A good friend of mine, Michelle Dutro, took to Facebook to address recent accusations made against Republicans as being heartless and beholden to an NRA “extremist” lobby. She also takes on common misconceptions and misrepresentations of gun control advocates. Her analysis was so thorough that it needed to be shared.
Here are actual accusations and her rebuttals:
“Republicans want to pass laws making it easier for mental health patients to obtain guns.”
What they want is to prevent stripping people of their rights when they may have taken a drug, with a wide range of uses, that could link a patient to a particular mental condition they don’t suffer from. Among other things.
Like I have no criminal history or history of self harm or violence, but my anxiety disorder could place me at risk for no gun ownership, if any multitude of measures are passed based on comments from current lawmakers.
Yeah…… uh, no. I should not be put into possible danger because I didn’t avoid seeking help for a problem I have. Many people avoid the doctors and counselors because they’re flat out afraid of losing this right. That’s counterproductive!!!! You can’t prevent people with mental issues from having guns if you just deterred them from seeking help in the first place.
“Republicans want terrorist suspects on no fly lists to be able to own guns.”
Why yes, they do support due process for American citizens and their right to not be added to a list because your neighbor points a finger thus restricting your ability to own a gun indefinitely. Darn them for upholding due process for people who can be added to that list without evidence supporting the accusation.
“Republicans want to make silencers legal”
Psst…. suppressors are already legal for anyone who can pass the background checks and pay the fee.
“Nobody needs to own a machine gun.”
Well I’ve gotta say I don’t entirely disagree with the “need” argument, but I can think of scenarios where I would “need” one and just because I don’t “need” one now doesn’t mean I will never “need” one.
But there are significant hurdles to ownership that they conveniently avoid mentioning.
“When Reagan made owning a fully-automatic weapon manufactured after 1986 illegal, the federal government capped the supply making the guns left in circulation prohibitively expensive. For instance, while a brand new semi-automatic AR-15 can cost as little as $450, fully-automatic weapon cost tens of thousands of dollars regardless of their condition. At the Weekly Standard, Lowe writes that the guns can cost upwards of $20,000.”
Feel free to point out discrepancies on any gun issues. I am not a gun enthusiast and if it’s not something I own, I know nothing about it outside of what I’ve read and what I’ve watched Instructor Zero demonstrate. (Seriously that guy is a BEAST!)
I remember watching a YouTube video of a shotgun suppressor when it first released and Hillary Clinton is on crack if she thinks adding one of those things to a rifle is going to make it “silent”. There is still a loud report IMO (even on rifles) and that could be subject to the volume of my TV, but “silent” means “silent,” so no amount of volume could create a sound where it doesn’t exist.
We are all so jaded by Hollywood, damn you Michael Bay!
The CDC was blocked in one way or another (congress/ lack of funding) from performing analysis of gun violence and effectiveness of gun laws. But for the sake of argument we will pull this study from 2003: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
I encourage you to read it thoroughly and keep in mind that this was a study done before the Supreme Court ruled on the second amendment (DC v HELLER) where it opened the flood gates to a broader number of Americans owning guns.
In summary, their findings were…. not much help. They had insufficient evidence for multiple theories and couldn’t conclude for or against specific gun laws based on the data provided.
Now we have a politifact article that’s fact checking a viral meme pointing out gun deaths vs deaths caused by terrorist attacks.
I have a personal gripe with this one because I believe many things qualify as terrorism that the government doesn’t. However, if I take their meme at face value it appears America is a blood bath.
Buuut…. suicides make up over 60% of the death toll here. NPR, Pew research and the New York Times all agree on that fact. Also, why would police involved shootings be tallied in their meme?
They only use 2005-2015 for their numbers, but I’ll go one better and start from 1999.
Between 1999 and 2015, according to the pro gun control site procon.org, America has suffered a loss of 198,760 people to gun related homicides. This averages out to roughly 12,400 people per year… but when visiting their site they include ALL deaths related in any way shape or form to a gun, so they’ve claimed this annual number to be significantly higher at approximately 33,400 per year. See how those numbers near tripling like that could make your eyes bulge?
EVERY pro gun control article I have found fails to mention that in spite of gun ownership soaring in recent years, homicides have been declining since 1993…. or leveled off.
Does expanded ownership prevent gun violence? It appears to….. but I don’t agree with that theory. The CDC study above analyzed specifically that and couldn’t find conclusive evidence that rate of ownership affected the level of homicides occurring. Lower ownership didn’t stop the violence and higher ownership didn’t stop the violence.
Also, of the average 12,400 homicides attributed to guns; what percent of those occur in Democrat controlled heavily gun regulated major cities?
Bill will help explain that part. He does cheat by taking per capita murder rate over gun involved murders, so I’ll include the Guardian’s findings that place us at #28 by country.
I have just lost all desire to visit the Bahamas, as they only have 5.3 guns per 100 citizens, but their gun murder rate is 15.37 per 100k and they rank 98th in ownership as opposed to America who ranks #1 in ownership with approximately 90 guns per 100 people with a murder rate of 2.97 per 100k people.
Are we seeing all of the inconsistencies in the gun debate?
The argument has been presented that the push for removal of “automatic weapons” (they’re referring to semi automatic rifles) is an effort to lower the efficiency of the killer.
I’m shooting myself in the foot by providing the comparison here, but ah what the hell.
I’ve also watched a guy conceal as many as ten firearms on his person, none of which were rifles, pull, fire, and reload them within seconds of the time it took him to unload his AR15 of as many bullets through multiple reloads…
“Assault style” weapons to include the AR15 are used in less than 25% of shootings involving four or more people. (the number of people shot before being considered a mass shooting).
Hand guns, most of which are owned by the general population are classified as semi automatic weapons, make up the majority of guns used in mass shootings. Hand guns, make up the majority of guns used in ALL shootings.
Now I don’t favor passing more gun laws, but you have to ask yourself why people who claim they want to prevent death by firearms are targeting rifles that are used in the least number of incidents.
Would you call that logical?
They don’t really care about preventing firearm related homicides. If they did, they would give more attention to this study from DHS in Wilmington, “elevated rates of urban firearm violence and opportunities for prevention.”
Summary? “The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime.”
Guess what they did NOT suggest in order to prevent firearm violence?
Their recommendations hinge on a closer relationship with the community and identifying at risk individuals in order to guide them away from violent crimes.