Mainstream media drew their line in the sand a long time ago. Nevertheless, every time they try and push a false narrative, we need to pounce and debunk the lies. ABC recently took up the mantle with an article that tries to scare gun owners into embracing gun control. It’s thinly veiled and weak, but without scrutiny, the research might look compelling.
Regardless, you can expect clueless liberals to try and throw it in your face. We’re going to fully dismantle the lies, penned by Dr. Tambetta Ojong, to nip this in the bud before it can grow into something ugly.
Oh the Lies
Let’s start by covering the actual claims in this report. The overarching message is that living in a state with higher rates of legal gun ownership correlates with higher rates of fatal police shootings. If you don’t look deeply or think carefully, this might seem logical. More guns will lead to more encounters between police and armed civilians, and that could reasonably escalate to fatal shootings. We’ll debunk this in a minute, but we should see what else is in the article.
The claims came with a few solid numbers. ABC says that owning a gun makes it 3.6 times more likely that you will be killed by the police. They also say that 56 percent of all fatal police shootings involve an armed suspect. Ok. Those are solid statements that we can logically assess.
The Actual Data
The first problem with this ABC article is how it distorts and overextends the actual research. The first red flag is in how the data was collected. According to the study, numbers were adjusted for “violent crime rates, as well as the proportion of the population that was non-white or living in poverty and urbanization.” Wait. That is saying that a raw population sample didn’t show anything being claimed by this ABC report. Instead, they clearly manipulated the information in order to fit a racial narrative.
If you exclude urban populations, non-white residents and areas with high crime, you eliminate roughly two-thirds of America. What this study actually showed is that there is a higher rate of fatal police shootings of white Americans in rural areas with statistically low crime rates in states where gun ownership is higher.
To be more specific, remote Alaska has a higher fatal police shooting rate than rural New York. Again, that’s only when you look at white populations who aren’t near or below poverty lines. Thanks ABC! That might be the most pertinent find in the history of all research!
What’s worse about this article is it thinly tries to extend this extremely narrow band of research to make wild claims. The original paper never claimed that gun owners are more likely to be fatally shot by the police. The 3.6 number applies to all residents in these specific groups. There were no controls for gun ownership.
Deriving Real Meaning
Breaking down misrepresented research is always messy. Liberals are extremely talented at making things murky and difficult to track. This piece is no different. Let’s do our best, and we can start by blowing the main assessment out of the water. ABC is promoting the idea that owning a gun puts you at higher risk of being shot by the police.
The article opens with “but what if having a gun for protection is actually putting you more at risk of harm?” If we take article’s misrepresentation of the research at face value, this notion is still wrong. The research never provides a cause-and-effect link between gun ownership and being shot by the police.
If you go further and actually look at how the numbers are manipulated to make an obviously false statement, the whole thing unravels. It also contradicts information that we all know. Legal gun owners are the most legally responsible group of Americans in the country. They have the lowest number of run-ins with the police, and as a consequence, they are the least likely to be arrested, much less shot.
This is just another attempt by mainstream media to falsify the narrative and vilify guns. If what they claimed were anywhere close to true, it would be a strong hit to 2nd Amendment supporters. If we claim we want guns for defense, but those guns only put us at risk, it would undermine one of our strongest claims.
But, it’s all a lie. Guns don’t put you at higher risk, and even if they did, none of that has anything to do with the God-given right to self-defense. Nice try, ABC. We’ve seen through your tactics, and all you’ve done is further galvanize gun supporters to get out and vote in strength this November.
~ American Gun News
No one will ever take my guns.
Good read. My question is: Since when are we required to ask permission (permit) to carry a firearm for self-defense? We don’t need anyone’s permission to defend ourselves. Criminals do not adhere to gun laws, so why should we risk our safety to appease some politicians, well-guarded in their gated neighborhoods? Constitutional carry is the only way. While I agree with State’s rights, I say that since they joined the Union, they are required to adhere to the Supreme Laws of the land.
John, according to a strict reading of the Constitution, you don’t need permission to own or carry a gun – period. Under the concept of Incorporation”, the States are also bound by the Bill of Rights. This doctrine started with either the SCOTUS Decision Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago (1897) or to the SCOTUS Decision Gitlow v. New York (1925).
Sadly, as one constitutionalist scholar has said, modern constitutional law has little or nothing to do with the Constitution.