Quote of the day—Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Eighteen states have laws that expand Brady background checks. A recent study shows that states with expanded Brady background checks see 46 percent fewer women murdered with guns by intimate partners; 48 percent fewer law enforcement officers killed by handguns; and 48 percent fewer gun-related suicides.

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
July 8, 2015
Charleston Families Join Brady Campaign and Members of Congress to Call for a Vote on Expanding Brady Background Checks
[What they don’t tell you is just as important as what they do tell you.

  • They don’t tell you the details of this “recent study”.
  • They don’t tell you if the total number of women murdered went up or down.
  • They don’t tell you if the total number of law enforcement officers killed went up or down.
  • They don’t tell you if the total number of suicides went up or down.
  • They don’t tell you if the number violent assaults went up or down.
  • They don’t tell you the right to keep and bear arms is independent of the number of crimes committed with guns.

And most importantly they don’t tell you that they have a long history of deception and lies.—Joe]

10 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

  1. The (second) most important thing they don’t tell you? Which study they got the numbers from – if it really exists, that is.

  2. The main point, which Joe already made, is that your rights do not depend on the actions of other people. Or as Tam put it (to paraphrase) Everyone else on the plkanet may have tried to murder some last night, but I didn’t, so leave me alone!

    Their entire premise is false, and therefore their numbers, regardless of their sources or how they manipulated them, are irrelevent. Anything they say based on a false premise can be dismissed out of hand. They themselves can be dismissed out of hand too, unless and untill they repent and make amends for their evil deeds. For now they’re just fools barking at the moon.

    • That is the main point, and true. But…

      We have to have the non-aligned folks on our side to win in the court of public opinion and at the ballot box. That means that we need to not only stand on the philosophical truth, we need to frame that philosophical argument in a way that those folks can understand, and then show that we actually win on the comparative data regardless.

      I usually frame it thus: Since the default position in our system is free exercise of rights, the burden of proof is on those who would restrict that free exercise to show that any given particular restriction is both necessary to a degree sufficient to override that default _and_ that the proposed restriction can logically achieve its precise goal.

      Since no gun control proposal can meet the first standard, a showing that there is a statistically significant problem involving any particular element of the free exercise of gun rights, they lose right there. Further, they have no clear evidence any of their proposed restrictions can work, when thought through logically.

      Standing on soundbites and slogans isn’t wrong, but it isn’t helpful with the great middle who we need either on our side or at least neutral. With them sidelined we defeat the anti’s by sheer weight of numbers and energy.

      • I made some of the same points a few weeks ago.
        Be careful, though. Your “burden of proof” standard is just like the Justice Kennedy “balancing” or “scrutiny” standards, or pseudo-standards. None of that is authorized by the Constitution. The fact that a measure can be shown to achieve what it intends and is the minimally invasive way to achieve that intention is IRRELEVANT if the intention isn’t one the Constitution authorizes the Federal government to pursue.
        So the trouble is that it’s hard to have that kind of discussion without sinking into the swamp of the “living constitution” — the progressive notion that the written constitution should be ignored and we should instead pretend to have a constitution that says whatever we feel like. They don’t phrase it that way, but that’s what they actually mean.
        It’s certainly helpful to show that a proposed restriction won’t do any good (and, in fact, will do harm). But going from there into a discussion of “show me how this restriction could work” is a slippery slope given that the restriction isn’t Constitutional in the first place.

        • Paul, I obviously wasn’t clear. The point of the “burden of proof” concept is to give an analogy that the Right requires no defense. We don’t have to show any positive effect at all, the Right stands on its own merits. Thus I’m not “putting off” the discussion on liberty, rather I’m stating it in a manner those who don’t “get” that gun rights are the same as any others can better understand than some belligerant bumper-sticker slogan. It is possible to be fully correct yet not be off-putting.

          You make that point in a way they can understand. Once you have done that, because the unaligned don’t think that way, you _also_ show that the anti’s lose on the facts anyway. That even if there were a balancing test (which in reality there is, at least for now) the facts show that on that wrong-headed (but not rationally possible to deny exists in our current situation until we educate enough people to change that reality) balancing test we still win. That the anti’s do not have enough evidence to win on the balance.

          Like in a trial, you don’t stand smug on “being right” and hope the jury are all perfect thinkers, you present the your argument multiple ways to ensure everyone who could possibly agree with you finds an argument they can hang their hat on.

          As long as you win a piece at a time you are working toward the ideal, using smart tactics in service of the overall strategic goal.

    • Yes, they’re building on a false premise, but that doesn’t mean they can be dismissed out of hand. They have too much political clout for that. The best way to show the fence-sitters that the anti’s are wrong is to show everywhere that they’re wrong.

      Additionally, there are enough people who are nominally pro-gun, but who do accept the premise that a showing of sufficient harm would justify restrictions or bans, that we can’t simply dismiss those arguments as irrelevant. If we do, we will lose, no matter how right we are.

      Finally, that kind of sloppiness simply offends me personally – especially when I know it somehow works – so I’m going to point it out and ridicule it when I can, just on general principles.

      • If you can’t make the overriding, only point, you’re lost in the weeds. That’s exactly what Republicans do. All it ever does is lend credibility to the false premises, thus strengthening and cementing them into the national culture.

        This has nothing to do with getting fence sitters who don’t even like guns to come over on our side, because it has nothing to do with guns at all.

        Trust the fact that those you call fence sitters are already on your side. When you look past the false premises and pay attention to the main principles, the little lies and statistics manipulations look even worse than you could ever make them out to be otherwise, and you don’t even have to get into them AT ALL. Once you see that all you have to do is point it out.

        The false premises and lies have been so marvelously effective that they’ve got you paying attention to them only, forgetting what the argument was even about.

        I point out the Achilles heel of the left, and you say, “Yeah yeah yeah, but look at the lies! It’s all about the lies!”

        That’s the whole game, right there.

        We have to Lear how to say “I don’t accept the premise”. Come on, let’s all say it together;

        “I REJECT THE PREMISE OF THIS ARGUMENT ALTOGETHER.”

        “I reject the premise of the question.”

        “They’re making a false argument.”

        “They’re giving you a false choice.”

        “That’s not government’s purpose. Liberty doesn’t work like that.”

        As Joe put it, though we can take guns out of it altogether and it’ll mean even more;
        You’re rights are independent of the number of crimes committed by others.

        If we accept the premise that government’s job is to control the statistics, then rights are secondary, or rights do not even come into play.

        If we realize that government’s job is to uphold and protect rights, then statistics are secondary, or they don’t even come into play.

        Establish which of those two frameworks you’re arguing from first. Once that’s done, the lies and statistics are just a side bar issue. And guns really aren’t an issue for a fence sitter, because he has a lot of his own interests which are being influenced according to which of the two frameworks is embraced by the culture.

  3. If you believe that arguing from the position of fundamental principles is an uphill battle, and as such should be put off until later, then you don’t really understand the fundamental principles. In fact, they’re all you ever needed, and putting them aside is precisely how we’ve gotten into all the trouble we’re in today.

Comments are closed.