Friday, June 28, 2013

Blast! Foiled By Facts Again!

In the wake of the shootings in Newtown CT the Obama Administration did what many populist political machines do. They attempted to capitalize on the tragedy to forward an agenda and in so doing convince those less given to critical thought that "The Government is doing Something to make them safer." You'll recall President Obama and Joe "Double-Barreled-Shotgun" Biden's dog & pony show complete with appropriately multicultural juvenile stage props wherein the President signed a series of Executive Orders related to gun control and gun violence.

Among those Executive Orders was the commissioning of a study on Gun Violence and the efficacy of various strategies to curtail it. Now if you are over 40 as I am, this should sound like a song you've heard before but we'll get to that in a minute. The first point I wish to touch on is the fact that you are likely NOT aware that the study is complete and has been published. One might be inclined to ask, "Well why have I not heard of this?".

You'd think that the Administration , armed with a raft of new info would be trotting in astride their white horses waving about the results of the study that they commissioned to support their effort to reduce gun crime/violence.Well, they would but for one teeny-tiny little thing........

The study in large part debunks the key elements of the "Gun Control as a means to curtail gun crime/violence" agenda.....well, that's awkward isn't it?

The guys at the "Guns Save Lives" website did a bit of analysis of the key points HERE and the full study can be read HERE so I won't consume space repeating their efforts. Suffice it to say, that the fact that the Administration and complicit elements of the media aren't screaming the results from the rooftops is due in large part to the results of said study confounding their agreed upon messaging that firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens present a huge risk to public safety. In fact, they don't and THIS is a point that has been proven time and again ironically, by those who endeavor to prove the inverse.

I've mentioned this previously but we've been down this road a number of times. You see, in 1978 the University of Massachusetts, Amherst published "Under the Gun: Crime and Violence in America"  This study was commissioned by the USCDC under the Carter Administration who at the time had a fairly aggressive and wholy misguided anti-gun agenda with the following primary elements:
  • A National Registry of Handguns
  • An outright ban on "Inexpensive Handguns"
  • A National mandate for minimum waiting periods on all firearm purchases
The study was intended to provide the Carter Administration the ammunition (for lack of a better word) to push their agenda through Congress resulting in legislation ostensibly intended to reduce crime. The problem is, that the study disproved the lions share of the assertions required to support such legislation. For deeper analysis of the study's findings read HERE.  The gist of it can be found in one simple statement by study author Professor James D. Wright:
"Gun control laws do not reduce crime.”
Fast forward a bit to Bill Clinton's first term. His Administration, like Carters had an Anti-Gun / Anti-Second Amendment agenda of it's own masked in the assertion that he was "tougher on crime" than his predecessor. Among Clinton's campaign planks was his support of the "Brady Bill" and for bans on so called "Assault Weapons". In the wake of the passage of both, the Clinton Era DOJ commissioned  "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review." -  completed/published in 2004. The bare intent of which was to measure the efficacy of the new regulations in support of future broader legislation. Despite every indication that the "Brady Bill" and AWB ban would not curtail gun crime/violence they were passed into law. The study found, in fairly profound terms that in fact neither had an appreciable impact on gun crime/violence.

Clinton and his team were/are a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them. We must then give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they were at the time aware of the findings of the Carter Era study. Similarly, President Obama and his team are a lot of things and stupid isn't one of them either. We must also give THEM the benefit of the doubt that they are aware of the Carter Era study AND the Clinton Era study both of which show, without great room for argument that as stated by Dr. Wright, "Gun control laws do not reduce crime." 

So here we are again with the Obama Administration endeavoring to enact gun crime/violence "reducing" gun control legislation and seeking studies to support said agenda. And, here we are again with the result of the study debunking the key assertions required to support said agenda. It would be easy, and somewhat intellectually lazy to bring out the Albert Einstein quote about insanity at this point. I'm not going to do that because I don't think that Carter, Clinton & Obama are insane. Quite to the contrary in fact. I think they know exactly what they are doing. The studies, though confounding to their agenda are, like their flowery rhetoric and kiddie prop festooned dog & pony shows - simply window dressing. They know full well that these legislative devices aimed ostensibly at curtailing gun crime/violence will have little to no effect on gun crime/violence. 

Their focus is NOT on gun crime/violence. Their focus is on infringing and eventually eliminating The Second Amendment.

[Edit] ....and if you are about to comment something to the effect that, "Well, that's only three studies and hence not definitive."'s three more:

1997 – Florida State University Dept of Criminology – Dr. Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control -  Summary paper -

2010 – John Lott, More Guns – Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws -

2007, Republished 2012 – Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder & Suicide?” -


  1. I appreciate your thoroughness in your references, but I imagine that we will never see eye-to-eye on guns, violence or the NRA. I have long been involved (but exhausted long ago) with efforts to bring about common sense controls that could reduce (that's all we can hope for) deaths, especially of bystanders and children. One desire is to see gun owners required to take more responsibility. For example, my brother-in-law leaves his Glock in his console, unlocked, in his truck where it could be grabbed by either a grandchild or thief in just a second. Then, we have NRA members arguing that "assault rifles" are not really different from hunting rifles, which is an incredible lie, especially with the invention of "bump stocks" where one can fire 100 rounds in seven seconds. Then, the NRA has fought the association of police chiefs tooth and nail to stop any factory records of ballistics to trace bullets used in crimes. You see, some of us who want reasonable compromises are shooters, even snipers and members of army teams, and even in my own case a former NRA instructor. This is not a situation where conservatives and "real Americans" have any monopoly on knowledge or a grasp of reality. What conservatives do have is a firm grasp on stubbornness, indifference to much of the pain, rationalization that comes about because of self interests, and way too much paranoia about the government and what people like me are up to. I own a really nice collection of firearms, and I am not one bit worried about confiscation or having to fight "the hordes," so the next time you are at a range, that man next you, the range master may not agree with you on these issues nearly as much as you might assume. There is room for disagreement among people with some mutual goals and values. The Second Amendment, nor any part of the Constitution, was ever assumed to be the ultimate manual that would answer all questions as we moved little by little to a population density that is totally different from 200 years ago. We have to work with different and modern situations or we will eventually lose more than we can imagine.

  2. Whether there is "room for disagreement among people with mutual goals and values" depends entirely on what those goals and values are. This article offers evidence that laws which sacrifice liberties in the name of security come up empty on both counts. Our "goals and values" are not at all mutual if you want to keep on infringing liberty for a false sense of security.

  3. Quote: we have NRA members arguing that "assault rifles" are not really different from hunting rifles"

    I am sorry, but you are mistaken. An AR 15 is functionally no different than any other semi auto rifle with a detachable magazine, such as the Remington 750 or 7400, or the Browning BAR (the current production hunting BAR, not the military M1918 used in WW2 and Korea). None of the current or proposed legislation effects them because they look like traditional hunting rifles.

  4. Quote: "None of the current or proposed legislation effects them because they look like traditional hunting rifles."

    I don't know what state you're in, but in California, SB347 would ban all semiauto rifles with removable magazines. That would sweep in the BAR and Remington 750.