Fact-checking the gun control debate
WASHINGTON The intensifying gun-control debate has given rise to sloppy claims on both sides.
Here's a sampling, with the first two examples from the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on guns Wednesday, and the third from Vice President Joe Biden's online video chat last week during a Google Plus forum.
---
Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearing on gun violence
IOWA SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY, the top Republican on the committee: "The 1994 assault weapon ban did not stop Columbine. The Justice Department found the ban ineffective."
THE FACTS: The 2004 study conducted for the Justice Department did not conclude the decade-old ban was a failure or a success. The nuanced report found that the effects of the ban "have yet to be fully realized" and it might take years to see results directly attributable to the prohibition on certain weapons and large capacity magazines. The ban expired later in 2004.
The study's author, Christopher S. Koper, then of the University of Pennsylvania, considered the restrictions modest and speculated that they would have similarly measured results - perhaps as much as a 5 percent decline in gunshot victimization over time if the ban were kept in effect.
His main finding: There were not enough statistics and time to understand the impact of the ban and "it may take many years for the effects of modest, incremental policy changes to be fully felt, a reality that both researchers and policy makers should heed."
The study made no recommendation whether the ban should be renewed. But it said that if the ban expired, it was "possible, and perhaps probable" that new assault weapons and large capacity magazines coming into the market "will eventually be used to commit mass murder."
---
WAYNE LaPIERRE, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association: "I think without any doubt, if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it (the Second Amendment) there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny. I also think, though, that what people all over the country fear today is being abandoned by their government. If a tornado hits, if a hurricane hits, if a riot occurs, that they're gonna be out there alone. And the only way they're going to protect themselves in the cold and the dark, when they're vulnerable, is with a firearm. And I think that indicates how relevant and essential the Second Amendment is in today's society to fundamental human survival."
Durbin gets heated: NRA CEO missing the point "completely"
SEN. DICK DURBIN, Illinois Democrat: "Well, Chief Johnson, you've heard it. The belief of NRA is, the Second Amendment has to give American citizens the firepower to fight back against you, against our government."
THE FACTS: Durbin mischaracterized LaPierre's statement in this exchange, which also involved James Johnson, Baltimore (Md.) County police chief.
LaPierre drew a distinction between what he saw as the original purpose of the Second Amendment and a contemporary fear that the government will abandon citizens, so that they must be able to protect themselves against criminals after a disaster. His statement was not a call to arms against the government.
---
BIDEN: "Let me give you an example: 98 percent, according to a New York Times poll, 98 percent of the American people believe that there should be tighter controls on who can own a gun."
THE FACTS: It would be a miracle if 98 percent of Americans agreed on anything. And by any measure, that many don't agree on guns.
In a New York Times/CBS News poll, 54 percent said "gun control laws should be made more strict," 34 percent said they should be left as they are and 9 percent said they should be less strict. The poll also found that 92 percent would favor "a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers," a result on par with the level of support that proposal gets in other polls. Biden made the comment last week at a Google Plus forum.
How elusive is 98 percent agreement?
Americans came close after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In October 2001, Gallup found that 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden had an unfavorable rating of 97 percent.
Popular in Politics
- Obama prom pictures surface
- Drones, Gitmo part of broad Obama counterterrorism speech
- Lawmakers push to punish sexual offenders in the military
- Boehner calls out Obama administration's "arrogance of power" 75 Comments
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 840 Comments
- House passes GOP bill to speed Keystone XL pipeline approval
- Issa: IRS' Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights
- Could the GOP pull an upset in Mass. senate race?
Statistically and historically it has never been the case that gun bans reduce crime. All peer reviewed research indicates that gun control does not help. It also suggests that gun control actually HURTS.
The National Academy of Sciences reviewed 100s of peer-reviewed studies on gun control and could not document a single gun legislation that reduced crime. "Peer reviewed" means the methodology and data of a study are carefully reviewed by other scientists. This review process is very rigorous and demands ZERO BS. They are studies conducted according to the scientific method.
A Harvard study very clearly shows that, "the available international data cannot be squared with the mantra that more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death. Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns equal less violent crime." Harvard University is not an institution known for being rabidly pro-gun, but it does carry out impartial, peer-reviewed, scientific research. In its closing statement, the paper cites another study with similar conclusions containing the admonition that,
"If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to 'exonerate' handguns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
When it comes to matters that are not of opinion, but of FACT, I wish journalists would pay more attention to actual studies rather than what spews from politicians' mouths and their blind followers.
Youth need something to do, not just hang out. Lower the U6 unemployment rate and then gun crimes will go down. Every American boy wants a girl. Without that job he cannot usually become a married man.
Leaving U6 unemployment unattended as it has been for about 5 years, with an increase of about 2.5 million new U6 unemployed or underemployed added per year, gun crimes will go up, not down.
The 2.2 million new jobs added in 2012 (reported this morning) is a glass only 1/10 full. Still, it is a start.
If the Obama administration can add 10 million new jobs in 2013 gun violence on the streets of America will decrease noticeably.
Obama should not be turning his nose up for any job. Oil and coal jobs, for example, are there for his taking. If Obama really wants to quell gun violence he will put American youth in good jobs, and soon.
Mixing cops with disenfranchised Americans will have a temporary effect on gun violence all other factors unchanged.
People should sell their guns to Obama so that Obama can donate them to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, his brothers.
That way he can skip paying for tanks and F-16s to give to the Muslim Brothers using Chinese money. China is foolish to believe Obama's promises that China will be paid back later by little American children.
Plus America would be safer because the mentally ill and criminals would be first in line to sell their guns to Obama since they got no jobs in the Depression, and can use the money.
Signed,
Buddy
Who would give, free of charge, prohibitively expensive tanks and F16s to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, sworn enemies of Israel, and due to the fact the US is broke borrow the money to pay for the tanks and F16s from China, with the promise that little American children will repay the money later?
The mentally ill.
In an earlier study by the same department, they concluded that "The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims."
As for their speculation that once the prohibition of certain cosmetic firearms features were lifted that it would be "possible, and perhaps probable" that they will be used to commit mass murder is like saying that newly introduced car models will possibly, perhaps probably, be involved in horrific crashes. Duh.
The point that they were trying to make is that " Mass murders garner much media attention, particularly when they involve AWs." and that this media attention "could have a considerable negative impact on public perceptions".
They were just pointing out that, while there might not be an impact on actual crime levels, there might be an impact on media coverage. Sounds like they were spot on.
You are being naive if you think that statement was not a call to arms for those who have openly come on here and stated their belief that they need guns to make the government fear them.