U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Newly released research suggests four gun safety policies supported by gun owners and non-gun owners that could reduce overall gun-related homicides by 28% and gun-related suicides by 6.7%,” ABC News dutifully parrots. “One of the proposals alone, called closing the misdemeanor loophole, has the potential to reduce overall gun-related homicide rates by as much as 19% according to research.”
“What’s not to like?” those impressed by such promises might ask. “Let’s do it!”
“Not so fast,” some of us who have been down this road before might respond. “Could” also means “could not” and “has the potential” means someone is talking out of their… ear. Just who are these “gun control”-loving “gun owners”?
And what the hell kind of invented new scare term is “misdemeanor loophole”?
The “Gun Violence/Epidemic” video accompanying this unabashed advocacy piece masked as news gives us our first clue that Disney-owned ABC is continuing with its decades-long hostility to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We then need to look at who’s behind this latest push, and unsurprisingly, the name “97percent” features prominently. This is the Astroturf group I warned about in my Firearms News exposé from a year-and-a-half ago, “’Gun Safety Symposium’ Promises Kinder, Gentler Citizen Disarmament.”
“Today, 97Percent, a bipartisan gun safety organization, released their Policy Roadmap, a set of four research-backed gun safety policies: closing the violent misdemeanor loophole, creating a state-level permit system, implementing a revamped universal background check system, and creating a red flag law with due process protections. New academic research found this package could reduce gun-related homicides by up to 28% and gun suicide rates by more than 6%,” a Wednesday press release from the group claims.
At least we can see where ABC News and other media outlets are getting their talking points from. And to paraphrase Bill Clinton lying under oath about Monica, it depends upon what the meaning of the word “bipartisan” is.
But let’s go to the “study” and see what gun owners will have to give up in order to achieve the “benefits” of “could” and “has the potential,” assuming they’re not just ignoring factors they have no solutions for and aren’t just making sh… uh… stuff up.
Let’s open the “roadmap” and see where it leads.
“We are guided by three main criteria, we are told:
- To focus on the core principle shared by gun owners and non-gun owners: Gun policies should ensure that people who are at high risk for violence cannot access guns.
- To identify a limited set of policies, that when combined, were demonstrated to have the greatest impact on reducing gun violence.
- To respect the rights of law-abiding citizens to purchase and possess guns.
The first point is shared. It’s just that anyone who actually understands the problem understands those who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian and need to be kept away from not just guns, but more importantly, from victims. And it’s not like NICS checks and “red flags” have slowed down any feral gangbangers in Chicago, Baltimore, or any other “table-running” Bloomberg Mayor cities “boasting” shooting death tolls measured in the hundreds.
As for the second point, good luck with that. If you’re talking homicides, see the first point. If you’re talking suicides, those tasked with enforcing citizen disarmament pose higher risks than the general population. If you’re talking “assault weapon”/magazine bans, you’ll get better results banning fists and feet. And if you’re talking reality:
“In 2004, the US National Academy of Sciences … failed to identify any gun control that reduced violent crime, suicides or gun accidents.” This was “from a review of 153 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the US Centers for Disease Control…”
The third point is the most deceptive of all, if you consider that one of the four “pillars” the “roadmap” rests on requires expanding the number of Americans declared not “law-abiding” enough to own a gun. You’ll note they purposely avoid telling you which guns they’re working on not allowing you to “purchase and possess.”
Hey, if you want to do a good swindle, you need to know how to talk to your marks.
In Part Two of this report, we’ll talk about the “policies” 97 percent would see imposed on their countrymen.
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. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
Another gun grabber with a big “but.” As in “I support the 2nd Amendment but not the parts I don’t support.” Can we for once get them to cut to the bottom line and tell us just how many of us bitter clinger deploreables they’re willing to kill in order to achieve their gun free paradise? At least Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn of Weather Underground were honest enough to give us an estimate. In return, Mike Vanderboegh was honest with them. “On February 26th, Vanderboegh printed an article entitled “America as a Free Fire Zone: A Critical Examination of… Read more »
https://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/02/america-as-free-fire-zone-critical.html
“Nuff said?”
Actually no. Vanderboegh’s reply can’t be repeated often enough.
Could someone please share that sentiment with biden and kamala? Best if they know that no one remains safe while attacking fundamental American freedoms.
I always like to add:
If we hand in our guns to the government either piecemeal or all at once what will protect us from the government?
Thats why you never register your guns
Nancy Pelosi?
Yeah that’s pretty good.
If they would just follow everything they were supposed to have learned in kindergarten, we’d all be ok…
Is that a big butt?
The progressive anti-freedom democrats are gunning to take away your guns again, by adding an Assault Weapon Ban to the LGBTQ-alphabet soup bill they deceptively and hypocritically titled “Respect for Marriage Act”. They want to sneak this through the lame duck session. Call congress and suggest the following: “Republicans must submit an amendment to the bill, to substitute their own bill, that states ‘We respect Marriage, and hereby immediately decriminalize marijuana, abolish the BATFE, and overturn the Gun Control Act, the National Firearms Act, and the Hughes Amendment.‘ Let Democrats be the mean ones who vote down a combination legalized… Read more »
Here’s a common sense solution, how about you disarm only the criminals and not the law-abiding. Don’t release thugs from jail and I won’t question your ability for irrational thinking.
Except THEY are not interested in disarming only the criminals, well I’m not even sure if THEY are even interested in disarming any criminals, THEY are mainly interested in disarming “We the People.”
Disarm criminals? Why, they’re scared of THEM! They’re armed, after all. It’s easier and politically more advantageous to force the law-abiding to comply with disarmament. Time will tell, if there’ll be defiance in the face of this hypocrisy.
THAT is because THEY are criminals. Violation of or trying to take away or alter ANY of the rights under the Bill Of Rights is a criminal act. It’s pretty simple, they try to pass legislation to take away ANY of our rights, arrest and prosecute on sight. WHEN did we ever STOP doing this? In the older days they called it, “Ride them out on a rail” Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution… Read more »
As it should be today. Oh boy!! That would mark a lot of politicians wouldn’t it. Imagine that. May be that is why you don’t see it anymore or very little at best.
The day that criminals refrain from breaking the law will be two days after the world ends.
OK. So we will discuss proposals which have been proven effective and which will not impact our rights…. Which means we can automatically discard any proposals, or existing bills, I’ve seen to date.
Following their suggestion, seems we should rescind NFA and large parts of FOPA – while reinforcing the actual firearms-owners and industry protections in FOPA. Simple – guess we’ve found a compromise we can all agree on, with moderate, reasonable and common sense first steps.
The compromise is the enforcement of the Bill of Rights of these United States.
We must close the “innocent” loophole, and the “never committed a crime but just might, any day now” loophole. How about the “trained, armed and potential killer” loophole?
“trained, armed and potential killer” loophole? You mean ALL Veterans and LEO’S?
wasn’t there a tom cruise movie like that?
Lucy McBath maintains, as do most of the left-wingnuts that there is some sort of health crisis involving guns. I have always maintained that we give these idiots a cross section of firearms so that they can submit them to their healthcare facilities for testing and evaluation while we maintain our freedom and liberty as we await the results of their findings. Also, it is a simple fact that people that do not believe in, God will ALWAYS remain ignorant of the rights endowed by, God as it is a given fact that if they don’t believe in or understand,… Read more »
TL;DR
You should get 100 points for that remark Grunt. Amen Brother.
Oh there IS a health crisis alright. MY HEALTH is at significant risk whenever I cannot avail myself of the ordinary and indicted prophyactic measures to assure my health and safety as I roam about in public. My preferred tool happens to make use of those smallish nine by nineteen milimeter capsules of Cu and Pb that are so common.m When admininstered according to well-tested prescription protocols they are proven up to 100% effective in the prevention of sudden death in result of heavy trauma inflicted by various actors freely roaming about in public.
well with the fear of firearms (hoplophobia) there is a lot of leftists experiencing mental illness, that could be the health crisis they are talking about.
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner.
Fentanyl is killing 1000x more people than firearms now but you literally hear NOTHING in the news about it because it would defeat their open border policies. It’s sick and our nation is being run by evil, sick humans now.
It’s taken over my step sons life, he is now a garbage human and the reason we arm ourselfs to protect our good part of the family from his type, he is super violent and wacked out, if kurder was legal I would be taking out the garbage. And the Dems are letting this crap flow across our border while at the same time trying to disarm us.
Never trust a politician who puts the word ‘but’ in a sentence regarding support of the 2A or one that says, ‘would you not agree with me’.
Obama was famous for saying, ‘most folks will agree…’
No, frankly I don’t agree…’nuff said.
There is no such thing as gun violence but there is criminal violence. The solutions to criminal violence are as old as civilizations themselves.
I support the second amendment (just NOT the part about “…shall not be infringed.”
No ‘lucy’ I will NOT agree with your flawed premise. I have compassion for your loss BUT (pun intended) would you be willing to outlaw cars if your son had been run over by a drunk driver, or would you go after drunks? IOW it is NOT the tool or mechanical device used to commit the crime. So, no we do not have a ‘public health crisis’. End of discussion.
Illinois has all this already and I have one word that invalidates all of it. Chicago.
When they out law guns all of us law biding citizens thay own guns will become ” OUTLAWS” FJB and all the commie liberals .
The logical progression of the “loophole” argument takes us to where? The “still alive” loophole? Any gun owner alive represents a potential threat and therefore should be incarcerated and all of his worldly possessions confiscated?
#1, high risk is not actionable.
#2, limited? gun violence? firearms are inanimate objects that require human interaction to function, whether for good or evil.
#3, you don’t respect rights if you want to take them away from someone.
The only health problem I see is the mental unstability of these gun grabbing politicians who beg us for money so they can have a job that interferes with the Constitution and our way of life. And the police aren’t your friend they will do whatever these wacho’s in office tell them to do, even making up their own laws to take guns away without a court order that may in it’s self be illegal.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Disgusting.