BloodSuckers, HCI, Clinton and the needed Interpretation

[system]

Recently Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, accused Clinton of using violence and death to further his political agenda. Of course this pissed Herr Clinton mightily and Gore and the HCI went on the attack.

First, Gore came out and claimed that this accusation of LaPierre’s, was indicitive of the “sickness at the heart of the NRA.”

Forget of course that the heart of the NRA is 3 million American. Forget of course that there are between 65-80 million gun owners in America.

Second, HCI has released a press release. As I was reading it, it occurred to me that it needed to be interpreted back into reality.

I am taking the stance now that Handgun Control Incorporated has a policy to LIE.

Not make mistakes, but actively LIE to further their agenda. I am not trying to re-run the gun debate here, only establish whether or not any information from HCI can be trusted.

I have already run into two of their most famous creations here on the Straght Dope, Cop-killing bullets and Plastic handguns.

Both of these buzz phrases make gun owners laugh, as there are no such things. However, HCI seems very good at manufacturing propaganda to stir up emotions in people who are not informed about guns.

Here is their latest sheet of LIES, and my interpretation to bring them back to reality. (yes this is long, but I am pissed)

Goebbels would be proud

In his appearance this morning on “This Week,” NRA Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre told some whoppers that, even by the standards of his organization, strain the credulity of any American who has ever followed the gun control debate.

From now on, the beginning of each quote will be the supposed WHOPPER of a lie, and then the HCI version will follow.

“The NRA created the Instantcheck system.” As President Clinton pointed out, the NRA fought the Brady Bill - the proposal to eliminated prohibited purchases by background check and waiting period - for seven long years. Only after President Clinton’s election, and with the support of his Administration, did passage of the Brady Law become a political possibility.** And only then did the NRA offer** an “instant-check” system as a substitute for the locally-administered background check and waiting period proposed by Brady. With the usual political haggling and threats from the gun lobby, the compounding of ingredients by a Congress longing for a compromise gave us the original Brady proposal for five years, which was replaced by the Instant-Check system on November 30, 1998. Thirty-four states now have no waiting period for new handgun purchases, putting public safety at risk from impulse homicides and suicides.

Notice that they themselves prove the case against them. You may not like that the NRA fought other anti-2nd Amendment legislation, but it was the NRA that offered a compromise in the form of an instant back ground check system to move things forward.

Please do not forget that the NRA is made up of citizens, much like HCI is. When the NRA fights legislation, it is not one person being stubborn, it is the will of 3 million Americans who have joined the NRA.

I would like to see the stats on people who purchased a gun and then went on a killing spree immediately afterwards. I would imagine (without even trying) that we would be hearing about this non-stop on the news if this had happened recently.

Those who have followed the gun rights debate here on the SD know that most of us do not see the suicide arguement as being relevant. I do not plan on giving up my right to self-defense because someone else might harm themselves.

The NRA: the brave protector of innocent children. Wayne LaPierre claims that his organization supports holding gun-owners responsible for leaving guns accessible to children. There’s a name for that: it’s called a Child Access Protection law, which in 17 states has lowered the number of accidental deaths of children from firearms by an average of 23%. This is the law currently being proposed in Ohio, where the NRA just this week labeled it “the [Governor] Taft Burglar Protection Bill” and urged its members to “oppose any bill which attempts to dictate how law- abiding citizens should store their firearms.” Last week, in its member blast-fax, the NRA congratulated pro-gun legislators in Georgia for opposing a CAP bill which “would have made you a criminal if a child were to gain unauthorized access to your firearms.” As the NRA webpage noted on Friday, in Georgia, Michigan and South Carolina they opposed bills which would make it easier to prosecute and convict irresponsible gunowners whose guns are used by children to kill or injure others.

And oh, by the way, you’ll have to look long and hard for the NRA’s supposed “support” for the mandatory sale of trigger locks. They have consistently opposed this admittedly modest measure at both the Federal and state level since it was first proposed, more than five years ago.

Notice that there is ZERO references to support their statistics. This is the same organization that claims 13 children a day die form gun accidents. HCI is becoming known for MANUFACTURING their numbers on child related gun deaths.

Gun storage. There seems to be a disconnect between the reason for owning a gun, and how to store it. How are you supposed to use a gun for self-defense when you have it locked up with the bullets in a seperate locked safe in another room?

We either have the right to protect ourselves or we do not.

There is also no mention of NRA safety programs that are designed to educate children about gun safety. When children are educated about guns properly, accidents are less likely to occur than when guns are demonizied.

Trigger locks. How do you enforce trigger lock laws? Will there be government inspections of every home that owns a gun?

Let’s just lock up those gun-toting criminals and throw away the key, or words to that effect. Like in Illinois, where the NRA is again fighting a state law which would make illegal firearms possession a felony instead of a misdemeanor. Or Utah, where the gun lobby fights a legislative attempt to ‘deprive’ violent misdemeanants of their ability to purchase a firearm. Or Florida, where the NRA filed an amicus brief supporting the right of a** gang member standing on a corner NOT to be searched for the illegal weapon he was carrying**. Or in the United States Congress, where every year the NRA searches for funding for the ATF to research and restore the ‘gun rights’ of convicted felons who want their weapons back.
The Charlton Heston who now challenges President Clinton to a debate about “enforcement” is the same Charlton Heston who last week found himself too busy to share a platform with Jim Brady supporting Project Exile in Colorado. Why? Because the entire enforcement issue is a false choice: we can prosecute and convict gun-toting criminals and do everything possible to prevent them from getting guns in the first place. The NRA’s enforcement red herring certainly smells fishy these days.

This one is one of my favorites.

Illinois: The law in question would treat all citizens who carried a gun that was not locked in a SEPERATE trunk as felonies. This means that if you were going to the range in a SUV, and it did not have a seperate, locked trunk to store the weapon in, then you were guilty of a felony crime.

Even if you had it in a locked case with the ammo in a seperate locked case.Of course the way they defended this law was to claim they were only enforcing it against the city p

[SingleDad]

The NRA created the Instantcheck system.

I couldn’t find any informatation on Instacheck on the NRA website, so I’m uncertain as to what their original claim is. However, giving up something grudgingly as a compromise doesn’t really qualify as an acheivement. However, without original information, I have to evaluate HCI point as weak.

Thirty-four states now have no waiting period for new handgun purchases, putting public safety at risk from impulse homicides and suicides.

I searched the HCI website for information regarding waiting periods. I found no statistics regarding impulse homicides and suicides, only a couple of anecdotes. Clearly they have made an unsupported assertion and have generalized from anecdotes.

In Missouri last year, it was suburban voters who defeated the NRA’s proposal to let virtually anyone carry a hidden handgun in the state.

The voting statistics appear plausible, however the link is maintained by the advocates of the Missouri CCW law. Still, I’m persuaded that the statement by HCI is false.

I stopped checking the HCI website after these findings. Clearly HCI is not an organization dedicated to scientific statistical inquiry.

Beware of drawing too many conclusions from this analysis. To deduce that gun-control is ineffective or unreasonable only because one advocate is using faulty logic would be committing the fallacy of Argumentum ad logicam, or the “fallacy fallacy.”

Political arguments, sadly, are not won or lost on good, scientific analysis. They are most often won on lies, exaggerations, half truths and unsupported generalizations.

Being personally committed to honesty, rationality, good science. I am removing the link to HCI from my website. I still remain a gun-control advocate, and I’m saddened that Sarah Brady feels it is necessary and useful to achieve her goals in the manner demonstrated on her web site. I am even more saddened by the realization that gun control will probably be achieved by these means and not by rational discourse.

Since the debate about gun control has moved beyond the bounds of rationality on both sides, I will no longer comment on that debate. Never before has my new sig become so apt and so depressing.

---

Against stupidity the very gods / Themselves contend in vain.

[Freedomx]

You know singledad,

I was picking my self off the floor with surprise at your post, and was wondering if there was possibly some hope in the gun threads, when I found this:

Since the debate about gun control has moved beyond the bounds of rationality on both sides, I will no longer comment on that debate. Never before has my new sig become so apt and so depressing.

I was begining to think we might possibly be moving towards a common ground. I have 3.5 agreements with RTFirefly, although he will probably deny that after he reads this post, and then a couple people were agreeing about the no-knock raids, I thought some light was shining through everyone’s differences.

I even read somewhere that califboomer admitted he was wrong a couple of times. Now I don’t expect the creationists and the evolutionists to suddenly agree on everything, nor do I expect Orion***orion to stop trolling the threads about homosexuality. But I was looking forward to moving the gun debate to new ground.

On another thread several of us were bitching about statistics that were being twisted in the gun debates. We were actually bitching about it on both sides. This press release just struck me as being a good example of that.

I don’t think there is any mileage left in debating whether or not guns kill more kids or save lives every year. I was looking forward to the debate you proposed about whether or not you could even amend the constitution to nullify a part of the Bill of Rights.

So please reconsider. I will try to be nice and rational. (if at all possible )

[SingleDad]

Freedom: Sorry. I’m tired of debating whose statistics are less biased. Since I am not a professional statistician or researcher, I simply cannot afford the time and energy necessary to dig through the bullshit to find the facts.

“Real” political debate is a noxious activity, where truth is the first casualty. I have come to the opinion that facts and rational analysis will not decide public policy in this regard.

I may perhaps decide to rejoin the debate at a later time. For now I am disillusioned and exhausted.

Regarding my challenge regarding the possibility of amending the Bill of Rights, I was hoping that, since you were making the assertion, you would make the initial post. I want you to present the assertion in your own words, to avoid any subtle bias in my interpretation.

---

Against stupidity the very gods / Themselves contend in vain.

[Freedomx]

No problem, I have been building up my arguement This is an angle I haven’t argued before, so I am jumping in with both feet. Give me a couple of days, I will post it before the weekend.

BTW…

I just replied to you in the LIB thread.

[UncleBeer]

Here’s another lie from the HCI folks. Somewhere on their website, I remember reading that they do not want to ban all guns outright, however I have this quote from Pete Shields, founder of HCI.

We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily – given the political realities – going to be very modest. . . . [W]e’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal – total control of handguns in the United States – is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal. - Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns, New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58

[SingleDad]

UncleBeer: No offense, but you’re beating a dead horse. However many sillinesses and stupidities you find in HCI, all you prove is that their information is not accurate.

I examined the HCI website and found enough faulty reasoning to weaken their reputation sufficiently that I could no longer represent them as a source of accurate and scientific information.

Freedom, UncleBeer, and all you other gun control opponents, I offer you a challenge: Examine the web sites opposing gun control, especially the NRA’s. Use all your critical thinking skills. Put your personal opinions on hold. Look for examples of faulty reasoning, most especially:
[ul][li]Generalization from anecdotes[/li][li]Biased samples[/li][li]Unsupported assertions[/li][li]Post hoc ergo propter hoc[/li][li]“Fallacy fallacy”[/li][li]Proof by popularity[/li][li]Bifurcation (excluded middle)[/li][li]Appeal to Nature[/li][li]Straw Man[/ul][/li]
Two excellent sources of information on logical fallacies may be found at The Atheism Web and The Nizkor Project.

I’m not trying to make the case that gun control is right or wrong. I’m trying to make the case that all participants have to some degree left sound argument behind and compromised logic to compete in the messy and irrational arena of popular political debate.

---

Against stupidity the very gods / Themselves contend in vain.

[tracer]

SingleDad wrote:

UncleBeer: No offense, but you’re beating a dead horse. However many sillinesses and stupidities you find in HCI, all you prove is that their information is not accurate.

I disagree.

If HCI’s webpage claims that they are not out to outlaw all handguns, but the founder of HCI claims that their ultimate goal is to outlaw all handguns, then that is more than just an inaccuracy. That is an outright deception.

However, when I took a peek at http://www.handguncontrol.org , I couldn’t find any statements on their website saying that they “didn’t want to ban all guns.” (Then again, I didn’t scour their site thoroughly and may have missed it.) And, technically, if the founder wants to outlaw all handguns except within licensed sporting clubs, he’s not actually out to ban all handguns – just all defensive uses of them.

[Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker]

Well, I would think that if you’re a non-profit “public advocacy” group, you have to make up a lot of your press because the facts you want to present just aren’t there.

You have to keep coming up with something to cause idiot chuckleheads to keep giving you money.

[Glitch]

I am very interested in what RTFirefly has to say about this. RTFirefly said he doesn’t support a total ban of handguns, will he pull his support for HCI?

[Mojo]

I’ve read the OP several times and still can’t find the “debate”. Someone want to enlighten me?

You have to keep coming up with something to cause idiot chuckleheads to keep giving you money.

Although this was said in reference to the HCI, it also applies to the NRA. My previous job in Quality Control put me in charge of monitoring several call centers, some of which made calls for NRA membership renewals. The most successful centers were those that, IMO, used the most rhetoric- “Clinton is trying to repeal the 2nd amendment/scuttle the Bill of Rights” was the typical example.

Personally, I think both the HCI and the NRA are full of it.

[Freedomx]

I’ve read the OP several times and still can’t find the “debate”. Someone want to enlighten me?

No problem. Here is the debate:

I am taking the stance now that Handgun Control Incorporated has a policy to LIE.

Not make mistakes, but actively LIE to further their agenda. I am not trying to re-run the gun debate here, only establish whether or not any information from HCI can be trusted.

The rest was my case based on this press release.

Although this was said in reference to the HCI, it also applies to the NRA.

Then please post it. I am more than willing to rip the NRA up if they are also lying. I see no benefit in creating facts.

However…

I do not see an opinion and rhetoric as proof of this.

“Clinton is trying to repeal the 2nd amendment/scuttle the Bill of Rights”

It sure seems this way to me. I could be wrong, but it is my interpretation of their actions. It certainly seems to me that HCI has no respect for the Bill of Rights. They seem to feel that if safety is an issue, than all bets are off.

I think what is important here is a PATTERN of outright lies about facts. A concerted effort to distort the truth.

Feel free to post anything from the NRA.
http://www.nra.org/

And their commentary section where you would find any examples of lies.

NRA Propaganda

(watch the first couple of minutes)

NRA Speeches

Have a go at them. I will not defend any lies from anyone.
Glitch,

I am also wondering what RTFirefly thinks about this. I put HCI in the title with the specific hope of getting his opinion.

[UncleBeer]

You asked and here it is.

Handgun Control, chaired by Sarah Brady, is the nation’s largest citizens’ gun control lobbying organization. Based in Washington, DC, HCI works to enact stronger federal, state and local gun control laws, but does not seek to ban handguns. Founded in 1974, HCI has more than 400,000 members nationwide and works with local groups around the country to enact and protect reasonable gun control laws. More information about HCI and its affiliated organization, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, can be found on our website at ["]www.handguncontrol.org.

](http://www.handguncontrol.org.
[/quote)

It’s right down there at the bottom of [this page]
(http://www.handguncontrol.org/press/release.asp?Record=125).

[SingleDad]

I want to make clear, just for the record, that the inferior quality of HCI’s arguments does not, in and of itself, argue one way or another for the validity of gun control.

Even if the biggest fool in the world concludes that 2+2=4, and arrives at that conclusion through the most improbable and ridiculous of fallacies, his conclusion is not thereby wrong.

That’s probably the biggest reason why I found the HCI press release so distasteful. IMHO the case for gun control is easy to make from actual facts; slinging more mud at the NRA is not a rational argument. Even if they were 100% correct, that, in and of itself, would not constitute an argument in favor of gun control.

'Nuff said. On to better things.

[Freedomx]

http://www.nrahq.org/administration/publications/pres/graphics/heston1.jpg

“Singledad, This is Moses. I just wanted to point out that if the NRA was 100% right, then there would be no debate, only reality Vs. those who have an irrational emotional agenda.”

[Freedomx]

AAAHHHHH…

Sorry about the UBB code.

You have to admit that it was a great move to get Moses behind the NRA
That should have looked like this:

NRA Explore

“Singledad, This is Moses. I just wanted to point out that if the NRA was 100% right, then there would be no debate, only reality Vs. those who have an irrational emotional agenda.”

[tracer]

gasp Soylent Green is made from people!!

[RTFirefly]

UncleBeer, Freedom, Glitch, et al: I apparently missed the furor over Pete Shields’ remarks. I was probably distracted by the fact that, when his comments reached print, the Democrats were nominating Jimmy Carter to run against Jerry Ford.

Now I’ll let you continue this one without me. I feel like I’ve mostly been debating guns lately, and there are many other things I’d rather talk about right now. But another time, OK?

---

Enough of voting for the lesser of evils - vote Cthulhu 2000!

[Spiritus_Mundi]

I generally support a strong interpretation of the 2nd ammendment, though I do not feel that universal gun registration is a bad idea. A gun is an instrument of deadly force and responsibility must accompany the choice to take that instrument into your hand. That said:

Clinton is trying to repeal the 2nd amendment

There are very specific measures required to repeal an ammendment ot th econstitution. If the NRA has no evidnce that Clinton has initiated ot plans to initiate those procedures then the statement above is a bald lie.

---

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

[Freedomx]

I know the thread is dead. There is no one willing to argue for the accuracy of HCI.

However, I couldn’t believe what I just read, and had to put it in here. At least I will be able to find it if I ever want it later.

**Governor’s aide sends Maryland lawmakers inflated gun-death data **

By Margie Hyslop
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
ANNAPOLIS — Gov. Parris N. Glendening’s office forwarded inaccurate information from Handgun Control Inc. to state legislators, doubling federal statistics on 1997 gun deaths in Maryland.
A Glendening legislative staffer sent inflated figures, apparently taken from Handgun Control’s Web site, to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sheila Hixson. They listed firearms deaths in Maryland by victim’s age and type of shooting.
Handgun Control Inc.'s research director, Douglas Weil, said staffers used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics to create the chart.
But Handgun Control listed a total of 1,408 firearms deaths for Maryland — almost double the 710 Maryland firearm deaths that the CDC reported.
Mr. Weil said the erroneous information was generated inadvertently during turnover in Handgun Control’s research staff. Confusing notes left by a researcher who hadn’t finished compiling the data caused some “double counting,” Mr. Weil said.
Glendening spokesman Mike Morrill said the governor and his staff have been saying that about 700 people die in Maryland every year by firearms — roughly the number reported by the CDC, although they get their figures from the Maryland State Police.
But a Glendening staffer, in a reply to a committee request, supplied the numbers, not knowing they were wrong,** from a source that “has been reliable” and noted their origin — Handgun Control Inc.** — Mr. Morrill said.
He said the staffer did not know the numbers Handgun Control had posted were wrong until a reporter inquired about the letter.
The staffer has now started to inform committee members about the error, Mr. Morrill said. Mr. Weil said the error was made for several states.
“We don’t know if one person pulled that information off our Web site or more,” Mr. Weil said.
Handgun Control pulled the erroneous information off its Web site about an hour after Yale University professor John Lott — a gun-rights advocate — notified them of the discrepancy on March 2, Mr. Weil said.
A check revealed the information had been pulled from Handgun Control’s Web site, but the only message said the page was temporarily unavailable.
No message appeared on the site yesterday afternoon warning that information posted earlier was erroneous.
Although Mr. Weil said the information was posted for no more than two days before it was pulled March 2, the letter Mr. Glendening’s office sent to the committee with the apparent Web site attachments was dated Feb. 21 and stamped received Feb. 23.
Delegate Carmen Amedori, Carroll County Republican, said the public needs to know about Handgun Control’s dissemination of false information since the organization has done little to correct the record.
“They should be ashamed,” said Mrs. Amedori who serves on the House Judiciary Committee, which is scheduled to hear legislation that would legislate “childproof smart guns” this week. “Kids are not piling up like cords of wood.”
** Statistics the National Rifle Association supplied yesterday in response to a reporter’s query matched the CDC’s data for 1997 firearm deaths in Maryland.** Suzin Schneider contributed to this report.

Link

I am so pissed at these guys. There is really no way to defend them. Everytime you want to move on, they put out more false information.