Posts Tagged ‘anti-gun asshattery’

What to Do When Your Doctor Asks About Guns

Posted: August 4, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: ,
0

You may encounter the question in your health plan’s standard health appraisal questionnaire. Even though it may not be of your doctor’s making, it’s still part of your permanent medical record. Or your doctor may have a personal prejudice against gun ownership, shaped by her training in medical school or residency. Either way, it is important for people to know some very important facts:

• Doctors receive absolutely no training about firearm safety, mechanics, or tactics in medical school or residency. They are completely unqualified by their training to advise anyone about guns.

• Gun ownership is a civil right. A doctor’s abuse of his position of trust to pressure you to give up that civil right is professionally and morally wrong. In some states it is illegal. You DO NOT have to tolerate it.

• You as a consumer have great power in the doctor-patient relationship. Do not be afraid to use it.

is available to you, some sending a more powerful message than others. These are updated from DRGO’s original recommendations, since the medical profession has changed so much in the last two decades.

1) Politely refuse to answer the doctor’s question or the health plan’s questionnaire item about guns. You can either explain your discomfort with the question or decline to give a reason.

2) If the gun question(s) appears on your health plan’s routine health assessment questionnaire, file a formal written complaint with the health plan. Every health plan has a member complaint process, often prescribed by law. Your complaint will be registered and the health plan will respond.

3) If the health plan responds with the excuse that their questions about your guns are standard medical practice that they must follow, you can take the complaint to the next step—file a written complaint with your state agency that regulates health plans. For example, in California you would follow the complaint procedure on the Department of Managed Health Care web site. It’s your right as a patient under California law.

4) If your doctor persists in asking intrusive questions about guns in your home, you can also file a complaint specifically against him or her with your health plan. Such complaints are taken seriously, and the doctor will be called to account for it. Having one or more complaints about ethical boundary violations on her record will make her think twice about doing it again.

5) Internet consumer rating sites have created another way doctors can be publicly rated on the basis of service, attitude, and behavior. Some commonly used rating sites are Yelp.com, Healthgrades.com, Vitals.com, and RateMDs.

6) Increasingly, doctors’ pay from Medicare and insurance companies is tied to how they score on patient satisfaction surveys. These are often sent randomly to patients, but you can request one to fill out. You can have a powerful impact on a doctor’s conduct by reporting the doctor’s unethical questioning about your guns.

7) If the doctor’s conduct is especially offensive, as was the case with this Florida pediatrician, you have the right to submit a complaint to the doctor’s licensing board. This is an agency in your state government that holds the ultimate power of licensure over your doctor. A quick internet search for “medical board” in your state should take you to the official form for filing a complaint. This is a step that should not be taken lightly.

Remember when writing your complaint to be polite. Explain why you find the doctor’s or health plan’s behavior unacceptable. Include the powerful points we’ve discussed:

• Your doctor is professionally unqualified to give expert advice on firearms

• Your right to own firearms is a civil right that is none of your doctor’s business

• A doctor misusing his or her authority and trust to push a political agenda of gun control is an ethical boundary violation. Such unprofessional conduct is not acceptable.

Your right to own a firearm is enshrined in the Constitution. Don’t let any doctor or health plan intimidate you into giving up your civil rights.

source

Download the DRGO Resource Document “What to Do When Your Doctor Asks About Your Guns” here 
 

Were Guns “Much More” Strictly Regulated in the 1920s and 1930s?

Posted: July 14, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

[Recently], Time magazine published a piece that pushes the narrative that today’s firearms laws are permissive in comparison to those of the early 20th century. Titled, “Guns Were Much More Strictly Regulated in the 1920s and 1930s than They Are Today,” the piece contends that “Those who look to America’s past to extol a time when nothing stood between an American and a gun need to look again.” The obvious goal of the work is to convince the uninformed that any notions they might have about America’s long-standing culture of gun ownership should pose no barrier to future restrictions, particularly on the ownership of semi-automatic firearms.

The piece was written by long-time anti-gun author and SUNY Cortland Political Science Professor Robert J. Spitzer. Since the 1990s, Spitzer has been writing columns and books advocating for gun control; often focusing on semi-automatic firearms. In these pieces Spitzer pushed – now mostly recognized as silly – misconceptions about popular semi-autos, such as “The lighter weight, compact design, and pistol grips give the ability to ‘spray fire’ – often from the hip,” and, “Their concealability adds to their criminal appeal.”

Further, Spitzer advocated for the – now thoroughly rejected – notion that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to bear arms. In his 1995 book, The Politics of Gun Control, Spitzer claimed, “The desire to treat the Second Amendment as a constitutional touchstone by gun control opponents is understandable… Such claims are, however, without historical, constitutional, or legal foundation.”

However, the thesis laid out in the column’s title only works if one completely ignores the federal government’s entrance into the field of firearms control, and subsequent restrictions on firearms enacted in several states. In the 1920s and 1930s, Americans purchasing firearms could simply order rifles or shotguns by mail right to their front door. The Gun Control Act of 1968 brought about much of the modern federal gun control regime, including federal prohibitions certain categories of persons from purchasing or possessing firearms, importation restrictions, and the licensing and regulation of firearms dealers. The Brady Bill was passed in 1993, which requires background checks on those purchasing a firearm from a dealer. In the 1990s and 2000s, several states restricted access to semi-automatic firearms, and some states have continually expanded their categories of prohibited persons. A quick glance at two of BATFE’s publications, the “Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide,” and “State Laws and Published Ordinances,” makes it abundantly clear that 2015 America isn’t some sort of unfettered gun rights utopia in comparison to the early 20th century.

Perhaps most bizarre about Spitzer and his work is that even after decades of advocating for gun restrictions, the professor still appears to know little of the firearms he seeks to ban, botching terminology at every turn. In his latest piece, Spitzer notes that modern hunters are likely to use something he describes as a “semi-automatic long barrel gun.” Later, he claims that in the early 20th century states had little patience for “semi-automatic firing married to the ability to fire multiple rounds without reloading.” Anyone with a cursory knowledge of firearms would know that the latter characteristic is a prerequisite of the former. Further on, Spitzer uses the term “large capacity bullet magazines.”

Over the years Spitzer has been wrong on the history of gun control, wrong on the Second Amendment, and displayed a severe lack of basic firearms knowledge. Unfortunately, when it comes to an anti-gun periodical like Time, the ability to further the publication’s political agenda, rather than accuracy, appears to be the chief requirement for publication.

© 2015 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

Make No Mistake: “The Trace” is No Impartial News Organization

Posted: July 14, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

Editor’s Note: TheTrace.org recently contacted Buckeye Firearms Association about the closing of the media access loophole. The resulting article, entitled “Another State Just Made It Impossible for Reporters to Access Concealed Carry Records,” is posted here.

Readers Beware.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently revealed a new tactic in his ongoing campaign to impose his anti-gun agenda on Americans with the launch of “The Trace .” The new website describes itself as a “media organization dedicated to expanding coverage of guns in the United States.” Bloomberg, of course, already owns and controls one of the largest media empires in the world in Bloomberg LP , but apparently it is not adequately biased to serve his anti-gun agenda.

According to editorial director James Burnett, “The Trace” is not an “anti-gun” organization, but hopes to “appeal to people across the spectrum on the issue.” But the content makes it clear that the organization is just another Bloomberg-funded gun control project. The site even states, “We bring an admitted bias to our beat.”

Huffington Post further illustrated this intentional bias while celebrating the launch of the new “news” organization. “We believe that the rate of gun violence is too high and we believe that there is not enough information about the issue as a whole,” editorial director James Burnett said in his interview. “As journalists, we have it as our mission to address that shortage of information.”

Like other Bloomberg backed organizations (Everytown for Gun Safety, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America), “The Trace” has already earned a lack of credibility among gun owners. Within the first few days of operation, the organization has readers outraged over one-sided reporting on issues and reckless disregard for facts.

It is clear that Bloomberg’s true goal is not to increase education and awareness on firearms and firearm safety, but to even more thoroughly color the information that reaches Americans about their Second Amendment rights. Orwellian propagandists have nothing on the sprawling Bloomberg newspeak machine.

Readers who may stumble across an article in “The Trace” — and any legitimate reporters seeking to inform themselves and the public on Second Amendment issues — should ignore the advocacy “journalists” at the “The Trace” and treat them like the Bloomberg, anti-gun staffers they are.

Click here to read the entire op-ed at NSSFBlog.com.

Gay Marriage Organizers Set their Sights on Guns

Posted: July 12, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , ,
0

h/t MaddMedic

Fresh off their recent victory in having same-sex marriage legalized, many of the movement’s organizers are now turning to gun control as the next hot social issue, or so reports the New Yorker.

Marriage-equality activists in every state were armed with a talking-points tip sheet from WhyMarriageMatters.org whose logo reads “Love. Commitment. Family.” The one-page memo talks about the protection of religious freedom, the golden rule, family stability, and mutual respect. In the fight for marriage equality, the left borrowed the language of the right, in other words, and used it consistently and explicitly to bring the opposition along. Now similar tacks are being taken on guns…

When Zach Silk thinks about how to articulate the values of the renovated gun movement, he uses the same words that the gun advocates use: “Community. Safety. Responsibility. Protecting my family.” In this redefining, he hopes to make a point. “Protection” isn’t an individual matter (a canard in any case, because having a gun in the house makes you exponentially less safe) in which individual patriarchs safeguard individual offspring. “Protection” is a communitarian thing, in which the safety of one’s own children depends on the safe habits of one’s neighbors.

Gun people underestimate these guys at their own peril. I shudder to think that in the face of savvy, patient, successful operatives like Zach Silk, we’re offering the tone-deaf and thoroughly unlikeable Wayne LaPierre, along with mass mailings filled with fear-mongering fever swamp boilerplate about black helicopters and the NWO.

We need an NRA 2.0 to go with Gun Culture 2.0, and we need it now.

From Here

Cuomo Administration, Senate Republicans Agree To Changes In Gun Control Law

Posted: July 11, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

h/t The Grey Enigma

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) — Senate Republicans and Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration have agreed to change part of the state’s gun control laws.

Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi said Saturday that an agreement had been reached to suspend development of a database for checking the backgrounds of ammunition buyers.

The database was included as part of the so-called “SAFE Act,” which was enacted following the 2012 Newtown school massacre.

According to the agreement signed by Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan and top Cuomo aide Jim Malatras, the database is being put on hold because the state police determined the necessary technology doesn’t exist yet.

It won’t be revived until the technology and state funding are available.

In the past, Cuomo has resisted calls to change what he considers a signature achievement.

On Friday, Azzopardi said Republican Sen. James Seward, a critic of the SAFE Act legislation, “mistakenly” said a moratorium on Internet sales of ammunition would be lifted as well. Azzopardi said that was not part of the deal agreed upon.

Spokesmen for the GOP majority and Seward didn’t initially respond to requests for comment.

Democratic State Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie called the agreement “an ill-advised end run” around the legislation

source

David Codrea: Case SCOTUS Didn’t Hear Points to Larger Concern for Gun Owners

Posted: July 4, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
1

Via David Codrea

The fallout from two recent Supreme Court rulings is receiving needed attention, as it’s up to activist gun owners to keep apprised of looming threats and opportunities, and to minimize damage/maximize gains of case outcomes. For one decision, Gun Owners of America has been at the forefront of warning against the anti-gun dangers hidden in Obamacare. On the flip side, some are looking at the same sex marriage ruling to prompt states to recognize concealed carry permits. But as important as those concerns are, they may ultimately become moot points if a case SCOTUS declined to hear is an indicator of things to come . . .

“The Supreme Court … refused to accept a case which sought to allow states to supplement a federal voter registration form so as to require proof of citizenship to vote,” Legal Insurrection reported Monday. “This is not just a battle of forms. It’s a battle for preventing theft of elections.”

“A new study … indicated that 6.4 percent of all non-citizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election, and 2.2 percent in the 2010 midterm,” National Review reported in November. “Given that 80 percent of non-citizens lean Democratic … Al Franken’s 312-vote win in the 2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate race [is] one likely tipped by non-citizen voting.”

While Obamacare is cited as a law that was passed by adding Franken’s 60th vote to the total, his hostility to gun rights and his affirmation of anti-gun nominees to administration and federal court positions were also enabled by his questionable win. A co-sponsor of the “Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act,” which called for up to a 10-year prison sentence for violations, Franken is rated “F” by both the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America.

Still, the High Court’s deliberate indifference may have been based on recognizing that ascertaining proof of citizenship may itself soon be a moot point if establishment Democrats and Republicans have their way. That’s because the Obama administration is paving a “pathway to citizenship” for foreign nationals illegally residing in the U.S. Likely Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has pledged that as a priority. And GOP leadership and current flip-flopping frontrunner Jeb Bush are servicing their Chamber of Commerce patrons to ensure a continued source of “cheap” (meaning paid for by everyone else) labor.

Add to that an overlooked but undeniable danger identified by activist and journalist Rick Oltman in an exclusive report the media and political establishments have ignored, but that merits widespread attention: Expect a “massive naturalization of legal permanent residents [LPRs] before the 2016 election,” a move that will overwhelmingly favor Democrats.

That’s especially dangerous, because the Democrat Party includes “gun control” as a central part of its national platform:

Read the rest @ http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/07/david-codrea/case-scotus-didnt-hear-points-to-larger-concern-for-gun-owners/

Gun-banners are after more than the 2nd Amendment

Posted: June 27, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

Via JPFO

By Donald L. Cline. June 24th, 2015

I am a Constitutional scholar and a pro-right to keep and bear arms activist. I am writing today to bring to the attention of the —-NRA members and leadership a fundamental issue everyone seems to be ignoring: The right to keep and bear arms is not the only right being assaulted today by the anti-rights gun-banners, and we are helping them accomplish their objective! It is time to stop helping our enemies.

When the Brady Act of 1993 was proposed, with its attended Form 4473 interrogation and NICS check, the NRA leadership thought it was a good idea. Apparently the NRA leadership did not realize it was a stalking horse. The object was not to reduce violent crime or criminal access to firearms, and its backers knew it. And in fact it has not reduce violent crime or criminal access to firearms. Not one bit. The object was to sucker gun owners into supporting destruction of their Fourth Amendment-guaranteed right to be secure from unwarranted interrogation and search in the absence of probable cause of criminal conduct.

The object was also to confiscate from citizens their right to keep and bear arms without due process, and replace it with a government-issued privilege which could be permitted or denied by a faceless bureaucrat in some FBI basement boileroom.

The object was also to further erode – let’s face it, destroy, once and for all – our 10th Amendment-guaranteed right to a federal government exercising only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and a State government exercising only those powers not prohibited to it by the Constitution.

  •   Interrogation and search and seizure of rights without probable cause: The purchase or transfer of a firearm is not probable cause of criminal conduct.
  •   The taking our RIGHT to keep and bear arms without due process: A compelled interrogation and search under color of bogus law is not due process.
  •   The federal government doesn’t even have the authority to license gun dealers or commission ATF agents or to monitor, notice, oversee, infringe upon or interfere with our right to keep and bear arms in any way.
  •   Government does not have the lawful power to command the waiver of a right as a precondition to allowing you to exercise a right.
  •   In fact, government does not have the lawful power to allow or deny the exercise of a right in the first place: State government have the Police Power to regulate the USE of arms – when, where, under what safety regulations, under what criteria for self-defense (so long as self-defense is not prohibited) – but under the 2nd Amendment and the prohibition clause of the 10th Amendment, even State governments have no lawful power to ‘regulate’ the right to keep and bear arms.
  •   Article VI of the U.S. Constitution binds the judges to the supreme Law of the Constitution, the laws or Constitution of any State notwithstanding.

People are actually proud of the fact they have met government criteria to allow them to exercise a right government has no authority to allow or deny, when in fact they have waived their right to keep and bear arms AND their right to be secure from interrogation and search in the absence of probable cause AND their right to due process. When government decides to confiscate firearms, gun owners won’t have anything to say about it: They have waived their rights. ALL of their rights under the Rule of Law.

The have rendered the first nation in the history of the planet to establish the rights of citizens superior to the arbitrary whims of kings and princes and neighborhood warlords irrelevant and moot.

Compelled background checks is and was a stalking horse: Now the next step is being undertaken: Constitutional subversive Michael Bloomberg and his wealthy cronies are going around the country buying voter initiatives to expand these bogus background checks into what they call “Universal Background Checks.” The law is now in effect in Washington State, Oregon and Colorado, and is about to be voted on in Nevada and Arizona and Maine. Once this color of law is entrenched, whether it is enforced or not, the next step will be to require background checks for anyone wishing to speak out against government tyranny. Compelled background checks for anyone wishing to exercise their right to march in a protest rally. Compelled background checks for anyone petitioning government for redress of grievances. You must prove your ideas are not a threat to government, don’tcha know?

Background checks MUST be voted down. And the illegal, bogus, unconstitutional color of law known as the Brady Act of 1993 must be struck down with extreme prejudice. Not one crime has ever been prevented by the Brady Act.

Donald L. Cline
frdmftr@frdmftr.net
www.frdmftr.net

Obama, Senators Want to Resurrect Gun Ban

Posted: June 25, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

Via GOA

— Seek to blame all gun owners for actions of a lone Dirt Bag

“The President wants to blame an inanimate object — the gun,” [said] Erich Pratt, spokesman for the Gun Owners of America. “But that just deflects blame away from the real culprit: gun-control policies that leave people defenseless in the face of evil perpetrators who are never effectively prevented from acquiring weapons.” — Newsmax, June 20, 2015

They’re coming for you.

Anti-gun Senators Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey just announced they want to bring back their toxic legislation stripping Americans of their gun rights without due process of law.

And the President is ready to sign this gun ban into law.

You may recall our battle against the Manchin-Toomey language in 2013. Their legislation sought to BAN private sales of firearms, forcing all gun buyers to run to a dealer and submit to a background check before purchasing a firearm from their neighbor.

Thankfully, Senators Toomey and Manchin failed because Gun Owners of America and its members got in their way. According to the New York Times, and other liberal media outlets, GOA was able to put enough heat on the Senate to defeat this pernicious legislation.

The new Toomey-Manchin proposal will be an infringement of Second Amendment rights, and it will do nothing to stop real criminals from getting guns.

Realize that this background check expansion is just a ploy to erect more obstacles to owning guns. The more that people have to seek permission to buy a gun, the easier it becomes for gun control advocates to find reasons to deny them.

We’ve already seen this in the way veterans have been targeted and prevented from owning guns because they suffer from PTSD — symptoms related to their service for our country.

Ironically, the recent South Carolina shooting demonstrates the FAILURE of gun control. The Charleston gunman bought his gun from a dealer and passed a background check.

The result: Nine people died at the church … from gunfire … in a gun-free zone.

Clearly, more gun-free zones and more background checks are NOT the answer.

But making it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed WILL make a difference. That will save lives. And that’s why your Senators should cosponsor S. 498, introduced by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX).

Please note: While The Washington Post is reporting that Senators Manchin and Toomey want to resurrect a new version of their 2013 legislation, they have not introduced it yet. But Senator Manchin says he won’t bring the bill up “until he is sure he has rounded up the necessary votes.”

So that’s where you come in!

ACTION: Use the provided pre-written letter to urge your Senators to OPPOSE the new Manchin-Toomey gun grab.

Warning: Federal Court Rules that 2nd Amendment Right is Now a Reason for Cops to Detain You

Posted: June 18, 2015 by gamegetterII in Police state USSA, second amendment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1

Grand Rapids, Mich. – In a stunning violation of 2nd Amendment rights, the U.S. District Court of Western Michigan ruled police have the legal authority to detain individuals that choose to exercise their constitutional right to open carry a firearm. Open Carry is also specifically allowed under Michigan law.

The ruling means that people in Michigan who choose to exercise this constitutional right are now subject to being stopped by law enforcement for engaging in a completely lawful activity.

Officers detained Johann Deffert in early 2013. He was walking down the sidewalk with a holstered FNP-45 pistol, after receiving a 9-1-1 call from a woman who spotted Deffert with the open carried, but holstered, handgun on his person.

The dispatcher initially informed the caller that Michigan is an open carry state. However, the woman subsequently explained that she found Deffert’s presence alarming, due in part to his wearing of camouflage, although she admitted that he wasn’t threatening anyone. Somehow the dispatcher made the decision that someone engaging in a completely legal activity, as earlier in the call noted by the dispatcher, should now be inspected by police, due to caller saying they found wearing camo disturbing.

The absurdity in logic; that someone wearing camo takes the situation from being a completely legal situation not to be interfered with, and raises it to a level of needing police assistance, shows the extreme arbitrary nature of the entire situation.

The incident was captured on responding officer Moe Williams’ dash cam, and lasted 14 minutes. Williams had indicated he believed that perhaps Deffert was suffering from some type of mental illness, as he seemed to be “talking to nobody” when the officer arrived on scene. Upon further investigation, Deffert was revealed to have been happily singing the song “Hakuna Matata” from the Disney movie “The Lion King” while strolling down the sidewalk.

The video shows the officer command Deffert to lay face down on the ground upon arrival on the scene. Deffert was treated as if he were a criminal that needed to prove he was not doing anything wrong, as the officer detained him while running a mental and criminal background check. Deffert was polite and respectful throughout the encounter, but strongly asserted his rights regarding open carry laws in the state of Michigan.

Remember, all of this transpired despite Deffert’s total compliance with Michigan law, in respect to open carry of a firearm. Eventually, Deffert was released, as he had violated no laws, done nothing wrong, and there was no legitimate reason to hold him. Shortly after the incident, in what seemed like a vindication for Deffert at the time, Grand Rapids Police Sgt. Steve LaBreque recommended to Moe’s commanding officer, that Moe “would benefit from some additional training in handling ‘open carry’ issues.”

Several months later Deffert filed a federal lawsuit alleging his constitutional rights were violated and that he was assaulted and falsely imprisoned. The legality of open carry in the Michigan was never in question, only if law enforcement had the authority to detain an individual simply because they were open carrying a firearm, according to court records.

In the most convoluted of logic, U.S. District Judge Janet Neff claimed that officers do have such authority. Neff wrote that the officers were “justified in following up on the 9-1-1 call and using swift action to determine whether [Deffert’s] behavior gave rise to a need to protect or preserve life … in the neighborhood.”

When a call to 9-1-1 is made in regard to a completely legal activity, the police should not even be dispatched. If in fact the police needed to “determine whether [Deffert’s] behavior gave rise to a need to protect or preserve life … in the neighborhood,” they need not impeded a citizen from going about their legitimate and legal business,” as Neff asserts, but rather could passively watch from a distance to determine if there is any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity afoot, and if so act accordingly.

The most glaring problem with Neff’s logic, is that there is no reason for police to ever assess someones behavior who is simply engaging in constitutionally protected and lawful activity, regardless if another citizens takes issue with the activity. If the activity fails to rise to the level of criminality, then police have no business getting investigating or getting involved. The police, as public servants, aren’t paid to investigate non-crimes.

The idea that someone needs to prove their innocence for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity is contrary to everything America teaches its children to believe about liberty and freedom.

The case will most likely be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The National Rifle Association and others have offered to assist in the appeal.

It will be interesting to see what open carry advocates across the nation, and specifically those in Texas, a hotbed of open carry activism, think about this ruling; and how they would respond if this were to become the standard of law in their state.

Sound off in the comments!

Be sure to share this critical information with all your liberty loving friends!

Read the decision below.

Johann Deffert court documents

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/federal-court-rules-police-detain-individuals-open-carrying-firearms/#JZj6GDaJ673XHiOQ.99

Media-touted FBI “Mass Shooting” Report Debunked

Posted: June 15, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
1

Via NRA-ILA

A misleading 2014 FBI report that fueled media claims that mass shooting incidents in the U.S. are rising sharply has been thoroughly debunked. In a piece appearing in the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences’ March 2015 ACJS Today newsletter, Economist John R. Lott carefully lays out the flaws in the Bureaus’ “A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States between 2000 and 2013” report.

First, Lott takes the media to task for misrepresenting the underlying scope of the report, and for FBI’s failure to adequately explain the content to its readers. Rather than track mass shootings or murders, the report in fact attempts to track “active shooter incidents.” This is significant because it encompasses events where no one was shot or killed.

Despite this, media outlets ran sensational headlines, like the New York Times’, “F.B.I. Confirms a Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000.” Lott contends that FBI exacerbated this misperception, noting, “The report discusses mass public shootings, but it never makes it clear to the readers that these types of fatalities and attacks are actually not increasing over time.”

The media’s distortion of findings to fit their own anti-gun agenda is, unfortunately, to be expected. When done under the auspices of the FBI, such behavior is unacceptable. Whether this report is simply shoddy work, or veiled advocacy, is not altogether clear; however, Lott concludes, “The FBI report appears to be politically driven.”

Next, Lott criticizes the authors for selecting their data to show a notable increase in “active shooter incidents.” Lott shows that the inclusion of non-mass shooting incidents where zero or one person was killed have the effect of skewing the data to show a surge. Further, Lott explains that the researchers failed to include at least 20 shooting incidents, and that the omitted events were disproportionately from the earlier years of the period studied.

Lott also takes issue with the limited time period studied by the researchers. When data on mass shootings from 1977 through 2014 are used, and the incidents studied are limited to those where at least two or more people were murdered, the supposed annual increase in shootings is “no longer statistically significant.”

A pair of researchers who worked on the FBI report issued a defense of their work in the May edition of ACJS Today. The researchers attempted to shift blame for the misunderstanding to the media, noting, “We wonder if some members of the media intentionally misreported findings in an attempt to generate a bigger headline or advance their own agendas.” As to why their report was missing so many relevant incidents, they admit, “We acknowledge in the FBI report that our data are imperfect.”

The media’s distortion of findings to fit their own anti-gun agenda is, unfortunately, to be expected. When done under the auspices of the FBI, such behavior is unacceptable. Whether this report is simply shoddy work, or veiled advocacy, is not altogether clear; however, Lott concludes, “The FBI report appears to be politically driven.”

Older Entries
Newer Entries