New York Times Shills for Brady Campaign on Suicide and Guns

The New York Times has this editorial promoting a new "report" released by the Brady Campaign that claims states with higher rates of gun ownership also have a higher rate of suicide:

If it takes a sensational statistic to spur national concern about such self-destruction, consider the latest research showing that 82 percent of teenage suicides by firearms involve guns left poorly secured or foolishly unprotected by members of their families. These young lives are impulsively lost in supposedly safe home environments, where just the presence of a gun has been found to increase the risk of suicide three times, according to a new report by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun safety organization.

Violent crime has been falling now for some twenty years and at the same time six in ten Americans believe that a gun in the home makes them safer.  It seems the Times, and Brady, hope that focusing on suicide numbers will change that statistic in their favor.  But, as fellow blogger Sebastian noted yesterday in his coverage of the Brady report, saying that a gun in the home makes suicide three times more likely is like saying having alcohol in the home makes you three times more likely to die from liver disease:

There are some areas where statistical analysis is useful, but this is not one of those cases. This would be like arguing that having a gun in the home makes it three times more likely you’ll rob a bank. Or perhaps having a bottle of liquor in the home makes it three times more likely that you’ll die from cirrhosis of the liver. Could be high-speed internet links make it 3x more likely you’ll download kiddie porn. All these things may statistically be true, but they are meaningless when applied to individuals.

I am not and have never been suicidal. If you’re not a bank robber, you’re not going to suddenly decide to rob a bank just because there’s a gun around. If you’re not an alcoholic, that statistic is meaningless to you, regardless of the presence of alcohol in your home. You get the picture.

I would say if you have a tendency to be suicidal, you have a loved one with a tendency toward suicidal behavior, or is just generally troubled, you’ll want to take precautions if you own guns. Perhaps gun ownership itself isn’t a wise thing for you in some circumstances. I have no disagreement with that notion.

The Times also takes its customary swipe at the "gun lobby" and the "firearms industry" for being "engaged in a reckless campaign to have more Americans own and carry guns" without out noting that the firearms community is doing more to make sure unintended fatalities involving firearms don't occur than any other group.

Suicide is tragic, but the vast majority of gun owners and Americans do not have suicidal tendencies, so having a gun in the home will not change that fact. 

One last note, according to the World Health Organization, both Japan and France have a higher rate of suicide than the U.S. while also having much more restrictive gun laws (in fact just about every country above the U.S. has stricter gun laws).

2011 Rankings by the World Health Organization



Hat tip to Sebastian for noting Japan's higher rate of suicide.

Brady Campaign and the Indiana National Guard

The gun ban lobby isn't happy that Indiana Governor Mike Pence has asked NRA Instructors to teach concealed carry training to the state's guardsmen.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence criticized Pence for recruiting the NRA, suggesting the organization is "first and foremost" a "lobbying organization."

"There is no institution better equipped to train our servicemen and women than the US military itself," Dan Gross, the Brady Campaigns president said. "This is not a job for lobbyists."

Once again, Brady gets it wrong.  Here are the facts via NRABlog.com:

If anyone has done their research or knows a little bit about the NRA, they would know that we were founded on the principles of marksmanship, and have continued till this day to teach firearm competency and safety to civilians through a network of over 120,000 certified instructors. No other organization in the world does more than the NRA to educate people on the safe and responsible use of firearms.

Not only do we instruct civilians, but we also instruct law enforcement. Over 65,000 Law Enforcement instructors have gone through our NRA training programs, and there are currently over 13,000 active instructors - specifically in law enforcement. 

Protecting our rights in the halls of Congress is just one part of what the NRA does for gun owners. But we already know that.  If the mainstream media was interested in doing its job right, they would have pointed that out too.

More Evidence the "40% of Gun Sales Don't Include a Background Check" Claim Is Untrue

The "40% of gun sales don't undergo background checks" claim gets even weaker thanks to this report out of Colorado.  Previously the Washington Post gave President Obama "Three Pinocchios" for making the claim.  Colorado used the number to justify a budget increase to pay for what they said would be an increase in background checks after they passed so-called "universal background checks" in 2013:

Gun-control advocates have long asserted that 40 percent of gun sales nationwide are made by private sellers and thus not subject to background checks. President Barack Obama cited the number last year, unsuccessfully urging Congress to pass a law mandating "universal background checks." 

But that figure, which Colorado legislative analysts and CBI officials say was the best available for the basis of their estimation calculus, comes from a 1997 National Institute of Justice report that gun-right's activists criticize as inaccurate. 

Catherine Mortensen, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, said that using the 40 percent figure as a basis for Colorado's projection "calls into question lawmakers' access to accurate information on not only this, but all firearms-related legislation."

That 1997 NIJ report was based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. The questions concerned purchases dating as far back as 1991 which was before the Brady Act became law.  This means that some, if not many, of the firearm sales included in that study were bought in a pre-Brady environment.  But of course, the gun banners retreat to their time worn "if we only stop one person..."

"The bottom line," he said, "is even if one, or five, or 10, or 10,000 or 20,000 people are being blocked, that's less dangerous people walking around with guns."

Never mind that most criminals are going to buy their firearms legally to start with.

Brady Leader Apparently Hasn't Seen Latest Polls on Gun Control

Yesterday, Sarah Brady and Dan Gross, President of the Brady Campaign, were slobbered all over by MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell.  Brady and Gross were on Mitchell's MSNBC program to talk about 20 years of background checks (it has been 20 years since the passage of the Brady Bill which temporarily created in most of the country a three-day waiting period for firearm purchases until the NICS background check could be put into place).  The three took the opportunity to get their facts wrong.  They repeated the discredited statement that "40 percent of all gun purchases in the US" occur without a background check.  Then Dan Gross said he is encouraged that more people in the country support gun control.  Apparently he missed this Gallup poll that showed, when combined, slightly more people either want gun laws to stay as they are or to be less strict, than those who want more gun control.  That poll is similar to this CNN poll from December that showed 50% oppose new gun control.

Now Gross would likely respond that the 49% figure supporting gun control is higher than it was in 2011, but the numbers continue to slide as the time after the Newtown shooting increases.

But, facts never have meant very much to the gun ban lobby.

Hat tip to AWR Hawkins and Breitbart News.

Gun Ban Advocates Depressed as Federal Efforts Have Stalled

The Hill has the story here.  Just one more story talking about in the lead up to the first year after the Newtown shootings, not much has changed related to federal gun control.

The failed push for stronger federal gun control laws after last December’s shooting rampage in Newtown, Conn., has left its proponents in Congress dejected, and leaves one of President Obama’s top policy goals without any clear path forward.

As in other stories, the gun ban lobby points out they made progress on the state level, though most of that was in states that already all but ban firearms. They keep referring to actions being taken in some 21 states, but for the life of me, I can't recall any major gun control being passed except in New York, New Jersey, California, Colorado, Maryland, Delaware, and Connecticut.  With the exception of Colorado, all of those states were already very unfriendly to the rights of law abiding gun owners.

Gun control advocates say the shooting led to important state reforms, and the White House has touted a series of executive actions to curb violence, but congressional Democrats concede the move toward major federal gun reforms is dead, at least for now.

Other than giving lip service to still supporting gun control measures, the White House has pivoted to mental health, which is where they should have been focused in the first place.

Last month, the administration finalized regulations requiring insurers to treat mental illness and addiction the same as physical illnesses. The measure is intended to ensure better access to treatment for the mentally impaired.

“The fact that less than half of children and adults with diagnosable mental health problems receive the treatment they need is unacceptable,” Biden said Tuesday.

Ultimately, administrative actions were small consolation for proponents of stronger federal laws.