Sunday, September 22, 2013

Anti-Gun Folks Lie

As I mentioned yesterday, today's post will look at a recent anti-gun blog post and I'll show you a very large problem with the content.

The post in question is over at Jezebel. I ran across it a few days ago.

Have a read, then come on back here.

Done?

Great. Let's dive right in.

The problem I'm going to talk about comes right out of the post title and a section further into the post.

First, the title.
America: Where It's Okay to Regulate Women, But Not Guns
By couching the title in this fashion, Ms. Ryan (the author) appears to be implying that in America, guns are not regulated.

She further continues this implication in the following section where she writes:
A normal person with a brain that works would conclude, based on the prevalence of mass shootings by people who should not have access to guns, that maybe some measure should be taken to prevent that from happening. Background checks. Waiting periods. Registries. Assault weapons bans. Something! But the backlash of the gun lobby has been so virulent that in April, less than 6 months after twenty kids were fucking shot to death in Connecticut, the Democratic-controlled Senate failed to pass a law that would require background checks.
Now I'm saying that Ms. Ryan is implying the lack of gun regulation because her words, so far, are doing just that. Her title "tells" us America regulates women but not guns. She then cries out that measures need to be taken to prevent mass shootings and gives a list of such measures because, obviously, no such measures exist. Furthermore, as she "points out" in the last sentence of the above quote, a law that would require background checks was not passed.

Ahem.

Ms. Ryan, you're lying to your readers.

Is it intentional?

Can't tell.

I would've expected Ms. Ryan to do some research into her chosen topic before writing this post. If she had, she would've known guns are regulated in America.

United States Code Title 18 Chapter 44 (18 USC 44) deals with firearms at the federal level. I believe this would qualify as "regulation."

You'll also want to look at 18 USC § 922(t) which deals with background checks for all firearms transfers. In fact, the FBI has a nice overview of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System that went into effect in 1993.

1993.

Twenty years earlier.

That's just federal firearm laws. Each state has its own set of laws, too. For instance, New York, where Ms. Ryan hails from (according to her LinkedIn listing), lists its firearm laws under Articles 265 and 400 of the state's penal code. And that's just for the state proper. New York City has its own set of firearm laws.

Not regulated? No background check?

I call "bullshit."

Shall I continue?

Okay.

The next "measure" Ms. Ryan calls for is a waiting period. As she points out:
if you're not stable enough to mentally withstand the agony of waiting a few days to get your mitts on a gun, then maybe you are not mentally stable enough to own a gun
We'll go to New York for this one, since it's Ms. Ryan's neighborhood.

The state requires anyone who wants to buy a handgun to first get a license. Under Article 400 4-a, the licensing officer
shall act upon any application for a license pursuant to  this  section within  six  months of the date of presentment of such an application to the appropriate authority.
Based on this, it appears someone can wait up to six months just to get permission to purchase a handgun.

Hm. I don't know about you but that sounds like a "waiting period" to me.

Keep going?

Sure.

Next up on Ms. Ryan's list--registries.

Section 103(i) of the Brady Handgun Control Act (Public Law 103-159) prohibits the establishment of a firearm registry. (page 7 of the PDF)

'Nuff said on that.

And last, but not least, assault weapons bans.

Did Ms. Ryan forget the Federal Assault Weapons Ban which ran from 1994 to 2004?

And did said ban work?

This is from the NIJ report An Update Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (PDF), page 97:
the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.
Another from the report First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws:
The Task Force [on Community Preventive Services] found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.
and
Results of studies of firearms and ammunition bans were inconsistent: certain studies indicated decreases in violence associated with bans, and others indicated increases.
And by the way, the Columbine shooting took place in 1999. During the Assault Weapons Ban. And one of the guns they had, the Intratec TEC-9, was a banned weapon

There you have it.

I call Ms. Ryan out for lying to her readers in that post. And I just showed how.

Once again I ask: is this intentional?

Or is Ms. Ryan simply ill-informed?

I leave the answer to Ms. Ryan.

Let me also leave you with the following as food for thought...

Ms. Ryan's home state of New York enacted the SAFE (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act in January of this year. According to Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the SAFE Act
stops criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying a gun
On September 2nd, 2013, a 14-month-old baby was shot and killed in Brooklyn.

Ms. Ryan--shouldn't the SAFE Act have prevented that?


No comments: