Anti-Gun Writer Proves Himself Wrong Accidentally

You may have noticed by now that gun control advocates don’t exactly have the firmest grasp on the reality of gun statistics. Despite their clumsy understanding of the issues, these busybodies still manage to turn out a great deal of anti-second amendment rhetoric.

Of course, most of it revolves around nonsensical appeals to emotion. Because when they dive into the data and actually try to cite real statistics they really tend to shoot themselves on the foot.

The best examples happen when they start from assumptions and try to prove their existing beliefs with insufficiently massaged information. We happened upon a recent offering from Dr. Garen Wintemute. He wrote a column for the New England Journal of Medicine wherein he tables a two-part solution for the problem of mass shootings.

Wintemute’s solution would be composed of a system of emergency protection orders and comprehensive background checks for would-be gun buyers that would, according to him, “allow courts to have firearms removed temporarily from people who pose an imminent hazard to others or themselves but are not members of a prohibited class.”

This would be backed up with allowances for emergency protective orders that could be used to remove any and all guns from persons deemed to pose any kind of threat for any reason real or imagined.

It goes without saying that we’ve seen proposals like these before. Laws like these are deeply unconstitutional and will almost certainly not have the desired effect of reducing gun violence. First and foremost, people who own guns legally are far and away a tiny minority of people who commit crimes using guns.

What’s more, the problem of mass shootings is vastly overstated- especially in the United States which ranks 37th in the international list of countries plagued most with mass shootings.

What’s more, the emergency protective orders by which local judges can trigger a quick and extra-judicial seizure of a person’s guns have been proposed many times and have always been deemed to be unconstitutional.

And like any law aiming to curtail the access of law-abiding citizens to guns, laws like these would have no effect on the actual occurrence of gun-related crimes. We could go on to cite the reams of evidence for this- or we could just quote Wintemute himself when he refutes his own case by stating that there is, “[…] no evidence of an association between the repeal of comprehensive background check policies and firearm homicide and suicide rates in Indiana and Tennessee. […] the findings do not support a conclusion that background-check requirements are fundamentally ineffective.”

In those two sentences, he says, ‘there is no evidence that gun control laws work,’ and then goes on to say ‘that’s no reason not to have more of them.’

There is just no reconciling those two points.

We can understand that members of the left possess a worldview that makes it very difficult for them to see that the ability of law-abiding citizens to own guns has a negative effect on both crime and violence. We all have blinders that come from our worldview and belief systems. But people like Dr. Wintemute, who represent institutions of learning and at least portend to lean on scientific data, are supposed to know when their own biases threaten objectivity.

What Wintermute’s data should tell him is that he is dealing with a counterintuitive phenomenon. This would mean he recognizes that a reality is evidenced in the data that his natural instincts make it difficult for him to perceive. But instead, he charges on against all the evidence to advocate his anti-gun agenda.

He has pushed his opinion that the First Amendment rights of Americans should be curtailed, saying, ‘we found no connection between gun control laws and any reduction in gun violence,’ and therefore- “In order to understand whether comprehensive background check policies reduce firearm deaths in the United States generally, more evidence on the impact of such policies from other states is needed.”

He’s telling us that because he did not achieve the results he was looking for- we should maintain an anti-first Amendment stance as we continue to pursue the evidence he is hoping to find.

In other words, ‘Just take the guns, and we’ll get back to you on this.’

Hey lefties, here’s a tip; next time you want to deliver a skewed study on gun violence- find someone willing to cook the actual data. It isn’t as if you haven’t been doing it for years already.

~ American Gun News

Most Popular

These content links are provided by Both and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More

Most Popular
Sponsored Content

These content links are provided by Both and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More

5 Responses

  1. Well, now the muddy water clears. the government has made every move to remove the second Amendment restrictions. because they can’t do it directly, a crisis is created along with a solution. Congress knows that any direct assault on the 2nt will cause resistance. demands to remove guns from people with sick minds will have public support. it would be a “reasonable” law. on the surface yes. but then we must define a mental problem? is it the guy that buys guns and hoards them away awaiting worlds end? or the guy that gets drunk and runs out waving his gun at the kids that kick their balls on his grass.? perhaps a guy that continues to park in the handicap spaces because he is making a statement. whatever the reason they will come and take your gun. and the rule extends to other family members because they can’t be in a household that has guns. a problem if he is the only breadwinner. Now If I may connect two unrelated stories. the recent story about an unverifiable sexual assault. Many were willing to convict without proof. removing the right of innocence until guilt is proven. will the same be applied to the gun owner? he must be guilty because he owns a gun. we now have another backdoor gun control tactic. now they must hire a lawyer and jump thru all the legal hoops to get his gun back. he may also have his CCW canceled and may require a separate case for it. all taking time and money. then the good part. they must store your gun. but it goes missing or is included in a batch that is to be destroyed. now you must file another suite. only they failed to describe the gun correctly and its replacement will be a much cheaper gun. the good news is there is no good news. the government wants to rule it can but must remove guns. ——-Grampa

  2. The opponents of gun rights come in four fundamental categories:

    Utopian Idealists – Dreamers willing to ignore human nature (anger, hostility, temper, greed, lust, hunger, poverty, want, megalomania, social pathologies, etc.) in the vain hope for a world where no one ever needs to defend themselves or others; Result: misguided efforts to disarm the public since no one should ever be capable of exerting lethal force for any reason. Fairly rare.

    Routine Bigots – Ignorant gun haters who, generally, have never actually seen a real gun much less fired one, and hate what they don’t know; strong corollaries with race haters; Result: Vigorous anti-rights profile if left alone, however they often resolve their blind hatred when education removes the ignorance — frequent anecdotes of such folks “converting” after their first time at a range. Quite common.

    Hoplophobes — Unfortunate souls afflicted with a phobic terror of firearms, deserving of pity, and in need of medical attention; Result: Though they should never be involved in setting policy on self-defense, national security, or Second Amendment rights, they often insinuate themselves into such positions, their need for treatment goes unattended, and they cause grievous social harm. Easily mistaken for plain bigots. Too common.

    Power Mongers – Like some at the U.N or many anti-gun-rights politicians, they know full well that an armed public interferes with their plans, and they insidiously use lies about the gun issue, and “disarmament (of you but not them) as a road to peace” as a power base and source of support; Result: truly evil, tyrants’ who ultimately suppress human rights, contribute to global genocides, live an elite lifestyle, care not for their fellow citizens. Rare but extremely dangerous.

    The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale.
    Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.
    In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories. Even though their motives may vary they all pose a mortal threat to liberty.

    Many of those in favor of oppressive firearms legislation are best classed as elitists. Elitists frequently identify with a peer group based on wealth, power, rank, social status, occupation, education, ethnic group, etc. and perceive themselves and their peers as inherently superior to and more responsible than the “common people”, thus more deserving of certain rights. Since elitists practically consider those outside their class or caste as members of another species, that most anti-elitist list of laws, the Bill of Rights is viewed by them as anathema. Naturally, the Second Amendment is their first target as it serves as the supporting structure for other nine amendments.

    Another type of individual who favors the restriction of private gun ownership is the authoritarian. Authoritarian personalities are characterized by their belief in unquestioning obedience to an authority figure or group and a disdain for individual freedom of action, expression, and judgement. Those with authoritarian personalities function well in symbiosis with elitists occupying positions of power. Because authoritarians repress their desires for autonomy they harbor a deep resentment toward free and independent thinkers. Of course, authoritarians do not want firearms in the hands of the general population as this constitutes a major obstacle to fulfilling their pathological and obsessive desire to control people.

    It goes without saying that career criminals would like to see the public disarmed for obvious reasons. A well-armed population makes crimes such as assault, robbery, and burglary hazardous for the perpetrator and this is bad for “business.” Also, even non-violent or “white collar” criminals live in constant fear of retribution from the public that they financially bleed and would therefore prefer that the public be disarmed. Evidence supporting this hypothesis can be gathered by studying the Second Amendment voting records of those legislators who have been convicted of willful misconduct.

    Cowards are easily or excessively frightened by things and situations that are recognized as dangerous, difficult, or painful. It therefore stands to reason that the mere thought of guns and the circumstances in which they are employed causes them abnormal amounts of stress. Rather than admit their weakness to themselves or others, some fearful types jump on the anti-gun bandwagon and purport moral superiority to those “barbaric” enough to employ lethal force against armed assailants by claiming various humanitarian and pragmatic motives for allowing evil to remain unchecked. Many of these individuals harbor an envy induced resentment toward anyone with the means, skill, and will to successfully stand up to criminal aggression.
    The desire to assert oneself exists in nearly everyone, wimps included, so cowards seek out tame enemies against whom they can ply their pitiful brand of machismo. Instead of the sociopaths who commit acts of wanton aggression with guns, guns themselves and responsible gun owners are the main targets of their attacks. After all, real criminals are dangerous, so cowards prefer doing battle with inanimate objects that do not have a will of their own and decent law-abiding people whose high level of integrity and self-discipline prevent them from physically lashing out against mere verbal assailants, however obnoxious they may be.

    Ideological chameleons follow the simple social strategy of avoiding controversy and confrontation by espousing the beliefs of the people in their immediate vicinity or advocating the philosophy of those who scream the loudest in a debate. Quite a few supposedly pro Second Amendment public officials have shown themselves to be ideological chameleons when they supported restrictions on the private possession of military style semiautomatic rifles following recent atrocities in which such firearms were employed. Like their reptilian namesake, people who merely blend in with the ambient philosophical foliage seem to have little insight into the moral and social ramifications of their actions. Political and/or economic gain along with avoidance of confrontation are their only goals.

    Security monopolists are those members and representatives of public and private security providing concerns who want the means of self-protection out of private hands so that they can command high fees for protecting the citizenry against the rising tide of crime. These profiteers stand to lose a great deal of capital if citizens can efficiently defend themselves. To the security monopolist, each criminal who enters and exits the revolving door of justice is a renewable source of revenue providing jobs for police, social workers, victim counsellors, judges, prison employees, security guards, burglar alarm installers, locksmiths, and others employed by the security monopolies or their satellite organizations. No wonder it is so common for an honest citizen to be more ruthlessly hounded by the authorities when he shoots a criminal in self-defense than a criminal who shoots honest citizens.

    Just as a limb will weaken and atrophy if not used, so will aspects of the mind fail to develop if nothing in one’s environment exists to challenge them. People who have led excessively sheltered lives tend to have a difficult time understanding certain cause and effect relationships and an even harder time appreciating just how cruel the world can be. These dysfunction ally unworldly types are truly perplexed at the very notion of firearms ownership regarding defense. To them, tyranny and crime are things that happen in other places far removed from their “civilized” universe. Also, they do not understand the value of private property and why some people would fight for theirs since they never had to work hard to acquire what they possess. While those suffering from dysfunctional unworldliness are most often people who have been born into considerable wealth, this condition is also common in members of the clergy, academicians, practioners of the arts, and others who have spent much of their lives cloistered in a safe and pampering environment. While many of these people may be quite talented and intelligent in some ways, their extreme naivety makes them easy prey for the tyrants who use them for the financial support and favorable advertisement of their regimes. The anti-gun movement is well represented and financed by the dysfunction ally unworldly.
    The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and it behooves all vigilant lovers of liberty to know and be able to recognize the various types of arms prohibitionists and understand their differing but equally dangerous motives. Acquiring knowledge of one’s foes is the first step toward defeating them. We must never forget that a threat to private firearms ownership is a threat to all freedoms.
    The inalienable and fundamental right to keep and bear arms which is enumerated by (but predates) the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about hunting, gun collecting, or target shooting. Its purpose is to ensure that every responsible American personally possesses the means to defend the Republic from all forms of tyranny, within and without. It is what permits the other nine Amendments in the Bill of Rights to be more than mere hollow phrases on a piece of paper. Its free exercise is the antithesis of serfdom and the only meaningful form of holocaust insurance known to man.
    We must never insult and degrade the spirits of our Founding Fathers by permitting the Second Amendment, the pillar of freedom, to be destroyed by the cold flame of legislative ink.

  3. You used the term: “First Amendment” several times, when I believe you meant “Second Amendment”.

  4. The writers “discovery” is tantamount to announcement that 2 + 2 = 4, honest injun. By the way, who sold you all this idiotic CAPTCHA Pick a Picture. I’m Not a Robot Foolishness?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *