Quote of the day—Mark Glaze

The evidence that background checks save lives is overwhelming. In 2010, state and federal background checks blocked more than 150,000 gun sales to prohibited buyers, which suggests as many as 5,000 dangerous people were denied guns in Ohio alone.

Mark Glaze
Director Mayors Against Illegal Guns
August 13, 2013
Gun-control group to Rob Portman: We’ve got some stats, too
[Let’s rewrite this a bit to see this statement from a different viewpoint:

The evidence that background checks save lives is overwhelming. In 2010, state and federal background checks blocked more than 150,000 book sales to prohibited buyers, which suggests as many as 5,000 dangerous people were denied books in Ohio alone.

Just because a bunch of people were denied books (or guns) does not mean there were any lives saved let alone the evidence is “overwhelming”. This scumbag changed the subject from statistics on “saving lives” to statistics on denying sales.

Here is what the CDC said when they did their study:

Overall, evaluations of the effects of acquisition restrictions on violent outcomes have produced inconsistent findings: some studies indicated decreases in violence associated with restrictions, and others indicated increases.

That is NOT “overwhelming evidence” and this scumbag should be taken to task for his lies.—Joe]

13 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Mark Glaze

  1. If even the CDC discounts this notion, that’s a big deal, because the CDC is notorious for its anti-gun stance.

    • No. The fact that is ,i>isn’t overwhelming is expected, as is their hyperbole. What’s overwhelming is the fail to point out that it’s a felony for a prohibited person to even attempt to buy a gun, and yet out of these claimed tens of thousands of blocked sales, they have only a few hundred arrests, fewer prosecutions, and only a handful of convictions. In other words, either they are massively full on utter fail on enforcement, or else the vast majority of “blocked sales” were illegitimate denial of civil rights. So, they are either proud of being incompetent, or they think that preventing folks from exercising their rights is a good thing. Either way, they should all be fired at least, prosecuted at best.

  2. No, it is more than a single word choice. The whole process of counting denials for a NICS check is a flawed metric. We have seen these initial denials usually reversed upon appeal or cleared later. The whole thing about correlation is completely ignored in that argument also. What is most disconcerting is that the prosecutions for cases involving prohibited persons trying to make a purchase and lying on the 4473 is an astonishing low number. If memory serves, it was something like, two (2) cases recently. That is a sad joke. Add in the surveys of felons and other data that indicate that they usually steal or illegally obtain firearms from relatives or maybe straw-buyers to see the NICS is not a big deterrent or that it would impact crime significantly.

    • It may have been a dozen. But it definitely was a one or two digit number. And the relevant politicians answered questions about this with a dismissive comment to the effect that they weren’t interested in chasing people who mess up their paperwork.
      The inescapable conclusion is that the background check isn’t intended to catch bad people — it is intended to inconvenience honest people. That’s just one more example of the general rule that gun control is about controlling honest people, not criminals.
      BTW, as I recall there is court precedent that felons can’t be convicted for lying about being a felon on their 4473, because of the right against self-incrimination. Maybe that’s why only a dozen cases were prosecuted?

      • You misremember the court case. A prohibited person cannot be convicted for failing to register a gun, because of self-incrimination — this is the case that got the NFA tossed out until Congress rewrote the procedures. Since the original NFA had the owner file the registration paperwork AFTER transfer, the law prohibiting possession by certain persons was invalid.

        A prohibited person CAN, however, be convicted for possession without registration under the current NFA, because registration is done BEFORE transfer. Likewise, lying on a Form 4473 is a seperate offence that the felon is not “forced” into by the gun laws because he isn’t being required to sign a statement that he isn’t already breaking the law. He’s being asked to sign a statement to verify that he wouldn’t be breaking the law IN THE FUTURE. (Remember, you do not need to even SEE a gun before you fill out the 4473. If you walk in and say, “Glock 19, here’s $500. Wrap it to go.” {THUMP!}, the FFL can slide you a clip board, ask for ID, and start the paperwork. Kinda sketchy, but if you think about it honestly, that’s how law enforcement agency and DoD small arms purchases for already-approved models are conducted, only with a MUCH larger order amount. If LAPD or the US Army wants another 5,000 Berettas of the same type they’ve already standardized, they don’t have to send some guy down to finger every single gun before cutting the PO. Hell, I’d feel comfortable buying any number of new guns sight unseen, because I’ve seen their identical twins already.)

  3. Of course, all of these arguments, and any similar arguments, are arguments taking place on the enemy’s turf, using the enemy’s premises as the basis. The instant we engage, we’re ceding the premises. We end up arguing over the meanings of words and stats, when in reality none of that matters.

    Rights are not conditional, or situational. Using the case that this or that violation has this or that positive or negative effect,, for the purpose of determining government policy, is to ignore the right as a right.

    I refuse to argue any details of either side of the conversation because I reject its founding premises.

    The damning charge against Mark Glaze is that he refuses to recognize a basic human right. Any lies or distortions he engages in while attempting to deny, or justifying the denial of, the right are secondary and tertiary.

    So the only thing left for us to argue about is the proper punishment for someone who took on the responsibility of protecting human rights and liberty and then joined a conspiracy to violate rights and deny liberty.

    • You are right Lyle, people like ubu52 know that when they are flat out wrong then divert the conversation to some minute detail to derail it.

      The main idea is who the BLEEP is Mark Glaze that he thinks he knows best and can dictate to me my self-defense preparations.

      The Constitution means something and I do not care if they come out with a bazillion phony statistics to try to persuade me…the only thing that truly matters is protecting myself and my family when the police are minutes (or hours) away. Am I safer armed or disarmed when a thug is a threat; that is the most pertinent statistic.

  4. We just keep seeing this phony statistical rubric from the Feds, and we see it everywhere. Some stat is heaved out into the public square, and the claim is added, “and we saved lives/prevented terror attacks/saved the planet.”

    As usual, don’t get excited, just say, “give us names, dates, circumstances, you have to have them or you wouldn’t have built a statistical case, would you?”

    If they have any shame, they shut up. If they don’t they double down and say MORE lives were saved, MORE terror attacks prevented, MORE whales saved. Very Marxian: if the lie didn’t work, the reason it didn’t is that it wasn’t BIG enough.

  5. Glaze makes a double leap to reach the conclusion that lives were saved. First, that being denied a gun sale means they didn’t still end up with a gun. Second, that a death couldnt be carried out with another instrument.

    • But do you really believe that the antis are interested in saving lives? Remember; these are the same people who believe that the Earth is overpopulated by several billion people and want to push abortion as the only true, unlimited human right. They called Stalin “Uncle Joe”, can’t get enough of Che Guevera, never met a Mislim extremist they didn’t want to protect and are naming streets in America after Hugo Chavez.

      And as a general statement to my friends and associates; I think that far, far too often we ascribe to stupidity what is actually calculated, ill intent. That being said, there are of course the Useful Idiots who are essentially mesmerized, and then there are the mover and shakers, who know exactly what they are doing. So you have the Masters and the Zombies, but the movement as a whole is calculated evil.

      • I now agree and will quickly ascribe evil intent to most of their actions. This is due to their total resistance to learn the basics of firearms and despotic governments, or to recognize that evil humans exist.

        It is so profound that it cannot be excused. Such willful ignorance and denial of reality and truth cannot be a simple mistake. However, I can see clearly the Nazis, communists, and other power hungry scum in their methods. They ALWAYS disarm their victims first.

        Never Again!
        Moron Labe!

    • Third, that the lack of the gun resulted in a death prevented, rather than a death NOT prevented.
      It’s a triple leap, and we KNOW that this third leap is false — guns are involved in more defense against violent crime than in the commission of violent crime.

Comments are closed.