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.