Opinion
Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- Week two of the Bloomberg school massive open online course on “Reducing Gun Violence” ran the same week that one of the lecturers was in the news for exclusionary comments that apply more readily to his course than to the intended target.
Jon Vernick, JD, MPH, told an audience at a recent Health Journalism conference that journalists shouldn’t contact NRA for comment on gun control studies because he thinks we aren’t qualified.
“At least in my experience, journalists bend over backward to give organizations like the NRA or other gun-owning or opposition groups a chance to comment, sometimes on things that they don’t know very much about. And so, when I will do a research study and the studies get coverage, I sometimes wonder if it’s necessary to have a non-researcher from the NRA or another group respond.”
Our public affairs staff set the record straight about our qualifications and Vernick offered a milquetoast approval of our qualifications to comment on research.
Thanks, Jon. Is foot-in-mouth a public health issue, too? We’ll wait.
In the meantime, we’ll turn our attention to the second module in the Coursera program. We’d like to raise several concerns with the material presented in this module (don’t fret, Jon – we’re qualified).
For starters, the 2nd Amendment is described as “a legal and political challenge” to gun control and “the elephant in the room” when talking about gun policy. Constitutional rights should not be considered “challenges” to any worthwhile endeavor, but that sort of (un)subtle bias is present throughout the week two presentations.
Most concerning was the discussion between Doctor Daniel Webster and Doctor April Zeoli. In the context of reducing domestic or intimate partner violence, Zeoli emphasizes “all the hoops” required to have a person’s Constitutional rights revoked. Those “hoops” are obtaining a conviction in a court of law for a disqualifying offense.
The hoops are due process – the foundational principle that supports our entire judicial system. Zeoli supports expanding the qualifying relationships for domestic violence restraining orders and revoking 2nd Amendment rights based on ex parte and emergency restraining orders. The subjects of such orders would not have an opportunity to defend themselves in court before their rights are revoked. Depriving someone of their Constitutional rights should not be an easy or convenient task, no matter how worthwhile the intended result may be. It seems as though the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments would be sacrificed alongside the Second.
Other presentations in week two focus on “Litigation as a Public Health Strategy” and “Obstacles to Research, Policy Advancement, and Data Transparency.” Vernick himself leads the presentation on litigation and laments the enactment of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was passed to end a coordinated effort by anti-gun organizations to bankrupt firearms manufacturers and dealers through frivolous lawsuits. The lawsuits filed before the PLCAA were intended to bankrupt targeted gun manufacturers and dealers by forcing them to spend exorbitant amounts of money fighting absurd lawsuits. Vernick argues that “virtually no other consumer product” in the U.S. has the same sort of protection from liability as firearms. Internet service providers and small aircraft manufacturers both have similar levels of liability protection. And, no other consumer products face the same sort of organized, rabid opposition to their very existence as firearms.
There are no anti-car organizations bankrolling lawsuits they know will fail just to win a war of financial attrition against a small business – or even against a corporation. When you have all the money in the world behind you, all you have to do is force the other guy to choose how he wants to go out of business: spend all of his money defending himself against a frivolous lawsuit or close up shop while he still has a dime to his name. Public health officials regularly compare firearms to automobiles in terms of access and regulation, but no one wants to hold car manufacturers responsible for the criminal misuse of their products. That farce is seemingly reserved for the firearms industry alone.
The “Obstacles to Research, Policy Advancement, and Data Transparency” include the Dickey Amendment (acknowledged to not actually limit research) and the Tiahrt Amendment, which limits access to gun trace data and was supported by the ATF. The utility of the trace data for researchers is almost certainly overestimated, as it is limited to the point of sale. The presenter claims that “law enforcement has been hampered by its ability to trace crime guns and implement these policies.” We’ve consulted the highly qualified research attorneys on staff and none agrees that law enforcement has been hampered in such a way. Law enforcement agencies still have access to firearms trace data and can still request a trace by ATF for recovered firearms.
These aren’t the only policies that are misrepresented or trivialized. Vernick notes in his presentation on child access prevention laws that “we don’t go door-to-door” to determine how gun owners are storing their firearms. Nice to hear that the Fourth Amendment isn’t to be completely destroyed on the Bloomberg School’s chopping block, but there are important questions to ask about these sorts of laws. What is the actual compliance rate among people subject to these laws? In other words, are people more likely to store their firearms “safely” if there is a law on the books that threatens them with punishment? Would a public awareness or an educational campaign be more effective than a punishment imposed after a tragedy has already occurred? All Vernick mentions is a variation between felony and misdemeanor penalties.
Dr. Webster and Dr. Crifasi offer a final wrap-up discussion of the week two material. They reiterate the major points their colleagues made in this module, including the impact of prohibition based on violent misdemeanors but again ignore their own work that found California’s prohibition on violent misdemeanors and universal background checks had no effect on firearms homicides.
Jon Vernick and his six coauthors on that study hold fourteen advanced degrees between them. We’re sure that Vernick and his colleagues in the Bloomberg School of Public Health Coursera program excluded that study for a good reason.
About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
Where’s Bryan aka Green Watch Dog take on Bloomberg’s Gun-Ignorance Course? He’d be all over this and gushing how great his gun control stats are, even if they’re wrong. BTW has anyone seen any post from Bryan since he posted his actual name?
@Get Out No, not as such so far. I did enough to the guy tearing apart any hope he had for a positive reputation that after his reveal he is probably operating under a new name currently if he is still here. Wouldn’t be the first time. Were you by chance here several years ago to remember someone using the name “GIL”? Same situation, and the guy ended up with at least three name changes we were able to confirm based on his writing style and precise times he would reply online. We watch them commit intellectual suicide and then… Read more »
Use the RED FLAG LAW AGAINST HIM!!!!!!!!! He is a threat to himself and others, isn’t that what the law was set up for Just drop the coins and turn him in, don’t need any paperwork!!!!!!!!!!
Bloomberg; he’s the definition of a tyrannical elitist. What Bloomberg needs is to have all his wealth taken from him and force him to live in a Chicago ghetto. There he could just possibly become a victim of an armed robbery. Gee no gun to defend yourself Bloomberg, oh too bad. Bloomberg , like all these hypocritical billionaires think their smarter than everyone else on the planet. The British thought they were smarter than the colonies. If there’s ever a civil war again , which could very well happen if they try and disarm us, the first place that should… Read more »
@Justice, if Bloomberg is so smart, why does he keep buying million dollars houses and office buildings, when gasoline costs three dollars a gallon?
When they know the truth or don’t want to hear the truth, but insist on spewing falsehoods on gun ownership and gun owners, it’s called the arrogance of ignorance. Michael Bloomberg and his gun control groups are the epitome of this.
The taking of a right forever based upon less than a felony, and especially an ex post facto application, is simply wrong. Most of all these laws are misandry based upon the political correctness of the day. A much better name for that is mob rule. That’s right, direct democracy in action. Heck, and you thought that we live in a Republic? One with rights that protect you from the tyranny of the majority?
As far as Bloomberg gun studies everyone should read John Lotts book “War on Guns” he hits on the spin they put on their Polls and studies. He shows how they start their studies on years, and in states that support their end need even when two adjacent states may show just the opposite findings. They will fined a period of time when Crime, as awhole, is on the decline for several years and in the middle of the decline rack it up to a pieces of legislation that has just been past. Even the study by a professor at… Read more »
In the 19th Century “gun laws” were race based to disarm slaves and former slaves. The Civil almost fixed that but the SCOTUS refused to apply the Second Amendment to all the states. In the 20th Century gun laws morphed into “crime legislation.” But a close reading of the history of New York gun law, the pattern for all gun laws since, was that Tim Sullivan wrote the “SULLIVAN LAW” to promote crimes by his gang, the New York Five Points Gang. Since then other states and cities have swallowed the stated purpose, the fiction of reducing crime. Since the… Read more »
The Bill of Rights gives no authority whats-so-ever to Government!….Regulate: Adjust to a particular standard, rate, amount degree etc. thus: well regulated..the 1792 militia act required *all” men between the ages of 17-45 be armed! theres was no restrictions on anyone else or prohibiting in any way..The word “people” is in the 1st,2nd,4th and 10th amendments..Hamillton said, “If government should be obliged to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people”..Tench Coxe said, “The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands either in the state or federal… Read more »
With Bloomberg as the face of the Anti-gun movement, who is the face of the pro-gun/pro-Second Amendment movement? If it’s LaPierre, then we are in sorry shape and its little wonder we’re losing this “war”. It would be nice to have someone with a modicum of credibility who is honest, trustworthy and more interested in actually defending the Second Amendment and representing the NRA membership than they are in increasing their personal wealth and power.
I’ve always said that Tom Selleck and Chuck Norris should be president and vice president of the NRA.
They would be great, but until LaPierre is gone it won’t happen as he decides who is elected and appointed at the NRA. I never heard of an “Executive Vice-President” running an entire organization, but LaPierre has and does and will continue to do so until he’s out.
anti-2a pol-its: you’re all worth less than dog-s**t to me and America
same as most jo-urinal-ists
show up @ my door “jd/mph” d-sucker
parading yuor wang about again, I see. Grow up.
AntiConstitutionalists/communists on pro constitution sites is proof to who the aggressors are. Tyrants hate freedom unless the freedom is thier own.
Watch Comey, he’s going down then domino affect.
Republic restoration under way!
Here in Illinois, JB Pritzker and the Chicago mafia politicians must be studying Bloomberg’s course & taking his ideas to heart. Recently, they passed a state FFL fee that will drive many small family owned gun stores out of business with a yearly cost of almost $ 1,600. Now, we’re facing Senate bill SB1966. This will raise the cost of our FOID card by 400% It will require us to get electronic finger printed & undergo a background check everytime, it also reduces the status of our FOID card from 10 years to 5 yeats. Chicago & Cook county have… Read more »
It’s sad that there can be 14 advanced degrees, none of which exhibit one iota of common sense, logic, and factually correct information. That the jerk then has the temerity to post JD, and MPH behind his name, adds to their discredit!
That’s because the morons don’t want you to know that “gun control” is actually “communist gun confiscation plan from law abiding citizens”, and that “gun violence” is actually “crimes committed by democ rats”. The fact that the NRA presents itself as pro-Constitution with a communist lawyer flare, is obvious. That no bump stock has ever been factually documented as having been used in a crime speaks volumes about the “buzz word buffoons” who actually believe the fake news useful idiots (uncle Joes definition). And that Jon Vernick (Just Dumb)( Mighty Poor Headwork) in one statement denouncing the Constitution, shows why… Read more »
That’s right Juan. Gun control is communist disarmament for genocide. It’s a proven fact that armed citizens are much safer than disarmed ones. Disarmed citizens are victims and a weak country. A weak country is pathetic but perfect for holocausters just ask Hitler.
Now that gov is on front page of news as traitors waiting in the treason line for their indictments perhaps we can all go back to fishing soon.
Given past NRA statements on bump stocks, I would say that Jon Vernick made a truthful statement.
Colorado Governor threw the entire Bill of Rights in the trash and he says he had to do it because he knows what’s best for citizens that citizens are not smart enough to know what is best for them. Kinda like when Trump threw Rights in the trash demanding red flags. These things called rights tend to get directly in the way with tyranny and it is not race or party related. There’s as many white as black and other that do not obey the clear writing in the constitution. It is merely an obstacle to their tyranny for a… Read more »
Anyone interested in reducing gun violence and other types of violence should watch One Punch Homicide. It’s getting great reviews and can be seen free online.
So someone at the NRA understands how to argue and present evidence about how the bill of rights works.
Perhaps now they can explain why the NRA has been pushing actions which violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, such as Bump Stock Regulation and Red Flag laws. You know, Red Flag laws in particular since they are a defacto violation of Due Process, the same which the author recognizes as “the foundational principle that supports our entire judicial system.”
Seems a little two faced. Fix the NRA.
@ Rev. I was thinking the same thing all the while I was reading this article. Backpedaling is not that common of a sport but someone at NRA chose to try it.
by the way, this guy is a Juris Doctor (lawyer) and an MPH. Is that Miles Per Hour? He doesn’t seem all that swift to me.
@tomcat
If I remember from the days I was taking a few college classes, I think it is a Masters degree in the health field.
As to the backpedaling, its why I called him out.
How about factual data such as how many lives saved versus how many times a gun is used in violent crime? Jews for preservation of firearms rights has this info on their widget. Can clearly see the numbers don’t even compare. Is why gun grabbers (rubber gun squad) don’t use these numbers. It would ruin the koolaid. Real statistics and facts according to Nancy have nothing to do with anything. They are meaningless to tyrants according to Nancy.
Commuter train in Denver ran down and killed two different people at exactly the same location inside of one month and yet not a single anti train law or group is born.
Hmmmmmm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,