Comment: "Article" untrue

(See in situ)


"Article" untrue

This article -- if we can call it that -- is simply untrue. Sloppy reporting at best; deliberate lying at best.

Lie One: That this is a "memo calling for national gun registration and confiscation."

First of all this document is simply a short assessment of the evidence surrounding several of the gun control ideas that are being talked about throughout the country. It doesn't call for anything. Absurd. ("This document provides a cursory summary of select initiatives to reduce firearm violence and an assessment of the evidence for the initiative.")

It is exactly the sort of short review of the evidence you'd want and expect if you were assessing various gun control measures. If the localities doing gun buybacks had read such a report, they'd know they're wasting their time.

Lie Two: The infowars article declares the administration “believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation.”

The report actually says "...a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides." It continues, "Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence."

The infowars "article" links a ban with confiscation because the report separately assesses Austrailia's ban coupled with a massive buyback. It does state a "gun buyback and no exemptions" could be effective and points to Australia's massive gun buyback, but it continues that Australia's measure "appears to have had no effect on gun homicide." Hardly an endorsement of a ban coupled with confiscation.

Lie Three: "The memo stands in stark contrast to the administration’s public stance on so-called gun control."

Either Mr. Nimmo does not understand what a report providing evidence is or he believes that researching evidence is synonymous with taking a stance. Any rational person, when deliberating, researches the evidence of various options, as this report does. To call acquiring information taking a "public stance" is the work of a hack.

We should note that the writer, Mr. Nimmo, consistently quotes NRA statements rather than the actual report in a sloppy at best, irresponsible at worst, manner. None of the quoted sections refer to anything in the report, only the NRA's statements.

Let's just look at what the summary actually says about each of the gun control measures it assesses.

Gun buybacks
"Buybacks are ineffective unless massive and coupled with a ban."
The summary looks at the Australian buyback and ban and notes that it has had no impact on homicides and that gun related violence was already in decline when the buyback and ban began. The general thrust of this section is that buybacks are a waste unless couple with a ban, which doesn't appear effective anyway.

Large capacity magazines restrictions
"Increases opportunities to detect illegal firearm possessors
There is reason to believe that reducing the availability of large capacity magazines could have an effect on the total number of homicides."

The report goes on to say that unless existing magazines were confiscated, "the impact of the restrictions would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation. This would take decades to realize."

Ammunition logs
"Increases opportunities to detect illegal firearm possessors."

The thrust of this section is about how difficult it would be to implement, but perhaps useful to "identify prohibited purchasers."

"The volume of recoveries is not of a scale likely to impact the illegal firearm trade, but could disrupt some criminal activity."

Universal background checks
"Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process."

It details the difficulties in establishing, coordinating, and maintaining effective universal checks and notes that because the secondary market is the main source of guns used in crimes, it probably won't be effective. "Ludwig and Cook (2000) compared states that introduced Brady checks to those states that already had background checks and found no effect of the new background checks. They hypothesized that the background checks simply shifted to the secondary market those offenders who normally purchased in the primary market."

Assault weapon ban
"Assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime. The existing stock of assault weapons is large, undercutting the effectiveness of bans with exemptions."

"Therefore a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides."

"A National Academy study of firearms and violence concluded that the weaknesses of the ban and the scientific literature suggest that the assault weapon ban did not have an effect on firearm homicides."

Smart guns
"Unlikely to affect gun crime."

The actual report: http://static.infowars.com/2013/02/i/general/nij-gun-policy-...

A far more truthful article on the report: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/23/nra-uses-jus...

I rarely trust reporting from infowars and occasionally work one through to check. Once again, this one fails miserably.