Guest Post by Brandon Smith
When a group or organization seeks to establish any social policy, it
helps tremendously if that group remains honest in their endeavor. If
its members are forced to lie, tell half-truths or use manipulative
tactics in order to fool the masses into accepting its initiative, then
the initiative at its very core is not worth consideration. Propaganda
is not simply political rhetoric or editorial fervor; it is the art of
deceiving people into adopting the ideology you want them to espouse. It
is not about convincing people of the truth; it is about convincing
people that fallacy is truth.
Nothing embodies this disturbing reality of cultural dialogue more
than the ill-conceived movement toward gun control in America.
It isn’t that gun control proponents are impossible to talk to in a
rational manner; most gun control activists have an almost fanatical
cult-like inability to listen to reason. It isn’t that they are so
desperate to paint themselves as “intellectually superior” to 2
nd
Amendment advocates; intellectual idiocy is a plague upon many
ideological groups. What really strikes me as astonishing is the vast
and embarrassing lengths to which gun grabbers in particular will go to
in order to deny facts and obfuscate history.
I have seen jaw-dropping acts of journalistic debauchery and blatant
disregard for reality since the gun debate exploded in the wake of Sandy
Hook. I have seen past precedents rewritten in order to falsely
diminish gun rights arguments. I have seen dishonest and volatile
tactics used to misdirect discussion and attack the character, rather
than the position, of those who defend the 2
nd Amendment. I
have seen gun grabbers use unbelievable acts of deception that border on
clinically sociopathic in the face of overwhelming evidence to the
contrary.
A perfect example has been the assertion by gun control proponents
that despotic regimes do not disarm their populations before committing
genocide. This primarily stems from the rationalization that the Third
Reich did not exactly introduce gun control measures, rather it used
measures that were already in existence. Gun grabbers are willing to
cherry pick historical references in defense of Adolf Hitler in order to
get their way. Sadly, they seem to forget that Hitler’s gun control
policies of 1938
disarmed the Jewish people as his “Final
Solution” was being implemented. Apparently, gun grabbers do not count
the Jews as German citizens victimized by disarmament.
http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/lets-stick-to-the-facts-when-discussing-gun-control.html/
The Nazis did deregulate some firearms as gun grabbers argue, but
what they don’t mention is that this deregulation was designed to
benefit only those citizens who proved to be loyal to the Nazi Party.
Hitler was happy to arm those who swore fealty to the Reich.
In one of the latest instances of gun grabber duplicity and
disinformation, I came across an opinion piece by Henry Blodget, the CEO
and editor-in-chief of
Business Insider and a regular on Yahoo’s “Daily Ticker,” entitled
“Finally A Gun Is Used To Stop A Crime Instead Of Killing Innocent People.”
Blodget is primarily an economic analyst, as I am, and is not exactly
an unintelligent louse. He is well aware of the proper methods of
research and how to present a debate point with tangible evidence. He
should know better than to publish a piece with so many inconsistencies
and broken pretenses. However, it presents an important opportunity to
examine the cognitive dissonance of media gun grabbers and their
attempts to influence the populace.
Blodget is asserting that private firearms ownership is not a
practical means of self-defense, that instances of self-defense are rare
and that this view diminishes the “need” for 2
nd Amendment protections. He goes on to proclaim:
“In practice, unfortunately, the guns that good guys own to
protect themselves from bad guys too often end up killing the good guys’
kids or wives or the good guys themselves (either via suicide,
accident, or, in some cases, because they’re grabbed by the bad guys and
used against the good guys). Or, as in the case of Florida teen Trayvon
Martin, the guns kill people who the good guys think are bad guys but
who aren’t actually bad guys…”
Blodget never actually qualifies any of the notions contained in this
statement. He never provides any statistics on wives and children of
good guys being shot. Also, I was not aware that the Trayvon Martin case
had already been decided and that Trayvon was found
not to be the aggressor. Does Blodget have a crystal ball?
Blodget starts off his anti-gun tirade very poorly with several
unqualified statements that he never answers for. This is highly common
among gun grabbers; they feel so righteous (overzealous) in their cause
that they feel no regret in spouting baseless conclusions with the
presumption that their audience will never question their logic.
Blodget then focuses on a single event as an example of the “rarity”
of successful gun defense. This instance involved the death of a teen
who held a gun on a reserve police officer and high school basketball
coach. The coach pulled his own personal weapon and fired in defense.
Blodget uses some strategic omissions in his description of the event.
For instance, he fails to mention that the coach was 70 years old, and
that perhaps owning a gun was indeed his only practical means of
protecting himself and his players against two young thugs, one of whom
obtained a firearm illegally (as most criminals do.
According to the FBI, only 8 percent of guns used in a crime are purchased legally at a gun store).
Blodget also uses the smiling image of one of the attackers at the
top of his article, as if we should feel sorry for him. Perhaps I’m just
coldhearted, but the death of a violent offender at the hands of his
intended victim does not bring a tear to my eye.
The fact that he uses this particular instance of gun defense was, of course, strategic.
A teen died, and both the attacker and the defender were armed with guns.
He means us to see the event as a tragedy caused by the very existence of civilian firearms ownership.
Blodget
somehow overlooks the thousands upon thousands of other self defense
stories out there in which gun ownership saved lives…
What about the story of student Chris Boise, who used an AR-15 to ward off two armed assailants breaking into his apartment.
The criminals ran at the sight of his weapon:
http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Homeowners-Scare-Off-Burglars/7yaLSXAvCUGBkwgAZpGO4g.cspx
What about an Atlanta mother of 9-year-old twins who shot and killed
an assailant with a previous record of battery breaking into her home.
A police officer on scene after the event noted that “she handled her first shooting better than he did…”
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/
How about the 1997 incident at a High School in Pearl, Mississippi,
in which a 16 year old murdered his mother, then went to school with a
rifle and opened fire (sound familiar), shooting several and killing
two.
The student was subdued by
the Vice Principle, who had to run to his care to grab his .45 Colt
(Note that when a staff member of a school is armed, the body count of
these attacks goes way down):
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,136736,00.html
And why not mention the man who entered a Golden Food Market in
Richmond, Virginia opening fire at employees and customers, only to be
shot down by a conceal carrying citizen:
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/14664/statistics-show-concealed-carry-saves-many-lives-takes-few
These are just a few of the numerous instances of gun defense across the U.S. that the mainstream media likes to ignore.
Blodget had all of these examples at his disposal.
He could have written a fair and honest editorial, but he didn’t.
After Blodget presents his carefully picked gun defense story, he then makes these three points:
“First, and most
importantly, the gun used for protection in this case would be perfectly
legal under the proposed new gun-control laws. The proposed laws ban
military-grade assault weapons and massive ammo clips, not handguns. And
assuming the coach did not have a criminal record, he would still be a
legal gun owner.
The bottom line is that no
mainstream politician in the current gun control debate is talking about
banning the kind of gun used in this incident...”
To which proposed gun law is Blodget referring? Many gun grabbers are suggesting that the
New York SAFE Act
model be applied nationwide. The SAFE Act makes any weapon that can
hold magazines of more than seven rounds illegal. Some lawmakers, like
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), have openly suggested a total ban of
all firearms that includes confiscation. So, depending on which laws
are passed, the coach may not have survived the attack unless, like the
criminal, he obtained a weapon illegally.
“…Second, the coach was a
trained police officer. He knew very well how to carry, handle, and use
his handgun. And the fact that he used it effectively under the extreme
shock and pressure of being robbed at gunpoint shows how well trained he
was.”
The coach was a reserve police officer, but this is irrelevant to the
incident. Aspiring police officers qualify in the firearms segment of
their training using a mere 50 to 60 rounds during scenarios that are
taught in even the most rudimentary civilian courses, which often use
hundreds of rounds during qualifications. Police officers do not get
magical training. In fact, many officers are forced to attend
civilian-run training facilities in order to get more time and more
complex experience. Civilian combat weapons enthusiasts are often far
better prepared for a violent situation than the average law enforcement
official.
The reason Blodget fixates on the police status of the victim is
because, like most gun grabbers, he is a statist. In his mind, a
designated state official is given credence by the government and is,
therefore, somehow a superhero with amazing gun-wielding powers that us
poor civilian mortals could never hope to master. This naïve sentiment
is displayed by many a gun grabber who has never actually owned or fired
a gun in his life.
“Third, this incident could
easily have turned out differently–as many similar incidents do. If the
coach had been a bit slower or clumsier in pulling his own gun, the
attackers could have shot and killed all three of the victims before
they had a chance to defend themselves. (In the wild west, when everyone
carried guns, it wasn’t always the bad guys that got shot.)”
Yes, and a comet could fall from the sky and roast the Earth.
Hypothetically, anything could go wrong at any moment, yet, thousands of
Americans defend themselves each year with a firearm without killing
innocent bystanders or being too slow or clumsy on the draw. Why should
gun owners abandon their rights just because some people cannot control
their personal fears?
Finally, how much better are an unarmed victim’s chances of survival?
Is Blodget really trying to insinuate being armed does not increase a
victim’s ability to defend himself unless he happens to be a cop on a
government salary? If faced with a gun- or knife-wielding attacker who
threatened him or his family, would Blodget turn down the use of a
firearm if available? Would he try to shoot the perpetrator, or would he
fall to his knees and beg for mercy?
The only tangible evidence that Blodget uses to buttress his opinion
that self-defense is not a viable argument for gun ownership is a single
FBI statistic on justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide is a gray
area of law, and the number of instances recorded by the FBI in no way
reflects the actual frequency in which guns are used in self-defense.
By exploiting this one statistic, Blodget knowingly disregards the
fact that many gun defense situations do not end in the death of the
attacker. He also disregards the number of criminals who run at the
sight of an armed target, as well as the number of crimes that are
prevented completely because the criminal is not certain whether his
targets are armed.
Most police departments do not keep accurate records of attempted
crimes which were thwarted by armed citizens. The only sources of such
statistics are surveys held by various organizations and institutions.
Blodget quickly dismisses the widely disseminated survey by criminology
professor Gary Kleck, which shows that there are far more instances of
guns used to thwart crime than guns used to perpetrate crime. Blodget
claims that the study is “old and highly flawed because it used a small
number of people as a test group”, all common assertions by gun control
fanatics. The study was held in 1994 (hardly ages ago), and surveyed
5000 households.
A recent Reuter/Ipsos poll used widely by gun grabbers claimed that
74% of Americans support an assault weapons ban, yet their survey only
involved 559 people with far less oversight than Kleck’s study. The
hypocritical nature of the anti-gun mindset is revealed again...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/gun-poll_n_2498840.html
Vehement gun control advocate and criminologist Marvin Wolfgang made this comment on Kleck’s study:
“What
troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I
am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of
methodologically sound research in support of something I have
theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense
against a criminal perpetrator.”
He went on to say that a conflicting National Crime Victimization
Survey (also used widely by gun grabbers) did not contradict the Kleck
study, and that the argument of “too few participants” was unfounded:
“I
do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I
cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all
objections in advance and have done exceedingly well. … The usual
criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck and Gertz,
also apply to their research. The problems of small numbers and
extrapolating from relatively small samples to the universe are common
criticisms of all survey research, including theirs. I did not mention
this specifically in my printed comments because I thought that this was
obvious; within the specific limitations of their research is what I
meant by a lack of criticism methodologically.”
According to survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology
entitled ‘Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment’,
U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at
least 989,883 times per year. This is a conservative estimate compared
to Kleck’s 2.5 million, but it is still a far larger number than the
amount of annual homicides by gun. The argument that gun murders
outweigh gun defense is a defective one. Blodget knows it, which is why
he dances his way around so many viable pieces of evidence. He is not
interested in the facts, only promoting his own twisted worldview.
Violent crimes (assault, burglary, rape, etc.) have skyrocketed in
countries like the U.K. and Australia where stringent gun control has
been enacted, simply because criminals know that because of government
controls the odds of running into an armed victim are slim. Gun grabbers
like Blodget do not care about this, though. They are not actually
interested in saving lives. What they are interested in is imposing
their ideologies on the rest of us.
If the only drive of anti-gun advocates was a sincere concern for
public safety, they would not feel the need to misrepresent the facts
and lie outright in order to convince others.
Those
who use disinformation to their benefit are acting on much darker
emotional impulses and biases, like fear and malevolence.
Their goal is not to find the truth, but to “win”.
Their goal is not to encourage understanding, but to destroy their political enemies.
The most enticing motive for the average yuppie within the gun
control society is not their hatred of guns per say, but their hatred of
gun culture. Being worshipers of the establishment, they do not like
our defiance of socialization, collectivism, and the corrupt state in
general. They do not like our methodologies of decentralization and
independence. They do not like that we have the ability to crush their
skewed arguments with ease. And, they do not like that we have the
physical capability of denying their pursuit of power. Gun control is
not just a war on guns; it is a war on traditionally conservative
Americans, our heritage, our beliefs, and our principles. It is a war
the gun grabbers will lose.
You can contact Brandon Smith at:
brandon@alt-market.com
Alt-Market is an organization designed to help you
find
like-minded activists and preppers in
your local area so that you
can network and construct
communities for mutual aid and
defense. Join Alt-Market.com today
and learn what it means to
step away from the system and
build something better.
To contribute to the growth of the
Safe Haven
Project, and to help us help others
in relocating, or to
support the creation of barter networks
across the country, visit our
donate page here:
http://www.alt-market.com/donate
Gary Gibson, 
