When It Comes To Guns, Breitbart Gets It Wrong And Moms Gets It Right.

3 Comments

Readers who follow my column no doubt understand that I spend most of my time debunking what I consider to be mistakes, intended or otherwise, made by anyone and everyone who writes about guns. And while some organizations and writers on both sides get it right most of the time, there are others who virtually every day get it wrong. Topping that latter list is breitbart.com, which pushes out a comment on guns just about every day, and just about every day gets it wrong. Their latest is a comment about women and guns that was made by Moms Demand Action activist Kristen Moore, who was interviewed by Michigan Radio following Governor Rick Snyder’s decision to approve a new law which allows women to have their CCW applications expedited in situations where they face potential domestic violence.

Typically, the Breitbart story started off by falsely accusing the Moms group of stating that it was “wrong” for women to carry guns. But that’s not what Ms. Moore said at all. What she said very clearly was that if women were thinking about applying for a CCW and purchasing a gun for self-defense, that they needed to make an “informed” choice in the matter, which means understanding whether, in fact, having a gun around the home or in the pocketbook provides any real safety at all.

open The gun industry has been going all out for the last twenty years trying to make us all believe that guns serve a positive social utility because when we own and carry one we are more safe. First we had the nonsense produced by Gary Kleck, who claimed on the basis of 213 telephone interviews that millions of crimes were thwarted by gun-carrying individuals each year. Then we had the bigger nonsense by John Lott, who basically said the same thing, even though it’s never been clear whether he had any real data at all. If the gun industry wants to promote the virtues of arming citizens in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that’s fine. After all, they’re in the business of selling guns, not conducting research about gun risk. But the reason that so many people read Consumer Reports is that maybe, just maybe, the manufacturer’s claims aren’t always exactly true. That’s what the Moms group means when they talk about making an “informed” choice.

For me, the issue of whether anyone will be protected by carrying a gun, however, goes to something else. Because it’s not just a question of whether the statistics show that a gun makes you safer or not, it’s also whether someone who decides to carry a gun is trained so that their gun could even be used for self-defense. It turns out that Michigan requires that anyone applying for CCW must show that they have shot a gun a whole, big 30 times. Meanwhile, a 2006 FBI study of violent assaults on police officers concluded that criminals who used guns to attack cops practiced using their guns roughly two times every month!

If anyone thinks that raising the issue of “informed” choice about CCW is a back-door way of getting rid of all the guns, go right ahead and delude yourself as much as you can. The real reason that keeping a gun around for self-defense means first of all that the wrong person may get his hands on the gun, which is why, as Kristen Moore pointed out, women are five times more likely to get killed in domestic disputes when there’s a banger stuck in a drawer, a closet, or even a safe. But even if the gun can only end up in the ‘right’ hands in the event of an attack or a threat, does the person to whom those hands belong really know how to use that gun to protect themselves just because they spent a few evenings fooling around at the local range? As Ian Fleming says, “Shooting hell out of a piece of cardboard doesn’t prove a thing.”

When It Comes To The Gun Debate, The Playing Field Is Beginning To Level Out.

Leave a comment

Until recently, I was somewhat dismayed at the degree to which the digital side of the gun debate was so completely owned by the pro-gun crowd. Not that they don’t deserve their fair share of the online environment, and not that they haven’t worked tirelessly to bring this about. But I’m interested in is a fair and honest fight between the two sides, and it won’t happen until both sides show up.

I was never particularly impressed by the content of the NRA video channel; the messaging tends to be didactic, wordy, sometimes outright stupid and basically boring as hell. But video characters like Billy Johnson, Colion Noir, Chris Cheng and Natalie Foster have carved out followings for themselves on the NRA website, along with YouTube, which means that a basic, pro-gun argument is viewed by hundreds, if not thousands of people every day. And while we usually think of arguments for more gun safety as belonging to the folks who try to promote more regulation of guns, the fact is that some of the best videos that show people how to use guns in a safe way are produced by the gun industry itself.

supvn The last several weeks, however, have seen this state of affairs beginning to change. Last week the Brady Campaign released a video on gun laws and gun violence, which they posted on a site that’s a spoof on the TripAdvisor website, which set a new standard for gun videos produced by either side. I talked about this video in Huffington and said that it was not only clever and theatrically well done, but also directly challenged a basic NRA argument that we will all be safer if everyone has a gun. Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that the evidence on the risks versus the benefits of an armed citizenry can be used to definitively sway the argument either way. What I am saying is that this video at least presents the argument about gun risk in persuasive and artistic terms.

The gun-sense folks have now released another video which is generating web-based commotion because of its content, artistry and tone, but this time the commotion is coming more from the other side in ways which indicate that the video’s argument is really hitting home. I am referring to a video released by States United to Prevent Gun Violence which shows a New York City gun shop that only sells guns which were used in gun violence, including the Bushmaster AR taken off the body of Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook and the pistol that the two-year old son of Veronica Rutledge used to kill his mom. The guns are fakes, the store doesn’t really exist and I’m not sure that the ‘customers’ who walked in and then exhibited varying degrees of shock and concern after being told the history of those guns were real customers at all. But no matter, the video is powerful, artistic and drives the message, pace the NRA, that owning a gun is a risk.

The video has been attacked by the usual pro-gun suspects like Bretbart and Daily Caller, but the most interesting response to the video from the pro-gun side was a demand made to the New York State Attorney General by the state’s NRA-affiliate Pistol and Rifle Association to investigate the video’s sponsor for violations of the state gun-control statute which, of course, this same association did everything it could to try and prevent from becoming law. If Eric Schneiderman has nothing better to do than chase after States United because they stuck a bunch of unlocked toy guns on a wall, then Andy should fire him immediately and appoint a new AG. Andy has better things to do.

The reaction to this video by the gun guys in New York tells me that the digital playing field on gun violence is beginning to level out. Now if the gun-sense folks could only find a stellar personality a la Clint Eastwood, to drive their video messages home…

Amazon has it.

Gun Trafficking in America - cover

Are College Students A New Market For The NRA? I Haven’t Seen It Yet.

Leave a comment

Michael Rosenwald is a reporter for the Washington Post who goes wandering across the 14th Street bridge into Virginia and finds something he believes to be new and different with guns. Back in January he discovered a new attraction called Elite Shooting Sports located near Dulles Airport, which combines a gun range with a snazzy café, wi-fi lounge and various other Milennial-type amenities. Rosenwald promptly found four or five other such establishments popping up around the country and – voila! – a new trend in shooting sports was born.

Last week Rosenwald went across the bridge to Virginia again, then to Reagan Airport and ended up at MIT in Cambridge, MA where he discovered yet another new trend, in this case, a significant surge in shooting clubs and shooting activities on college campuses. Not just a significant increase in campus shooting sports, but according to Rosenwald, a “phenomenal” increase. MIT’s shooting program, like many campus programs, is partially funded by the gun industry through grants from the NSSF, along with additional support from the Midway Foundation, which is owned and operated by a very successful shooting accessories company from whom I have purchased my share of gear over the years.

free school In addition to evidently spending some time on the MIT campus, Rosenwald tapped into a cute blog on the MIT admissions website posted by a member of the team, Lydia, who describes herself as feeling “really, really badass” when she shot her 22-caliber rifle and won a certificate at the end of the semester for competing in the “Top Gun” competition. According to Lydia, shooting has taught her how to deal with pressure and, in the words of the team coach, never to “give up on the mission.” I’m sure that Lydia’s parents are relieved to know that the $60,000 yearly tuition fee is helping their daughter tighten her groups on the rifle range, but if Rosenwald believes that this kind of undergraduate pitter-patter is creating new customers for the gun industry, once again he’s showing his lack of knowledge about anything that has to do with guns.

If you do a story on the growth of shooting sports on college campuses, you should try and figure out whether this new trend will have any long-term impact on the gun industry as a whole. I should add, by the way, that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the gun industry promoting shooting sports in whatever venue they can find. And notice that I say shooting ‘sports,’ as opposed to unending and nauseating attempts by the gun industry to justify its existence by pretending that armed citizens will protect us from crime. If anything, college kids tend to be more liberal than the blue-collar demographic that usually owns guns; if Sarah Palin thinks she’ll get the same reception at the collegiate clay target championships that she receives at the annual meeting of the NRA, she’s may be in for a big surprise.

Back in 2012 I teamed up with GroupOn to offer a promotion on my range. For a discounted price, folks could shoot 22-caliber and 9mm pistols at some zombie targets, and then get their picture on my Facebook page. More than 400 GroupOn customers came to my shop, roughly half were women, they were mostly between 20 and 35, most had never shot a gun before, and the majority worked in medicine, engineering and IT. Know how many guns I sold to this group over the following three years? Exactly one.

College is the quintessential life experience which allows you to do lots of things that may or may not be important later on. Which is why these students are having so much fun on the MIT rifle range. But it’s a kind of fun that doesn’t necessarily turn them into shooters for life or even purchasers of a single gun. And noisy campaigns to the contrary, I don’t notice college administrations rushing to lift prohibitions against guns in classrooms or in dorms.

Amazon has it.

Gun Trafficking in America - cover

Glenn Kessler Tries Writing About Guns. He Should Stick To What He Knows.

Leave a comment

I certainly understand that any responsible journalistic enterprise needs to present a wide spectrum of opinion, so it’s no surprise when a liberal-leaning newspaper like the Washington Post publishes a commentary on guns from the pro-gun point of view. But you would think that the editors would at least take the trouble to read what they publish, because in a recent column by Glenn Kessler, I’m not sure that beyond his own name I can find anything he says about Obama’s views on guns which happens to be true.

Kessler begins his litany of Obama’s “exaggerated” claims about guns by referencing the President’s remarks at Benedict College in South Carolina, on March 6, 2015. Among other things, Obama stated that we had the “highest” homicide rate in the industrialized world which, according to Kessler, just isn’t true. He’s right. Of the 34 OECD countries that are usually considered to be the most economically-advanced, we rank second only behind Mexico, although ‘industrialized’ and OECD aren’t the same thing. In fact, when we say ‘industrialized,’ we are usually referring to countries that experienced the classical industrial revolution between 1850 and 1890, which basically covers Western Europe and the United States. Kessler pushes his dumb criticism to the edge of reality by noting that the U.S. homicide rate is only “above average,” which is a funny way of characterizing a number that is 5 to 20 times higher than the average of every other industrialized European state.

Best gun salesman ever!

Best gun salesman ever!

Kessler then goes on to score Obama for saying that there were neighborhoods where it was easier to buy a gun than to buy fresh vegetables, but his snarky, CYA attempt falls completely flat when he notes that nowhere in the United States are background checks required in order to buy fresh food. The point is that Obama got it right when he drew attention to endemic violence in inner-city neighborhoods by comparing the availability of guns to the non-availability of fresh vegetables and fruit. It’s Kessler who’s doing his readers a disservice by pretending that the President’s verbal sleight-of-hand characterization of ghetto reality somehow calls into question the validity of his remarks.

I began reading Kessler’s column wondering why and how someone who usually writes about diplomacy and foreign policy all of a sudden gets interested in guns. Then a friend pointed out to me that none other than the gun industry’s most unabashed mouthpiece, John Lott, was taking credit for everything Kessler said. On his website yesterday, Lott claimed that he was the “reader” who asked Kessler to examine Obama’s quotes. Lott went on to add more ammunition to Kessler’s analysis, including challenging Obama’s call for comprehensive background checks by stating that “most gun purchases already go through background checks.”

I have to admit that the President and other NICS advocates create trouble for themselves by continuing to cite a 1994 study with a 40% NICS compliance rate when the entire NICS systems didn’t go operational until 1998. But the truth is that the value of background checks as a process for reducing gun violence has absolutely nothing to do with whether 10% or 40% or 90% of individuals with guns submitted their acquisition of guns to the NICS. The fact is that most people who commit serious crimes are legally ineligible to own a gun. Lott’s comment about the near-universality of background checks has nothing to do with whether the NICS system deters crime, and if Kessler wanted to really make a contribution to the gun debate, he should devote a blog to checking the exaggerations and outright falsehoods of his new friend John Lott.

Know what? I’m getting tired of digging up serious, peer-reviewed scholarship to refute the bromides of people like Kessler and Lott. They aren’t interested in a forthright, honest discussion about guns. Their only interest is in helping the gun industry sell more guns. And to show you how dumb they really are, I’ll bet that neither gets a commission from Smith&Wesson, Sturm, Ruger or Glock.

 

A New Video From Brady And The NRA Better Watch Out.

Leave a comment

I just watched one of the best YouTube videos on guns that I have ever seen. It is posted by the Brady Campaign and you can view it directly on YouTube or pull it down from the new Brady website called crimadvisor.com. The website, like the video, is a tongue-in-cheek riff on a campaign the Brady folks have been running for years which correlates rates of gun violence with state gun laws, the idea being that states with stricter gun controls experience less gun violence. Brady’s new effort to sell this idea is a website that spoofs TripAdvisor and a remarkably original video that sets a new standard for the gun debate on both sides.

The bizarre notion that we protect ourselves with laws is a direct challenge to the NRA mantra which says that the best way to protect ourselves is with guns. If it were up to the NRA, we’d go back and undo the GCA68, get rid of background checks entirely and let all those ‘law-abiding’ folks out there walk around with their unlicensed guns and protect the rest of us from the criminals and the thugs. The NRA promotes this armed citizen nonsense through its video channel that features a group of very serious-minded folks didactically delivering one boring commentary after another on the hows and whys of carrying guns.

brady I have never been comfortable at the extent to which the pro-gun community uses video to promote its agenda if only because so much of the content used to create their digital messaging simply isn’t true. For example, last year one of the NRA commentators, Billy Johnson, criticized the General Social Survey which showed that gun ownership had declined from 50% of all households to just 34% over the previous twenty years, citing a Gallup Poll which stated that more than 40% of all American households actually contained guns. The only problem is that what Johnson didn’t say was that while Gallup had a higher number for gun-owning households, its survey had also shown a decline in gun ownership over the same period of time. By omitting this critical information, Johnson was able to pretend that the GSS finding about declining gun ownership wasn’t true. What was really true was the way in which Johnson distorted the evidence to support his own point of view.

But the whole point of video is that it’s not the facts per se that gets your message across to the audience, but the personality, stagecraft and overall artistry of what viewers are watching which drives the message home. And here is where, when it comes to the gun world, the new Brady video has absolutely no peer. Close my eyes for a second and I thought I was listening to Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis in Natural Born Killers, the 1994 Oliver Stone - Quentin Tarantino movie where two psychopaths go roaming around the Southwest attacking everyone and everything in sight with their guns.

But while the on-screen antics of the Brady gun-toting wannabes create an element of satire and cleverness that’s just plain fun, it’s not that difficult to slip behind the sarcastic message of this production and perceive the basic argument of the Brady campaign that localities with weak gun regulations make us less, not more safe from crimes with guns. If you need some hard data to convince you further about where Brady stands, the video moves easily and seamlessly to the website where you can examine the gun-law environment in all 50 states.

I hope that Brady’s video goes viral and that this will be the first of a series of productions in which our two as-yet unnamed characters hold forth on a variety of relevant issues related to guns. The real challenge in social media is not reaching the folks who are already committed to what you believe; it’s reaching the folks who can become committed because they like the way you say it, and this video says it better than it’s ever been said.

Buy on Amazon.

Gun Trafficking in America - cover

Who Won And Who Lost In The Battle Over The Cop-Killer Ammo? Everyone.

Leave a comment

A week before the ATF was going to stop receiving public comments about its proposal to ban so-called ‘armor-piercing’ ammo the agency shut down the whole process, announced they were going back to the drawing board and, at some later date not specified, would revisit the whole issue again. The ATF received more than 80,000 emails and if you think some of them came from the International Bible Holiness Movement or another of the frontline anti-gun violence groups, think again.

And if you don’t believe the NRA isn’t celebrating, you’re wrong on that one, too. They immediately posted victory statements from Wayne and Chris, sent news releases out to ever-welcoming Fox which featured their next President, Rand Paul, speaking out against the ATF, and of course went out of their way to label the ATF decision as a “defeat” of their arch-enemy and all-time best gun salesman, a.k.a. Barack.

atf Any time the gunnies can push back the U.S. Government on a gun issue, they’ll celebrate their victory as yet another step towards enshrining the 2nd Amendment as the unquestioned law of the land. By the same token, the gun-sense folks will bemoan yet another defeat at the hands of a seemingly all-powerful NRA and try to figure out how to keep this embarrassing loss from happening again.

I happen to think that both sides are barking up the wrong tree. Whether they know it or not, the ATF’s decision to shelve its new armor-piercing guideline is actually a victory for all of us who want laws to be reasonable, responsible and fashioned to reflect both reality plus a dose of good old common sense. The Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act which created the whole issue of armor-piercing ammunition in the first place was a careless and thoughtless example of legislative stupidity that should never have been proposed, never passed and never signed into law. If the ATF’s determination to step back from enforcing this statute turns it into a dead letter, nobody who’s committed to government as a force to secure the common good should be at all upset.

The bill was originally introduced by Congressmen Jack Brooks of Texas and Mario Biaggi of New York. There were actually two separate pieces of legislation, the Brooks bill being somewhat less restrictive than Biaggi’s measure, but they would ultimately be combined into one law that would eventually get through Congress and go to President Bush’s desk in 1986. The bill had support from most of the national police associations and while the NRA cautioned against passage, the gun-rights group kept most of its powder dry for another day.

The law was passed by voice vote in both chambers so that none of our elected representatives had to go on record for supporting or opposing the measure, a cute compromise which also made it easy for the NRA to pretend it opposed the law even though some of the organization’s most staunch supporters, such as Brooks, could appear to be pro-gun while actually voting for the bill. If you think that a non-recorded vote creates a little stench, you’ll really have to hold your nose if you read the testimony about the issue that was given before the House Judiciary Committee in May, 1985.

It turns out that nobody knew how to define ‘armor-piercing’ ammunition and no serious testing was conducted to determine which types of ammunition should be covered by the law. Unable to define the what, why and how of ammunition that might penetrate a vest, the Committee relied on testimony from ex-cops like Mario Biaggi who wanted to outlaw all kinds of ammunition shot from handguns because people didn’t normally use rifles to attack the police.

The serious testing and research that Congress should have demanded was never carried out and now all we have is a law that creates a good stink. The NRA should hardly be claiming a big victory nor should the other side be wallowing in defeat. We all lost on this one back in 1986.

 

 

A Medical Voice From The Past Explains Gun Violence In The Present.

1 Comment

I don’t usually applaud anything that the quack physician, Timothy Wheeler, posts on his Doctors for Reponsible Gun Ownership website, but he’s done us all a favor today by digging up a remarkable article that was originally published in 1980 by Lester Adelson, who served for many years as the Deputy Coroner of Cuyahoga County. In case you don’t know it, Cuyahoga is a.k.a. Cleveland, which means that Dr. Adelson knew a lot about gun violence. I’ll ignore the usual stupidities of Wheeler and get right to what Adelson said, because thirty-five years after the fact much of what Adelson observed then remains relevant today.

Adelson confronts us first not with the issues of mortality and morbidity from guns, but with a much more profound problem, namely, the quality of life experienced by those who survive a gunshot wound. He notes that an increasing number of gun-violence victims survive the assault, which is even more true today than it was thirty years ago. But he then raises the post-trauma quality of life issue of which we know very little. Adelson mentions in passing that survivors of gun violence have shortened lives, but he offers no data and I can’t recall a single study which sheds information on this fact. He also talks about post-incident psychological trauma, again an acknowledged result of being at the wrong end of the barrel when a gun goes off, but we lack specific data to better understand this issue as well.

conference program pic Think about this: there may be more than 1.5 million of us alive today who at some point endured the pain, suffering and physical/psychological damage caused by a bullet puncturing and exiting our bodies or remaining inside. What kind of lives do these folks lead after they are discharged from the hospital and told that everything’s “o.k.?” Can they go back to work? Will they live out a normal life-span or expire at an earlier age? We keep very good records on cancer patients in order to determine whether the treatment they received kept their cancers in remission or resulted in reappearance of the “emperor of all maladies.” But the survivors of gunshot wounds, unless they come back to the hospital with another gunshot wound, are largely on their own.

Two other points from Adelson’s article deserve mention. First, he confronts the degree to which we are immune to the issue of gun violence, noting that if Cuyahoga County experienced as many deaths each year from typhoid fever as they did from guns, there would be “mass hysteria.” And Adelson wrote this article in 1980, well before shooting deaths in Cleveland and other major cities peaked in the 1990’s. But this comment struck a chord because I recall that we started rushing medical supplies to Central Africa to ward off Ebola which, if it killed the same number of people in a year who are killed by gunshots in America (roughly 30,000), would have been considered an epidemic by the WHO.

The second, and perhaps more important point raised by Dr. Adelson is the recognition that gun homicides and crimes aren’t the same thing. The idea that gun violence and crime are synonymous has been a convenient way for the pro-gun folks to distinguish between ‘law-abiding’ gun owners who shouldn’t have their guns regulated, as opposed to criminals who do the bad things with guns and just need to be locked away. Adelson cuts right through this nonsense when he says, “The accessibility of a firearm permits the instantaneous metamorphosis of a law-abiding (hot-headed?) person into a murderer,” citing data which shows that most homicides are not associated with other felonies and often erupt in the context of a domestic dispute.

Adelson’s brilliant and prescient article underscores one thing that is true beyond a shadow of a doubt: guns are very, very lethal and no matter what an idiot like Tim Wheeler says, putting one into someone’s hands creates medical risk. That’s not just a problem for gun owners per se, it’s an issue that physicians always need to address.

 

Older Entries Newer Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 170 other followers

Build a website with WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: