thing you are blaming everyone else for. DUH, Maybe get your head out of your bottom like the other democrats.

      2. Opinionated, thy name is “Mike.” Mike, you are out of your gourd. Yes, Mike, we are denying there is a gun problem in this country because the only gun problem in this country are the doofuses out there, present company included, who reject the idea that the purpose of a defensive firearm is to stop a fight. If you want to base your argument on the bogus idea that “Guns Kill,” then you’d better include cars, airplanes, boats, chainsaws, and practically any other tool you can name in your rights-hating screed. Oh, and by the way: If you want proof that your anti-gun argument is in fact an anti-rights argument, one need only note your advocacy of background checks compelled as a precondition to the exercise of a RIGHT, compelled not to prevent crime or the criminal access to a firearm, which is has never achieved even once, but rather to SUCKER American citizens who believe in their rights into waiving every right they have in order to obtain REVOCABLE GOVERNMENT PERMISSION to keep and bear arms. The background checks you advocate are flatly illegal under our Constitution; they violate our 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendment rights, none of which may be lawfully violated in the absence of criminal conviction in a Court of Law. YOU, SIR, are not advocating limitations on our right to keep and bear arms as you are advocating limitations on the very liberties, every one of them, our nation was founded to preserve and protect. Yes, firearms, like cars and planes and boats and knives and every other tool imaginable, can be misused to injure, maim, or kill — but they may also be used to abolish tyranny, save lives, and protect the innocent and the helpless. While States — not the federal government — may regulate the USE of arms, no one, at any level of government, has the lawful authority to interfere with the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. The federal government doesn’t even have the lawful delegated authority to license firearm dealers. It sure as hell doesn’t have to lawful authority to restrict, ban, confiscate, or interfere in any way with our fundamental RIGHT to overthrow it when it gets too obstreperous and refuses to constrain itself to the terms of the Constitution that created it.

      3. TROLL!
        I believe a politician over a “Scientist” when the scientist is a fraud. The scientists pushing man made global warming alarmism are not following the “Scientific Method”; because, their theories as simulated by their climate system models are not validated. The models have consistently overestimated the observed global temperatures by factors >2. Additionally the only high confidence data set comes from satellite measurement of microwave emissions from the atmosphere which only covers 50 years & doesn’t show significant warming. The surface & seawater temperature data have high uncertainty. These data sets require significant corrections to be useful in coming to statistically significant conclusions. The problem lies in the corrections used and the rationals they expound to justify the corrections which is mostly smoke. Very few climate scientists are skeptics & they have been shouted down as Holocoust Deniers. By the scientist who make their living sucking off gov’t teats & politicians who want more control or the people.
        Comparing driving privileges with the right to keep & bear arms is an apples & oranges comparison. A valid comparison would be with voting rights. Nowhere in the penumbras & emanations of the constitution & the amendments is there a right to drive on a public right of way. The 14th amendment guarantees the right to vote. SCOTUS in the civil rights era bounced voter registration tests as an unconstitutional barrier to exercising the right to vote. So, how would mandating training to exercise the right of the people to keep and bear arms pass constitutional muster? The gov’t mandates K-12 education and provides it at no cost to the student for the express purpose of producing a citizen equipped to properly exercise their constitutional rights. If the federal or state gov’t determine that firearms education is needed for the general welfare they should legislate that public schools provide firearms training.

      4. “We all needed to take a test to drive right? How has that worked out? Look at all the asshole out there that suck at driving, guess what you idiots think it is ok for that guy/woman to buy a gun with no background check or training?”

        So then, your argument is suck drivers still suck even after government testing, therefore gun owners need government testing.

        With logic like that, no wonder you vote Democrat because of “complete denial of science.”

        “I assume most gun owners are hunters”

        Demonstrably ignorant, too.

      5. @ Not so proud American Fudd Mike.

        “you idiots think it is ok for that guy/woman to buy a gun with no background check or training? ARE YOU SERIOUS?”

        I’m going to comment one just one item from your rant against the second amendment as written .

        The very thing you decry,has been and up untill the Brady check and is taking place in Vermont since 1791 .
        Zero training requirement for any Tom,Dick or Harriet,up and down the lane and dell to carry a arm concealed or open,carriers choice,isn’t Freedom and Liberty grand.
        Just in case you might Feel concerned for safety,Vermont ranks as one of the safest states in the nation,no blood flowing down the streets and dell,yes as you refer to yourself A Not So Proud Dumbocrap.

      6. mike you make a dozen factually and objectively incorrect statements and then construct your strawmam and red herring arguments from there. I pity you

        .1. FYI I assume most gun owners are hunters, why would you not care about the environment?
        FACT; Less than 10% of US gun owners hunt.

        2. Your claim: The biggest problem that we as gun loving people have is denying that there is a gun problem in this country. Gun laws do nothing to stop criminals and never will, If we want to keep our guns though WE need to admit that GUNS KILL
        a) Criminals kill, guns are inanimate objects.
        B) US gun murder has fallen 54% as we went from about 275 -300 million guns 25 years ago to 400-425 million today,
        c)We have a massively DECLINING gun murder and gun crime problem as guns are increasing.
        d) guns are used to prevent two to three million crimes per year. By contrast about 2,000 non criminals are murdered with guns every year (multiple studies show well over 90% of gun murder victims are criminals). A THOUSAND TIMES more innocent people are saved from victimization with guns than murdered with them.
        e) if you are not a criminal you are SAFER from homicide risk in the US than Canada, Australia or the European average.

        3. Your claim We all needed to take a test to drive right? How has that worked out?
        a) you don’t need to be trained to buy, own, keep and drive a car on your own property. your analogy to car driving on public property is analogous to CARRY, not at all analogous to buying a gun or having one at home for home defense. Virtually all Americans live in places that DO require training for carry. (despite that fact that places that don’t require training frequently have lower murder rates).
        b) You said in the prior thread that guns should be treated like cars. so I assume you think a carry licence in Texas shoudl be able to be used in California, Maryland, new jersey, and DC? All the gun control groups you said are “reasonable” absolutely oppose that.

    5. If you want more people control in the disguise of “Gun Control”, then vote democrat. If you want more people control in the disguise of “Tax the Rich” then vote democrat. If you want more people control in the disguise of “reasonable agency regulations” then vote democrat.

    Leave a Comment 14 Comments