Alan Gottlieb claimed, in typical pro-gun exaggerating fashion, "What happens is that gun control spends all of our resources tracking and regulating the 99 percent of people with guns who don't commit a crime, and the 1 percent who commit the crime we don't do anything about."
I factchecked this, and the answer is: Not exactly. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives found that states with tougher gun laws in fact export the guns used in crimes (PDF) at a much lower rate than states with weak gun laws. Illegal guns handled by criminals and confiscated at crime scenes are most often traced back to states that don't do background checks for all weapons purchased at gun shows [CLICK HERE FOR MOJO'S ARTICLE ON GUN SHOWS]; that don't require purchase permits; that don't prosecute gun dealers who violate background-check laws; and that don't allow local law enforcement to approve or deny conceal carry permits. Findings confirm that regulations do deter criminals from getting guns.Yes, that's what a little fact checking can do to the never-ending exaggerations and hysteria that folks like Gottlieb keep pouring out.
I've often wondered about the pro-gun buzz words that are so consistently used on the gun blogs. They actually preach this nonsense and legions of sheep-like followers repeat the formulaic phrases.
"THEY win if you say 'pro gun.' YOU win if you say 'pro rights,'' instructs "The Politically Corrected Glossary" handout (PDF).
Yes indeed, our pro-gun friends are a fascinating bunch. What's your opinion?
Please leave a comment.
.
Strange bias for a "fact-checker". Claming that a promotional poster must reflect a statistical likelyhood rather than any likelyhood. For example, this is a far more sensationalist poster of lies.
ReplyDeleteClaiming that a MAIG report's conclusions originate with the BATFE, and later citing "A decade ago" statistics. The author even admits in a followup paragraph that she may not be qualified to see the subject from an unbiased position.
When fact checking, she should start with facts, not some MAIG drivel. But then, I am sure she had a preconceived thesis and facts don't work well in promoting gun control.
ReplyDeleteAnon:
ReplyDeleteWonder if Alan knows about Mikey and his illegally owned firearms?
Now, Anon, don't be so hard on our gracious blog host--as a "gun criminal" for "gun control," he's in good company (well, he's in some kinda company, anyway). There's Joseph Illuzi, who wants to ban guns for civilians, and who once drove the getaway car for a bank robbery (among other crimes). There's Barbara Graham, a Million Mom Marcher who shot and paralyzed the guy she mistakenly thought had killed her son. There's Annette "Flirty" Stevens, another Million Mom Marcher who was caught with weed and a handgun with the serial number filed off. And there's attempted murderer Amy Fisher, who wants to ban "assault weapons."
Still like playing the guilt by association game, Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader?
Now now, Mike has a Fifth Amendment right, regardless of any statute of limitations.
ReplyDeleteQuestion is, should it be respected regardless of his respect of the 2nd?
And Zorro, don't forget about Senator R.C. Soles. And Dennis Kucinich who sees no irony in exercising a choice to carry a concealed weapon himself and banning others from even considering that choice.
Florida is a net importer of "crime guns" and yet it is also in the top ten "exporter" list.
ReplyDeleteHow can this be!?!?!?!?!
Of course the ATF trace data has no bearing on whether the gun in question was actually involved in a crime, only that the gun was traced. The ATF says that for this reason the trace data should not be interpreted as a reflection of criminal activity.
Alan Gottlieb claimed, in typical pro-gun exaggerating fashion, "What happens is that gun control spends all of our resources tracking and regulating the 99 percent of people with guns who don't commit a crime, and the 1 percent who commit the crime we don't do anything about."
ReplyDeleteDo you or do you not agree with that statement?
Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteAlan Gottlieb claimed, in typical pro-gun exaggerating fashion . . .
If Gottlieb did exaggerate, I thought you were cool with that:
If I exaggerate that number, that's the same thing. Hardly a major crime and one which has nothing to do with the message I carry.
And:
I tend to exaggerate for emphasis . . .
Different rules for your side? I'm shocked!.
Honestly, the two statements seem unrelated to me.
ReplyDeleteGottlieb's statement DOES seem like hyperbole, and as such pretty useless (unless he can show some stats about how he came up with this). It IS possible it's correct (e.g. if you add all the time spent on background checks, waiting periods, FFL tracking
requirements, etc. etc. compared to time spent catching criminals) but without data, it's a useless argument.
But the 'factchecked' information? That's looking at a completely different set of data about regulations and laws...sort of like claiming that drunk drivers kill a certain number of people each year, and 'fact checking' this by discovering that countries with capital punishment for drunk driving have lower drunk driving rates.
Zorro, I'm afraid you are the one with the double standard. When I exaggerate, I'm asked to explain myself. When Gottlieb does, you simply accept it.
ReplyDeleteThat's all I'm trying to point out.
Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteZorro, I'm afraid you are the one with the double standard. When I exaggerate, I'm asked to explain myself. When Gottlieb does, you simply accept it.
Hmm . . . I don't remember defending Gottlieb's statements at the GRPC, either in this discussion or elsewhere. Granted, you said "accept," rather than "defend," but whaddya' want me to do--demand that he take it back (or what?)? As for asking him to "explain [him]self," it would probably make more sense to do that somewhere he's likely to see, rather than here.
I stand by what I said earlier--call Gottlieb's statements hyperbolic, if you wish--I don't contest that. Hyperbole is something you've defended when you or your ideological allies do it, so I figure that practice must be fine, by the rules of this blog (your blog, your rules--I don't contest that, either). If it's only fine for your side, have the intellectual honesty to come out and say so.