Gun Owners of America welcomes you to their Gun Owners of America Web
Supporters list!

***********************************************************
Send a reply to our media liaison at: <[email protected]>;
or call Gun Owners of America at 703-321-8585 if we can help you
further.

To get help: <[email protected]?Subject=help>;
To subscribe:
<[email protected]?Subject=subscribe>;
To quit:
<[email protected]?Subject=unsubscribe>;

How the Media Distorts the Gun Control Debate

by Larry Pratt

Gary Kleck, a liberal Democrat in good standing as well as a member
in good standing of the ACLU and Amnesty International, provides a
very convincing case for how “group think” operates to bias the
media against guns.

Kleck’s explanation in Armed, a new book he has co-authored with Don
Kates, will not be satisfying to conspiracy theorists, but his
insights lead to the conclusion that dealing with a conspiracy would
be easier than what is really at work.

In a word, Kleck finds that most in the media are so convinced that
guns are an unmitigated evil that they simply cannot imagine that
there is any other legitimate point of view. Hence, they do not
bother to check carefully, or at all, into the arguments made by the
pro-gun ownership ranks. Yet, they generally accept without
question anything that comes from the pro-control side.

Since most media folks think there is only one legitimate point of
view, failure to mention studies, findings, judicial opinions and
other sources that are contrary to the One True View are simply
excluded from their stories. Handgun Control’s information,
furthermore, is factual, while that of the NRA or GOA is to be
treated (if at all) with great skepticism.

If the pro-gun side is mentioned at all, it does not “deserve” (and
does not get) anything resembling equal coverage or balanced
treatment.

Kleck also argues that the pro-control editorial policy of most of
the media serves as a mutually reinforcing dynamic further
convincing them that there is only One True View.

Kleck examined a number of cases of media coverage to document his
arguments.

For example, he analyzed the arguments made against “assault
weapons” and found that they were all false. Namely, they are not
more lethal than are other similar rifles, their rate of fire is not
faster than many other similar firearms (or even revolvers, for that
matter), and the size of the ammunition magazine was irrelevant.

Kleck has personal experience with media bias. He recounts the
interview in which his words were extracted to give an impression
that he thought that guns were not useful for self defense, when in
fact, he has done extensive researching showing that guns are useful
for protecting life and property.

Kleck noted with amazement how an article in Time magazine noted the
decrease in gun deaths in the early and mid-1980s while in large
type proclaiming the “epidemic” of gun violence. Truly, there are
those in the media whose minds are made up and who refuse to be
confused by the facts.

Kleck also provided evidence that on occasion the media has simply
run their version of reality because they cannot accept any other.
For example, the Los Angeles Examiner actually used a photograph of
a hollow point 9 mm pistol bullet exploding a melon for that of a
photo of a military-style round of AK-47 ammo causing a melon to
fall apart into two or three pieces. Hey, if “assault weapons” will
blow up Superman, then the melon must have exploded when the AK
round hit it. Or so the newspaper reported.

In order to make it appear that gun control is an inexorable
movement of history, gun freedom victories are downplayed, if
reported at all. Kleck paid special attention to the wave of state
preemption laws that have passed in the last several years. These
laws have actually had the effect of repealing local gun control
bans, restrictions and other regulations. If anything, the movement
of the last 20 years has been toward more freedom, not more control.

One of the particularly blatant forms of not reporting important
facts actually pertained to a debate I had with San Jose Police
Chief Joseph McNamara. Unbeknownst to me at the time, the kyron
identified me as Executive Director if GOA (no surprise there) but
failed to identify Chief McNamara, a strident advocate of banning
guns, as a board member of a tax-deductible branch of Handgun
Control, Inc.

In other words, the debate was presented as between a
self-interested gun lobbyist versus a public servant with experience
as a cop on the streets.

After examining several other case studies, Kleck asks a great
question. Why is it that the only complaints about media coverage
of the gun issue come from the pro gun owner side and never from the
pro control side? To ask the question is to answer it.

The Incidence of Gun Use for Self Defense

by Larry Pratt

Gary Kleck points out in the book he coauthored with Don Kates,
Armed, that it was not until 1993 that a survey was conducted to
find out how many times a year a gun is used in self defense.

Kleck gives the layman a glimpse of the care which is needed in how
to ask questions, and how to evaluate the answers that are given.
There are so many different things to keep in mind, it is easy to
see how a careless or unscrupulous researcher can get almost any
result he wishes.

Kleck reports that various surveys indicate that there were as of
1994, some 235 million guns in private hands in the U.S. About one
percent of them got used for self defense against a human assailant
of a private person during that time. Nearly half of the adult
population live in a home in which there is at least one gun; about
59 million adults personally own a gun.

When Kleck arrived at the figure of 2.5 million defensive gun uses
(DGU) per year, that translates in numbers to some three percent of
the 93 million people with access to a gun having used it for self
defense during the year.

One survey found that about 85% of the crimes against people
occurred outside the home, thus underscoring the importance of
making it easier for people to legally carry concealed firearms.

As it is, from 670,000 to 1,570,000 DGUs were linked with carrying
guns in public places, yet in view of all the approximately 2
billion person-days of carrying guns, only one in a thousand carries
resulted in a DGU.

One important reason for suspecting that Kleck’s data underestimate
(by his own admission) the annual DGUs is the prevalence of laws
illegalisizing self defense. Thus, many respondents to surveys will
not admit to having used a DGU when their act of self defense was a
violation of law.

Kleck was involved with one national survey of crime victimization
that was written up in a scholarly journal. Kleck found that the
authors of the survey had improperly weighted answers regarding DGUs
to deflate the appearance of self defense with a gun during the
year. The authors stuck in their conclusion (designed to make it
look as if Americans don’t benefit much from guns) after their
journal article had been peer reviewed.

When Kleck “objected to this evasion of peer review to the editor,
he refused to respond to my objections.” We might describe this as
Outcome Based Science. In other words, do what has to be done to
produce the desired policy conclusion regardless of what the data
say.

Kleck’s review of the literature revealed that anti-gun scholars
frequently fail to even mention the growing number of surveys which
show large numbers of DGUs each year.

One way of trying to ascertain how many criminals have been wounded
by armed victims is to get emergency room figures. Problem is, many
criminals will not go to a hospital with a bullet wound that they
can treat themselves. This avoids the risk of the mandatory report
of their bullet wound ending up with the police who might then
determine that they were wounded during the commission of a crime.
For this reason, it is not an easy matter to get accurate data.
Anti-gunners have argued that there are few DGUs based on emergency
room bullet wound reports. Anti-gun scholars are happy to accept
any (and only) those data that support their predetermined
conclusions.

And emergency room reports are just one of several reasons for
suspecting that many crimes, especially rape, are underreported.
This also means that DGUs are also underreported. In spite of
anti-gun scholars’ best efforts, if their data do not accord with
their desired outcomes, Kleck has caught them from time to time
simply withholding their own data.

At the end of the day, analysis of the existing data indicate that
DGUs outnumber criminal uses of guns at about a five to one ratio.
For those who want to argue that guns have no social utility, these
data are overwhelming.

But the facts do not budge those who, in Kleck’s words, view a DGU
as valuing aggression. They justify this view by doubting the truly
defensive nature of most DGUs. Science morphs into conclusions
based on deeply-held emotional views held before the data are even
collected and analyzed.

To Kleck’s credit, he began his inquiries about DGUs with a
presumption that guns were more often used for harm, not for good.
His own studies surprised him but he was willing to publish his
results showing that guns save lives.

The impact of Armed can be appreciated in the words of Steven Duke,
a professor of law at Yale University: “If you believe, as I once
did, that we can reduce violent crime by simply restricting gun
ownership, you should read this book. It will change your basic
belief.”

There Is No Middle Ground

by Larry Pratt

A new book makes it clear that understanding the gun control debate
is hardly likely to end the debate.

The book is entitled Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, and it
is written by two well known authorities in the field, criminologist
Gary Kleck and attorney Don Kates.

Those who claim to be for “reasonable, common sense gun control”
deny their intentions of banning guns, but their own statements and
their own logic belie their denials.

Kleck is willing to support certain limited gun control measures but
believes that the absolutist logic and statements of the leading
pro-control advocates has polarized the debate. Those in the
Handgun Control, Inc. camp (now known as the Brady Center to Stop
Gun Violence) have made the middle ground untenable according to
Kleck.

He quotes Rep. William Clay of Saint Louis saying “We need much
stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of
handguns except in a few cases.”

Likewise, Kleck quotes Rep. Bobby Rush of Chicago saying that:
“ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of
handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the
endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that
we can do with legislation.”

Just as blatant is this citation from syndicated columnist Charles
Krauthammer: “In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no
significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security.
Nonetheless, it is a good idea….Its only real justification is not
to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of
weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”

And of course, the Sarah Brady file is full of statements about how
each new gun control conquest is a good first step. In fact, Kates
mentions that HCI went to court to keep the DC gun ban from being
repealed.

HCI donated to the unsuccessful handgun ban referendum in
Massachusetts in 1976, and at one time belonged to the National
Coalition to Ban Handguns. Nowhere on the HCI website does one find
a condemnation of a domestic or foreign gun ban.

For these and many other similar reasons, Kleck lays the blame on
the door of the leading pro-control spokesmen for the refusal of
even moderate pro-gun freedom supporters to accept any controls
whatsoever.

Moreover, the nature of the gun controls put forth is to impact
mostly the non-criminals. This further convinces the
middle-of-the-road gun owner that gun regulations are unlikely to
have much impact on anyone but them. They get the point. Gun
controls are aimed at the law-abiding, not the criminals.

In other words, the best arguments against gun control compromises
have come, ironically, from the “we want it all” statements and
policies of the Sarah Brady fraternity.

This helps explain why, according to Kleck, the non-compliance with
the California semi-auto ban has been around 90 percent.

Kleck provides a substantial collection of quotes from prominent
Americans who favor banning guns, topped off by former President
Bill Clinton. Regarding a ban, Clinton said: “I don’t think the
American people are there right now….But there are certain kinds
of guns that can be banned and a lot of other reasonable regulations
that can be imposed.”

An example of constantly raising the bar for gun owners to jump over
is the HCI law suit against Beretta. HCI said that it was
negligence for gun companies to make guns without a “gun loaded”
indicator. Beretta makes handguns with such devices, but HCI sued
them anyway – the indicator was not good enough for them.

Of the half-dozen states that have registration laws, Kleck finds
that “state registration laws have no measurable effect on rates of
crime or violence….HCI places highest priority on giving the
government a resource that would indisputably facilitate mass
confiscation of guns, but that has no documented value for reducing
crime or violence.”

Kleck submitted his chapter on the absolutist goals of Handgun
Control to HCI, but they refused to comment.

At the end of the day, my reading of Armed makes crystal clear to me
that giving in to the slightest of the demands of the pro-control
leaders (in and out of Congress) is to set foot on the slippery
slope that plummets toward victim disarmament.