Previous Post
Next Post

Whether or not this become a new series, let me be clear about my definition of “fake gun news.” I consider “fake gun news” to be complete and utter BS presented as fact. An unsustainable assertion or set of assertions driven by an anti-gun agenda.

OK, you could call that propaganda. But the term “fake news” is so much more au courant. Anyway, that’s the standard. Our first example hails from Nancy Farrar Halden (above), chairperson of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah.

For some reason, the powers that be at published her anti-pistols-in-public polemic Gun lobby builds fear to sell more guns. Yes, it’s an editorial not a news report. But I couldn’t resist.

Here’s the [counterfeit] money shot:

Most survivors of active assault situations will tell you that they would not have been safer carrying a firearm.

Ms. Halden’s statement presupposes a study of survivors of “active assault situations” (as opposed to “passive assault situations”) where an interviewer asked victims/witnesses “would you have been safer if you’d had a firearm?” To which at least 51 percent said “I was way better off unarmed.” Or, at a minimum, “no.”

[NB: As several commentators have pointed out below, even if many or even most victims of mass shootings did say they wouldn’t have been better off with a gun, it would prove exactly nothing. Not only do Americans have a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, that right doesn’t depend on the opinion of others.]

To be fair, perhaps Ms. Halden herself spoke with survivors of an AAS; maybe her assertion is based on anecdotal evidence. But I don’t think so. I think she pulled this one out of her *ss.

As well she might. If the obverse were true — if most survivors of mass murders said “I wish I’d had a gun” — her argument against the untrammeled right to keep and bear arms begins to unravel.

News. If you can’t make it, fake it.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • I just like to say I think we can put a correct spin on this by labeling so-called news people that give for false and biased opinions should be labeled not as news but as entertainment they should not be able to have those words news in there name of the segment or Channel. I by no means want to infringe on our first amendment rights but I think these news agencies that are progressive liberal should be listed not as news agencies but as entertainment agencies because of the false stories they tell and the progressive left wing liberal Democratic views constantly bring down our throats by these agencies. If you’re not going to report the news and the facts in an unbiased way and you’re going to put forth your political agenda then you should be labeled as an entertainment industry not news as they used to say just the facts ma’am just the facts.

  1. To be honest, I don’t really care what an unarmed survivor might say. It’s not analogous to my life and there’s little to learn there. Run hide fight, sure. But since I pay attention to where the exits are and keep my head on a swivel, I’m not sure how much I could learn from someone who had no means to defend themselves. Other than to remain armed at all times

    • People that use victims like this are implying that the victims are experts on policies that supposedly failed them. They are just average people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. When did they become experts? I’ve pooped a few times, am I now an expert on complex sewage systems?

      As a habitual pooper, I know a few ways to poop. As assault victims, they know one way to become assaulted.

  2. That’s a nonsensical statement right on it’s surface, ‘active assault situations’. I got punched once in high school, so that makes me a survivor of an ‘active assault situation’ and no I didn’t need a gun. But I bet the guy would have shit his pants if I had pulled a gun and pointed it at him, and I bet he would have thought twice about going around punching people.

  3. If the unarmed survivors were well-trained sheeple, of course they will say that a gun wouldn’t have made them safer. Y’know what — it wouldn’t.

    For a gun to make a person safer, the person would need the knowledge and the balls to use it.

    Most people have neither. Which is why I will not allow them to tell me that I cannot have a gun.

  4. I remember watching an interview of a young French couple who survived the Bataclan attack and they both thought that being armed wouldn’t have helped at the time, although they couldn’t elaborate on why. IMO, this is probably because they’ve had the “civilian disarmament is good” mindset drilled into them their whole lives, and they can’t think outside that box just yet because of the cognitive dissonance it creates.

  5. Meh…you already publicise fake newsers(?). Lots of BS that gets a majority of eyes(and comments) right here on TTAG. So it’s a regular thing…not a criticism but more of an observation RF.

    • We like to claim how much we are better than them. We don’t sink to their level. But, using their vocabulary back on them will irritate them and dilute the power of their newspeak.

  6. She took a poll on twitter and had survivors tweet their stance in, its very accurate according to them.

  7. People believe what they want to believe. Truth and facts are irrelevant. When people do research they look for answers that prove their beliefs. They ignore information that refutes their worldview.

      • On both sides, but especially the deniers.

        Though a great example was Clinton fans during the election campaigns; I watched with disbelief as a number repeatedly denied that she ever told anything but little white lies — they had lots of stories of where she told the truth and denied that things like claiming to have been under fire at that airport ever happened

        • On both sides, but especially the deniers.

          In sheer numbers of studies, yes. But the ratio of research bucks available for the alarmists compared to the skeptics is huge. BTW, calling the skeptics “deniers” is evidence of ignorance or bias. Or both.

  8. This site screams fake news every-time someone or it’s racist, bigoted, sexist, fascist and cowardly creator posts news articles with little to no truth for them.

    I still weep for the innocent Americans who had to suffer at the hands of friday’s attack by a wack-job NRA martyr.

    So please explain to me why this does not happen in Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia on a daily basis. You can’t because none of you (Not even that hateful death-worshiping coward Robert Farrago) has ever given me a straight answer.

    More guns wouldn’t have solved this, All bad-guys started off as good-guys.

    But I won’t be surprised that if Fuhrer trump is elected these incidents will keep happening along with the gun lobby putting a stranglehold on the American populace.

    • What do you mean “if” Trump is elected? Crawl back under your rock and lick your wounds, it’s done.

  9. “What has happened is that the gun industry and gun lobby have successfully appealed to many citizens’ sense of fear — fear that has fueled the largest increase in the sale of guns and ammunition in the gun industry’s history.”

    Which would lead me to believe that an awful lot of people DO feel better off with a gun.

  10. “survivor” is a vague term. The Ft. Lauderdale shooting has many “survivors.” However, only a few were near enough to the shooter to have been a victim. Many were far away and never in any danger. Asking the vast majority of them, “Would having a gun have helped?” would result in a chorus of negative replies.
    Clearly, nobody separated out those that saw the shooter or were placed in danger of being shot. In fact it would be the impossible given witness memory and stress. Hence “survivor” could include the person that arrived by taxi as well as someon that was shot.

  11. Nancy is pro gun. Note her organizations’ mission statement says.

    “The Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah is a non-profit organization working to end the violence and suffering resulting from the misuse of firearms. ”

    One can only assume ending violence and suffering from the correct use of firearms is – ok.

  12. Well, of course the survivors would not have been better off. They survived. How do you survive better(er)? Unless she limited her “reporting” to dead and wounded her commentary is nothing other than disinformation. Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

  13. Great methodology there.
    Ask the ones who survived without a gun if having a gun would have helped them to survive.

  14. …maybe her assertion is based on anecdotal evidence. But I don’t think so. I think she pulled this one out of her *ss.

    I would urge her to put it back.

  15. Just BTW, there’s a difference between fake news and propaganda: propaganda is designed to get us to believe some “alternative truth” in service of an agenda, while fake news includes that but can be aimed at muddying the waters to the extent that we can’t tell what the truth is.

    The Russians at present are masters of that last — they figure if they can get the West to forget what truth is, they’ll weaken us enough they can act freely. Really it’s why they hacked the election — I don’t think they cared so much who won as whether they could confuse Americans about what was true.

    • How can one hack an election?
      The voting machines themselves were never hacked.
      Voter turnout and the electoral college decided the election.
      Any other information that surfaced prior, and was considered, was up to those who voted to accept or reject.

  16. If they were actually within the range of the shooter and had to flee or hide, I suspect that most would say, “Get me some clean pants”.

  17. We should interview people who have STOPPED active shooter situations and ask them if they would have been safer without a gun.

  18. I see this as a loaded question even if it was posed. (It was after Aurora).

    “Would you have been better off with a gun?” is not the same as “Would you having a gun have made the situation worse?”. The latter is a valid concern while the first really isn’t.

    In any situation where you might have needed/wanted a gun the first question has a number of unspoken assumptions embedded in it. The person answering the question doesn’t necessarily tell you, but they are weighing a bunch of things before providing an answer.

    Those things include but are not limited to:

    The actual situation they were in at the time. This itself has numerous factors to it. Exact position of the person in relation to the shooter, movement of a crowd of people, LOS to and from the shooter, range to the shooter, what they would have been carrying, lighting, other environmental factors, the defender’s mental state, the defender’s physical state. A ton of other things. No two situations, even for two people in the same event, will be the same.

    The skill level of the person in question. Jerry Miculek and a housewife who’s never even touched a gun will probably have different answers.

    Other factors I’m too lazy to cover.

    These things add up. If you come home to find your house completely engulfed in flames then having a fire extinguisher in the house (or in your car) doesn’t help you. That doesn’t mean that having such devices in the house/car was a bad idea nor does it mean that there are not other circumstances you statistically could have found yourself in where they would have been extremely useful. It just wasn’t helpful in the particular situation you were in because the situation overwhelmed your skill level/capabilities and the tools available to you at the time.

    The second question OTOH is basically asking if you’re stupid enough to just blindly execute a mag dump in the general direction of the shooter. It’s the equivalent, in terms of my other example, to asking if, given the choice between a bucket of water, a box of baking soda or a fire extinguisher, you would pick the bucket of water when facing a grease fire.

  19. Quick, someone start recording video and tell her that you can carry a gun in to school in Utah!

  20. Everytime I hear the word ‘survivor’ I’m reminded of the Seinfeld episode where Andrea Doria survivors were treated as royalty and got preferential treatment for surviving a maritime disaster in which only a handful of people perished.

  21. Why do all these groups seem to composed of white suburban dingbat soccer moms? Was the garden club just not edgy enough?

  22. Back in the ’80s a lunatic tried to run a friend and me off of the interstate in the middle of the night as we drove from Jefferson Barracks, St. Louis, Missouri back to Ft. Knox.

    At no point during or since that incident have EITHER of us EVER said, “Boy, I wish we hadn’t had that HK93A3 that night. I wish we’d been carjacked and murdered!”

  23. Twenty-four years ago, I had a shot gun pointed at me. Found our later that, yes, it was loaded, but that’s not my point. I didn’t know it was a shotgun, thought it was a stick, until the man got out of his car, and it was pointed right at me. I’m lucky, the son of a bitch got back in his car after terrorizing me for a few minutes.

    At the time, due to ignorance of guns, I was safer. I don’t think having a gun would have helped me, because I wouldn’t have recognized the threat soon enough. However, one reason I became familiar with guns was to know the difference between a damn stick and a shotgun. When someone else’s gun is pointed at you, not the time to get your gun out of the glove compartment.

  24. Did she ask how the people that die in these attacks feel? I bet they would rather have had the option of defending themselves effectively.

  25. I have been robbed at gunpoint and assaulted before,now carry my 9mm always.I don’t leave home without it unless I have to enter a posted human hunting preserve.The one’s that have the govt. approved please shoot us signs.

Comments are closed.