PolitiFact
When the Washington Post Fact Checker looked at this question, NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam pegged Landrieu’s vote "to take away your gun rights" to her support of the Toomey-Manchin proposal (named after its sponsors, Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.).
That proposal, which failed 54 to 46 in April 2013, did not ban the sale of any firearms. Its most significant provision would have expanded federal background checks already in place to firearm purchases made at gun shows and over the Internet. You could still buy a weapon from a family member or friend without a background check.
The Fact Checker concluded that it’s hard to envision a situation in which Toomey-Manchin would have prevented a woman from being able to defend herself against an intruder. Assuming the woman in the ad was legally eligible to purchase a firearm (meaning she doesn’t have a criminal record), she would not have any trouble owning a gun in her home — even if Toomey-Manchin passed.
The Fact Checker gave the claim Four Pinocchios, its harshest rating.
The ad says that "Landrieu voted to take away your gun rights." Given her "Yes" votes for the confirmation of both Kagan and Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, I don't see why the ad's claim is disputed.
ReplyDeleteI would have brought that up, rather than Arulanandam's citing of the Toomey-Manchin vote, but even that claim is defensible.
If the Gun-Rights Folks Are in the Right, Why Do They Lie So Much?
Besides, Mikeb, are you sure you really want to go there--to comparing the mendacity of "gun control" vs. gun rights advocates? I sure wouldn't if I were you.
None of that is defensible. None of it would disarm a poor defenseless woman at home with her baby.
DeleteYour final snide nonsense is just another example of your following the gun-fanatics rule number one: always accuse your opponent of that which you yourself are guilty of.
Certainly it's defensible. Do you deny that Kagan and Sotomayor are both very much in favor of a very restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment--an interpretation, in other words, that would "take away [Americans'] gun rights" (and yes, I know you agree with such an interpretation--or possibly one even more restrictive than those two would favor--but that doesn't change the fact that voting to confirm them was a vote "to take away [Americans'] gun rights")?
DeleteAs for Manchin-Toomey, even "Fact Checker" acknowledges that if that bill had become law, and if the woman in the ad had had a criminal or mental illness record of sufficient weight, the law would have "take[n] away [her] gun rights." I'd be willing to wager that some Louisiana voters would agree that (to quote David Codrea), "Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian."
And as for your last, shall we, just for one of a legion of examples, talk about the "40% of gun sales proceed without a background check"--a lie that even the reliably pro-Obama, anti-gun Washington Post called Obama out on? That ridiculous lie is still treated as holy writ by every major "gun control" group.
I'm accusing you and your fellow ideologues of what you are guilty of (well, some of what you're guilty of, anyway)--a crime of which I am purely innocent.
She would be disarmed if she were sent to prison for violating one of the new felonies around gun ownership created by the M-T bill. It was an affront to gun rights, especially when you consider how easy it would be to get a better background check system without all the legal pitfalls, and such a bill was proposed by Tom Colburn yet glossed over by those who would rather discourage gun ownership than allow a background check system that is cheap and easy.
DeleteBoth you guys are using a lot of "ifs." Can I try?
DeleteIF proper gun control laws went into effect combined with a one strike you're out policy, only the truly responsible would own guns legally. You're right, lots of people would be denied guns, but not for nothing. They would be denied if the don't qualify and if they misuse them.
And, IF all that happened, you know what would happen to the gun violence? It would go down, way down. Lives would be saved. But you don't want that, do you? It might inconvenience you, hell, it might even disqualify you.
The fact remains that we've identified three Landrieu votes against the gun rights of some Americans. We did this, mind you, without even getting into the fact that each new gun law passed--and Manchin-Toomey would have been a huge one--is a beachhead from which the effort for the next gun law (11-round magazine ban, perhaps?) is launched. A "universal background checks" law is the gun prohibition jihadis' biggest priority now, into which they put most of their resources. Give them that, and they'll shift those resources to the next target, and now be buoyed and energized by their victory over decent Americans.
DeleteThe smart thing to do is to never allow that beachhead. Stop the invasion right at the beach--watch the invaders die in the surf. Figuratively speaking, of course.
Kurt, be careful, you're practically showing your hand. I've long suspected that you and the others don't really object to things like universal background checks and magazine capacity limitations in and of themselves but really for their position on the slippery slope.
Delete"a beachhead from which the effort for the next gun law (11-round magazine ban, perhaps?) is launched."
Am I right?
Am I right?
DeleteUm, no--not even close.
I've actually addressed this issue before:
What Obama, and even many decent, intelligent, Americans fail to realize is that the government does not have to go so far as an outright ban--or anywhere near one--to have gone much further than a free people can allow. A ban of "regime change rifles" (which is how St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner is going to refer to so-called "assault weapons" from here on out) would itself be an unacceptable, unforgivable violation of the Constitution's guarantee that our right to capable fighting arms shall not be infringed.
We do not care if banning regime change rifles and "high capacity" magazines is as far down the slope as the gun prohibitionists want to go (and it isn't, anyway). Maintaining our access to these arms is worth the legal danger of defying such laws. If that defiance is met with the armed might of the government, it will be worth fighting and dying for--but even more worth killing for.
You've been saying that a lot lately, "worth fighting and dying for."
DeleteExcuse me if I think you're full of it. You really can talk the talk, though.
Excuse me if I think you're full of it
DeleteYeah--wasn't really counting on bringing you aboard. Oh, and that particular instance of "fighting and dying for" doesn't really qualify as "lately," does it, being 21 months old?
C'mon, man, you frequently say things like "fighting and dying for."
DeleteC'mon, man, you frequently say things like "fighting and dying for."
DeleteI suppose I do. I just don't think of it as being a recent development, as implied by your "You've been saying that a lot lately." It's not a point I see as being particularly worth arguing about--I was just puzzled about the "lately."
The same questions could be asked of gun control advocates. In fact, not too long ago, we discussed a case where Politifact had to go back and change a rating. Doing this, even though it meant admitting the mistake actually increased their credibility in my view.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2014/jun/27/brady-campaign-prevent-gun-violence/do-average-nine-children-day-die-united-states-gun/
Then of course, we have the well publicized listings of school shootings from Everytown, former Mayor Bloomberg's organization. Even CNN dinged them on it.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/11/us/school-shootings-cnn-number/index.html
Though in my opinion, the most unrecognized group is the Violence Policy Center with their "Concealed Carry Database" where in order to inflate the numbers, they include permit holders committing suicide.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/02/gun-debate-is-price-of-armed-america.html
Actually, I think suicides count. I know you guys love to leave them out, but there's no better example of gun misuse.
DeleteAlso, about counting suicides in the concealed carry killer database, aren't some of them murder-suicides?
Even if one takes the laughably false position that suicide requires a gun, you certainly aren't going to argue that possession of a concealed carry license makes it any easier, are you?
DeleteNot to mention the fact that VPC cites murders at home (where again, the killer's possession of a concealed carry license means nothing). If I remember correctly, they even cite some killings that didn't involve guns.
I fail to see why suicide by gun is not a gun shot death, thus counted as a gun shot death.
Delete"Actually, I think suicides count."
Delete"Also, about counting suicides in the concealed carry killer database, aren't some of them murder-suicides?"
How about if we just look at what the VPC's intent of compiling this database is.
"Had the NRA informed policymakers that concealed handgun permit holders would routinely be killing law enforcement personnel and perpetrating, rather than preventing, mass murders and other gun homicides few legislators--applying Metaksa's own standard--would have voted in favor of such laws."
http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm
They are attempting to disprove the contention that permit holders are more law abiding than the general populace. Or rather, disproving the literal quote made by Metaksa,
"these citizens don't commit violent crimes,"
I don't consider intentional self harm to be a violent crime. It counts as a gun death, but not as a violent crime. At least not according to the FBI or even the CDC since one doesn't track them and they're in the crime business, and the other tracks it as its own category.
I also saw the mention of murder/suicides and I honestly cant recall if I only counted the suicide, or discounted it entirely. However, lets look at some of the entries,
"Between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012, Michigan State Police report that 56 Michigan concealed handgun permit holders took their own lives. In their annual report, the Michigan State Police do not release the victim’s name, the exact date of the suicide, nor the type of weapon used in the suicide."
165 of the suicides "killings" in the database are made by reports such as this. One thing I didn't notice before is that for the suicide reports from the state, two of the years have four annual reports and another two years have three annual reports. Which would suggest that some might be counted more than once. al la Chicago politics.
Also, since most of their data seems to come from news reports, there is a pretty good chance that the permit holders got counted more than once in Michigan also if it was a murder/suicide. Once, (or possibly more) from the state suicide report and again when they find the media report.
In fact, I just went to The Michigan State Police website where they keep the annual reports, just out of curiousity, and discovered that VPC overcounted suicides by permit holders by a total of 29. Or course, that isn't counting the potential for error by counting twice by using media reports also. Plus of course, the VPC counts them all even though there is no mention as to whether they were suicides using a firearm at all.
http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-77621--,00.html
Again, I learn something new every day when I come here Mike. In this case, it doesn't give me a better feeling about the VPC.
"I fail to see why suicide by gun is not a gun shot death, thus counted as a gun shot death."
DeleteThe VPC attempts to count a suicide by a permit holder as a violent crime. It still counts as a gun death, but it isn't a violent crime.
I agree it's a pretty sloppy counting operation. But you left out another probable fault. Many crimes are committed by permit holders and the fact that they have a permit is never mentioned. These go undetected and uncounted in any attempt to quantify how many permit holders do wrong.
DeleteAh yes, just like all those previous gun infractions that would have disarmed people in your stories before they shot someone, if you had your way.
DeleteNone of that changes the number of dead people from gun shot, it only describes your displeasure about the way the bodies are counted. Interesting you are more interested in the way dead bodies are counted than the way those people became dead. I guess it's the way gun loons and military people think.
Delete"Many crimes are committed by permit holders and the fact that they have a permit is never mentioned. These go undetected and uncounted in any attempt to quantify how many permit holders do wrong."
DeleteI cant speak for all of the states Mike, but we now know that at least two do keep track. Minnesota, and as cited above Michigan both document activity by permit holders and release an annual report. There are likely more out there. Anyone else in other states know of this type of recordkeeping in their home states?
"Many crimes are committed by permit holders and the fact that they have a permit is never mentioned. These go undetected and uncounted in any attempt to quantify how many permit holders do wrong."
DeleteIts only probable to you Mike. Its a good thing that you don't actually look up what you claim so that you can keep speaking to this "probability". The fact is that most states DO keep this kind of information available to the public so that you can see the difference in ratio of crimes committed by non licensed to carry gun owners to licensed carry gun owners. The average on licensed to carry gun owners only comes to one tenth of one percent of crimes committed as compared to those who are not licensed to carry. So in reality, your probability of "many crimes committed by permit holders" doesn't hold water. Even with the crimes committed by permit holders reported by the state, more often than not, include crimes that have nothing to do with a gun at all. Because of their license, they get lumped into the category of crimes committed by license holder.
Breaking it down even further. When you look into the category of crimes committed license holder, the percentage goes down even further if the crime committed didn't involve a gun. Only 3 percent of all of the license holders crimes were committed using the gun in the entire category of crimes committed by license holders. Crimes committed include any second degree misdemeanor and up.
Since most states issue the license at state level, this information is available at the state crime statistics information websites or at the DPS office in that state in print.
Also most states do not allow any personal information as to who does or does not have a license to carry to the media reporting on a crime, so of course you wouldn't know, or detect them. It would only be your assumption. But the state DOES have that information, and unless you are a judge or involved in law enforcement that has a purpose to that individuals information, you will never know. But the general statistics are always reported, just not individual names or information.
But lets not facts get in your way Mike, that way you can keep your "probability".
"Anyone else in other states know of this type of recordkeeping in their home states?"
DeleteYes Sarge, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Florida, Colorado, Arizona, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, California and 25 more that I research all the time. There may be a few others, really if not all, that keep this type of info available. It is vital information that the law makers keep public so that they (the law makers) and the public can constantly judge how well the permit systems in each state works, any changes that may be prudent and agreements with other states for reciprocal purposes.
"None of that changes the number of dead people from gun shot, it only describes your displeasure about the way the bodies are counted. Interesting you are more interested in the way dead bodies are counted than the way those people became dead."
DeleteAnon, we've discussed this before. My comments are completely reasonable as a counterpoint to Mikes assertion that gun rights advocates lie.
You can always be counted on to try to somehow try to shift the blame to whoever notices that the data is inaccurate. As I mentioned in my previous comment here, gun control advocates are losing credibility by inflating their data. Even fairly liberal media sites are calling them to task. Do you think that getting caught by Politifact and CNN is going to help them the next time they want one of their new "studies" pushed?
I personally think its great that they do it because no one can lay the blame on the NRA or other gun rights groups. I especially enjoy your contrived disgust at someone "counting bodies" while ignoring who originally counted them. They just showed they suck at counting.
It's funny, the ATF and the IRS and all the other government agencies are run by bumbling idiots who can't get out of their own way. But the guys keeping track of concealed carry criminals are crack examples of total efficiency. To know the complete extent of the wrongdoers, all one has to do is check the stats, right?
Delete"It's funny, the ATF and the IRS and all the other government agencies are run by bumbling idiots who can't get out of their own way. But the guys keeping track of concealed carry criminals are crack examples of total efficiency."
DeleteWell, we've discussed before the penchant of the ATF to make bad decisions. However, this is just a matter of record keeping. And as we've seen, there seems to be a regular accounting of laws broken by permit holders.
I know that in Minnesota they even track traffic violations and differentiate between illegal acts that involve use of a firearm and those not. As we saw on the VPC website, they are even used, at least in the case of Michigan's database, that gun control advocates use it.
I am curious as to why VPC didn't make use of similar databases that are out there.
And I can always count on SS and the gun loons to change to subject, gunshot deaths, by the diversion of how the dead bodies are counted. Sick and morbid.
DeleteSo Mike, when does the bumbling ATF and IRS have anything at all to do with any states conviction record keeping? Nice try but changing the subject still doesn't change the facts and your assertions still won't hold water. Try again.
Delete