Screen capture by Boch via ABC News.
Previous Post
Next Post

Leave it to losers to exploit junk science to further their illegitimate efforts to ban gun ownership for law-abiding citizens. The latest effort to strip away gun rights from Americans involves closing something the gun-haters are calling the “misdemeanor loophole.”

To back their case, they’re touting “research” that claims, well, you can probably guess: we could all enjoy nothing but whirled peas and perpetual rainbows if we just closed this latest loophole.

Not so long ago, the RAND organization found that just 123 of 27,900 gun control studies followed rigorous scientific method. And of those that followed scientific methods, only a handful affirm the effectiveness of gun control laws.

How bad were these “studies”? Bad enough that using them to support claims that gun control actually prevents criminal misuse of guns is less scientifically accurate than claiming drinking milk causes car accidents.

So, here’s the latest junk study produced by the anti-gun org 97Percent. Someone named Nadine El-Bawab at ABC News reports that the 97Percent-produced “research” shows that banning gun ownership for those convicted of violent misdemeanors, along with ending private gun sales and mandating universal background checks are what we really need to end “gun violence”…

How closing the violent misdemeanor loophole could curb gun violence

Newly released research suggests four gun safety policies supported by gun owners and non-gun owners that could reduce overall gun-related homicides by 28% and gun-related suicides by 6.7%. One of the proposals alone, called closing the misdemeanor loophole, has the potential to reduce overall gun-related homicide rates by as much as 19% according to research.

“It has the potential to reduce”…blah blah blah? Sure it does. And those percentages are as solidly based in fact as Jussie Smollet’s MAGA country claim.

I hate to be he bearer of bad news for the folks at 97Percent, but there’s a new gun control precedent in town and it’s name is Bruen.

Amazingly, the ABC News report still touts the effectiveness of “may issue” carry laws to reduce violent crimes…a scheme which give bureaucrats discretion over he exercise of a constitutional right. May-issue is fundamentally unconstitutional and was the matter at the heart of the Bruen decision.

Ms. El Bawab would probably lose her job if she reported that there was no common historical precedent for banning felons from having firearms ownership in 1791, much less misdemeanors of any sort.

It doesn’t matter how many junk science studies that bought-and-paid-for junk scientists manage to slide in front of mainstream media outlets and over-eager reporters to induce them to spill more digital ink to promote gun control. It simply doesn’t matter.

Because just as Roe v. Wade pretty much killed off regulations limiting access to abortion for fifty years, the Bruen precedent will do much the same with gun control.

But thanks for playing, ABC News.

Previous Post
Next Post

53 COMMENTS

  1. Recent studies indicate that combining both pepperoni and crispy bacon on the same pizza, while at the range, has an immediate and negative impact upon accuracy. It seems many shooters are reluctant to put down their slice long enough to take careful aim.

    Another study indicates that people who watch CNN prefer lab- grown meat and smoothies made with chocolate cricket powder. Yum!

    A third study has proven that the scientific method, no matter how rigorously applied, is unable to prove anything to people who have stopped thinking for themselves.

  2. Let’s see, she was born in Cairo, Egypt and only graduated (from Northwestern) in 2020. So, she has zip life experience and what experience she has is colored by spending her early formative years steeped in a foreign culture.

    Really sick of these people and their elitist, authoritarian ideas.

    • Which honestly is one of the bigger reasons to just close the border to anyone who wants in.
      Even if they get a job it still harms this county.

  3. I don’t think you want to hang your rhetorical hat on comparing Bruen with Roe v. Wade. The estimable Ruth Bader Ginsberg warned that Roe was based on a shaky foundation and couldn’t withstand proper scrutiny. On the other hand, Bruen is firmly planted in the Republic’s legislative and judicial principles and precedent.

    • It doesn’t matter how solid Bruen is. Four out of the nine justices on the Supreme Court dissented from Heller. We were ONE vote away from losing the Second Amendment forever.

      Gun haters are all about ideology. “Legislative and judicial principles and precedent” are mere obstacles to be overcome to these folks.

  4. We in the pro-2A community need to catch up here.

    They KNOW about Bruen. They do not care.

    The new mantra is to attack Bruen as being unreasonable. They will use these attacks to change the balance of the Supreme Court, and once they do, Bruen will be just a footnote in history, just like Roe v. Wade.

    Never forget these evil tyrants play the long game. Attacking Bruen at every opportunity is the only play they have left right now.

  5. “has the potential to reduce overall gun-related homicide rates” – Even if true, that wouldn’t be the same as reducing homicide rates.

  6. Just a quick reminder to the statistically-addicted: All murders are homicides; not all homicides are murder… for instance, suicides, self-defense shootings, and “Death by cop” shootings are homicides but not murders.

  7. Remember, these people by the very definition of the word are insurrectionists. As such they are not trustable or honest in any measure.

  8. quote———Newly released research suggests four gun safety policies supported by gun owners and non-gun owners that could reduce overall gun-related homicides by 28% and gun-related suicides by 6.7%. One of the proposals alone, called closing the misdemeanor loophole, has the potential to reduce overall gun-related homicide rates by as much as 19% according to research.———–quote

    Do the damn math. That means 28% of 40,000 deaths equal 11,200 lives saved but the Far Right Paranoids scream and mimic Adolf Hitler “Losses can never be to high” especially when it inconveniences them to go through a background check or they are required to keep guns locked up at home.

    quote———–How bad were these “studies”? Bad enough that using them to support claims that gun control actually prevents criminal misuse of guns is less scientifically accurate than claiming drinking milk causes car accidents.———quote

    And also quote———-ABC News reports that the 97Percent-produced “research” shows that banning gun ownership for those convicted of violent misdemeanors, along with ending private gun sales and mandating universal background checks are what we really need to end “gun violence”…———-quote

    Reality check. The History of gun control in Europe and in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan proves beyond all doubt that their gun control laws work well because of their far lower rates of homicides and mass murder with assault rifles than our lack of such laws. All have Universal Background Checks and Safe Storage Laws as well as mandatory safe firearms training and knowledge of their gun laws.

    quote————-I hate to be he bearer of bad news for the folks at 97Percent, but there’s a new gun control precedent in town and it’s name is Bruen.———-quote

    The Far Right are not intelligent enough to know that the Court threw them a small bone with the Bruen decision but has upheld the majority of gun and magazine bans including Bidens Ghost gun Ban, and the bump stock ban and the plethora of high capacity magazine bans in many states. New York’s assault rifle ban and the other East Coast & West Coast Assault rifle bans and or severe restrictions all still stand.

    And if Bruen meant anything at all Reagan’s machine gun ban would also be declared null and void. Fat chance in hell the courts will ever overturn that.

    quote———-Ms. El Bawab would probably lose her job if she reported that there was no common historical precedent for banning felons from having firearms ownership in 1791, much less misdemeanors of any sort.———-quote

    Falsehood. MSNBC news did a special on the history of gun control in America from Colonial times to present and there were “many gun control laws” in the cities of Colonial pre-2A America including bans on keeping a loaded gun in the house and carrying a gun concealed within the city limits. There were hundreds more gun laws too numerous to go into. None of these laws were rescinded following the signing of 2A which is another nail in the coffin of the Far Right who claimed 2A was about the individual’s right to own firearms. In fact 2A was an inducement for the states to join the Union which would give them the right to control their own militias to be used to murder slaves if they revolted as was going on in Haiti at the same time.

    In conclusion the paranoids of the ignorant far right are always their own worst enemies as the more horrific crimes with guns there are, the more there are calls for draconian gun bans. Of course the far rights advanced and extreme paranoia prevents them from thinking logically or sanely.

    • “The History of gun control in Europe and in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan…”

      You might want to look into the history of government-sponsored mass-murder and death camp incarceration in these regions and then get back to us about how gun control worked out so great for the millions who died. We’ll wait.

    • 1) lumping suicides into the rest is an act of desperation and spotlights the weakness of your case.

      2) I am not certain about the “misdemeanor loophole” but California has had the other three on the books for over twenty years without an measurable effect.

      3) Centuries of kowtowing to the “nobility” in Japan and Europe created subordinated societies. All countries that disallowed the peasantry to be armed did so for the same reason, an disarmed peasantry is easier to control. Despite this some of the peasantry found workarounds using farm implements and wood axes to mixed results.

      4) MSNBC Oh please. . . . You have been repeatedly enjoined to use reliable sources.

      5) I did my graduate thesis on colonial America and aside from the prohibition on slaves owning arms laws regulating arms were virtually nonexistent. See #4.

      • To CWT

        quote———–4) MSNBC Oh please. . . . You have been repeatedly enjoined to use reliable sources.———quote

        Your Lord God Foxy News has yet to win 1 outstanding news reward while MSNBC had won many. Try again you just made a fool of yourself.

        Quote——5) I did my graduate thesis on colonial America and aside from the prohibition on slaves owning arms laws regulating arms were virtually nonexistent. ———quote

        If you got credit for your graduate thesis you shouldn’t have.

        MSNBC News did a study on Colonial gun laws before and after 2A was written and there were many anti-gun laws especially in the bigger cities.

        As I said before not even 1 anti-gun law was rescinded after 2A was written. As a matter of fact the anti-gun laws increased after 2A was written and have done so up to the present day.

        All this proves that 2A was deliberately written in the vaguest of terms so the courts could indeed have the power to regulate or ban firearms and that is exactly what they have been doing since day one of 2A.

        • @dacian

          “Your Lord God Foxy News has yet to win 1 outstanding news reward while MSNBC had won many. Try again you just made a fool of yourself.”

          How many such awards have you won?

          “MSNBC News did a study on Colonial gun laws before and after 2A was written and there were many anti-gun laws especially in the bigger cities. … As I said before not even 1 anti-gun law was rescinded after 2A was written. As a matter of fact the anti-gun laws increased after 2A was written and have done so up to the present day.”

          False

          First, MSNBC doesn’t do ‘research’. They present research performed by others.

          Second, although there were a few Colonial gun laws specific to the ‘colony’s’ themselves they were derived from British occupation laws. Such laws were automatically invalidated when the U.S. declared independence and our constitution established our rights and manner to makes our laws. The fact that some areas hung onto such laws by ‘re-ratifying’ them under our new country law establishment procedure does not mean they were constitutional. And although its true that ‘gun regulation’ laws continued to increase after the 2A still does not mean they are/were constitutional.

          The fact that government combined ‘supremacy’ with ‘interest balancing’ concepts in the courts was the reason anti-gun regulation laws continued to exist after the 2A, not because it was constitutional. In reality, the constitution its self asserts that government ‘supremacy’ and ‘interest balancing’ in the courts was never suppose to be in relation to rights, and that the constitutional rights be interpreted as free from such infringements as that. Any other interpretation by inference of existence of anti-gun laws or regulation is just plain wrong as you are now.

          Can there be some regulation? Yes, some is permitted under the constitution in a (according to the founding fathers, and in modern day terms) minor role manner structured to preserve and give deference and lee-way to rights of the people and not prohibit or control the exercise of a constitutional right especially by onerous ‘regulation’ or ‘taxes’ or laws or requirements that one seek ‘permission’ from government to exercise a right.

          In fact in many of the founders word’s they address the concept of having to get government ‘permission’ to exercise a right or government exerting control over rights as prohibited, its why the rights in the Bill of Rights are not to be infringed. After all, one of the main roles of the constitution is to limit government power over the people, having to ask for and receive permission from government to exercise a constitutional right or allowing government to have control over the exercise of a constitutional right gives the government control over the right they were not intended to have and its very clear they were not suppose to have such control. We had just won our freedom, do you think the founders wrote the constitution to give government the same power over the people as the tyrannical British who’s butts we kicked out? No, they wrote our constitution to include a limitation on and removal on government power over the people. The reason for the Bill Of Rights was that government had already started exerting their dominance over the people to control their rights, so it became necessary to spell out specifically certain rights the government could not infringe and one of these was the Second Amendment.

          And now you advocate for the government infringing and controlling rights thus tyranny because ‘gun regulation’ existed at some point that in all likely hood was never constitutional to begin with … are you insane?

          Infringement of rights, control of rights exercise by the government, is not permitted under the constitution and government infringement of rights and control of rights exercise is exactly what is going on now and has been going on for many years.

    • Have you considered new material. You have been debunked by many and unable to provide sources beyond hearsay. Your stale.

      • Capitalvania’s library of (deviant sexual) congress is very small, so there’s not a lot of Dacian to work with (if you know what I mean).

    • SA. Every state has a form of permit-less carry. Just it is not “Legal” in some places. Never seems to stop those with criminal intent to not have a permit.

  9. Always the sales pitch of some form or public safety, crime control, or protecting children in trying to sell gun control measures.
    Problem is none of the proposed, or current gun control schemes have the claimed effect.
    Any government that wants to limit or eliminate arms for the citizens is up to no good.

  10. MADDMAXX November 25, 2022 At 22:01
    Your comment is awaiting moderation

    drinking milk causes car accidents.

    It does???

    Hey TTAG, got a minute to comment on what the FUK got these seven words MODERATED?

    • My conspiracies is when your in moderation jail the central scrutinizer is scrutinizing your computer, phone, whatever.
      I dont need a damned red light on my tv to tell me it’s not on either, that’s a fcking infared camera. Wonder if it can transmit through rabbit ears, probably not until you hook up one with a booster, that’s why none of them work unless you hook a booster up.
      Cameras in my car, cameras in my house, cameras in the store, cameras on corners, cameras in the sky, cameras that see heat, and go through walls roofs and dacian’s basement.
      Right To Privacy. Uh huh.
      We have the Right to believe we have Rights and that’s about as far as it goes. Yup I’m putting a piece of tin foil in front of the TVs red light. Thus phones the best spy device they got going however.
      Sure ain’t like it used to be.
      Technology—-YAY

  11. I dont come to this site to see the long winded anti-American screeds of that Chinese troll. What sort of satisfaction must such a personality get from this? It must be some sort of mental illness.

    Study is a verb. When someone uses it as a noun, look out.

    • Years ago 1964? maybe, I told my dad about robots taking over(I’d read some comic book). The next morning my dad said “I dont want you telling me no more of them damned robot stories, I fought that son of a bitch all night, finally filled him full of gas and throwed a match at him. He swelled up at the seams till the rivets gave way. That put the fix on him.”

  12. There is no science in gun-control.

    Those that yell the loudest to ‘follow the science’ have no interest at all in science.

  13. I always like the “study shows you should like your oppression and thank your oppressors” shit from the mainstream tyrants.

  14. “Newly released research suggests four gun safety policies supported by gun owners and non-gun owners that could reduce overall gun-related homicides by 28% and gun-related suicides by 6.7%. One of the proposals alone, called closing the misdemeanor loophole, has the potential to reduce overall gun-related homicide rates by as much as 19% according to research.”

    False

    80%-85% of “gun-related homicides” shown in official stats are a combination of criminal-shooting-criminal (e.g. gang on gang), police shooting criminal, and ordinary law abiding citizen shooting criminal in valid legal justified defense.

    over 50% of “gun-related homicides” shown in official stats are just ordinary law abiding citizen shooting criminal in valid legal justified defense. This also represents a portion of the ~5% of the time when an ordinary law abiding citizen using a fire arm for valid legal justified defense actually pulls the trigger.

    Ordinary citizen law-abiding defenders, overall, rarely actually pull the trigger, overall its ~5% of the time. The rest is a ‘brandishing’ concept in some fashion (e.g. showing, warning) or warning by presentation in no other choice situations against threats as a final effort to avoid pulling the trigger and when it works, usually, the bad guys run off or stop their actions. However, as it can be seen from the fact that over 50% of “gun-related homicides” shown in official stats are just ordinary law abiding citizen shooting criminal in valid legal justified defense … that some criminals simply do not take the hint.

    Just to point out though, notice how there is a common thing among that 80%-85% – that common thing is the criminal. ~15% of the ‘firearm homicides’ shown in official stats for ‘firearm homicides’ are actual firearm murder of non-criminal victims. This is because overall only ~12% of criminals use a firearm in the commission of a violent crime against non-criminal victims.

    Something else to point out also …. you can reduce ‘firearm homicides’ by more than 60% if you simply keep repeat offender criminals in jail instead of letting them out because these commit the majority of crime that leads to them being shot by police and ordinary law abiding citizens, and it can be further reduced by dismantling gangs and putting them in jail.

    Just a tidbit… Collectively, ~70% of violent crime (which includes criminal perpetrated gun-violence) in the United States, takes place in cities and areas under Democrat leadership control.
    “homicide” is a broad term category ‘heading’. It includes a category called ‘justified homicide’ which is also known as self-defense or defense of others conducted IAW law and the fear for life or great bodily harm concept, and also included are justified police shootings. The official stats make no distinction between this and other categories of “homicide” such as murder or manslaughter. These stats are often presented in a manner by anti-gun to say or imply they represent murders and that is simply a lie.

    The underlying study referenced also makes no such distinction while at the same time presenting all their data as if murders using the same stats data and numbers. This makes their underlying data usage false. They do this to false ‘amplify’ their findings to look more significant. And their conclusions are thus false. This is not science, its hocus-pocus stage magic tricks with numbers to create an illusion that does not exist.

    the reducing “gun-related suicides by 6.7%”

    False

    The underlying data in the reference makes no distinction between ‘initial’ on-scene investigation but not official, ‘suspected’ suicide, and actual suicide, and does not include that over 66% of firearms arms suicides in official stats are later determined officially to have been accident or murder-staged-to-look-like-suicide. The problem is mostly that ‘initial’ on-scene investigation may say ‘suicide’ or it may be initially suspected to be suicide – is not challenged by actual medical examination or in depth investigation – thus these go into stats as ‘suicides’ when in reality they may not be. They are never removed from suicide stats after being determined later to have been either accident or murder-staged-to-look-like-suicide. The underlying data in the referenced study assumes and puts forth they are all actually firearm suicide, their data is falsely inflated to begin with – and their conclusions are thus false. This is not science, its more hocus-pocus stage magic tricks with numbers to create an illusion that does not exist.

    “One of the proposals alone, called closing the misdemeanor loophole, has the potential to reduce overall gun-related homicide rates by as much as 19% according to research.”

    False

    There was no such data supporting such ‘potential’ or ‘by as much’. This is guessing presented as ‘research’, this is not science. The very premise is false to begin with. There is no such thing as a ‘misdemeanor loophole’ to begin with, its a created anti-gun ‘research’ concept used in an attempt to ‘amplify’ their own biased research to look ‘comprehensive’ when in reality its an underlying deception trying to justify ‘guessing’ to cover the fact of deceptive manipulation of data. This is not science, its more hocus-pocus stage magic tricks with guessing numbers to create an illusion that does not exist.

    Plus the big hole in their research is the missing ‘causality’. ‘causality’ involves 10 different factors that determine if the conclusions reached are true. Without those factors of ‘causality’ included it is impossible for the conclusions reached to be true.

    All of this 97Percent so called ‘research’ is junk science.

        • According to the RAND Corporation it is over 99.5% although realistically it doesn’t matter since there are plenty of useful idiots like dacian who just want some meaningless statistics to bludgeon other people into going along with their latest cause, or to shut up and let them have their way with us.

    • The suicide thing, police are horrible at their initial investigation assessment that it was a firearms suicide. They are horrible overall for all methods of suicide.

      As an example; An actual case that’s going to be re-opened after years of it being considered suicide in a stabbing death. A woman who lived alone was found dead in her home, stabbed 47 times, the wounds were to her chest, head, back, and legs – the weapon was a common kitchen ‘butcher’ type knife and it was found sticking out of her chest when the body was discovered. Several independent forensic pathologists have come forward to re-open the case after they have seen the data because half of the wounds in the chest centered around the heart area, any single one of those stab wounds would have resulted in death within 10 seconds, and some of the overall wounds were delivered post-mortum (after she was dead). But according to police it was a suicide because the windows and doors were locked on the inside, and the county paid original pathologist changed his initial assessment of murder based upon the police assessment that it was suicide and their assessment was based on the faulty premise that the doors and windows were locked from the inside. It went into the stats as a suicide, the case was closed as a suicide. Never mind that the doors could be locked from the outside by a key, which in the obvious with the circumstances says its really more likely someone murdered this woman then left the home and locked the door from the outside with a key they either already had or took from the victims home. Never mind that the person was dead but still being stabbed. Never mind that multiple wounds would have disabled and killed the woman within 10 seconds of being stabbed, and she would not have been able to continue stabbing her self. But… Nope, the police resisted the case being re-opened and investigated as a murder.

      Its the same type of bumbling about for police when they investigate a possible firearms suicide. They walk in and, for example, see the gun laying there or a contact wound and the first thing they do its say “suicide, case closed’ and that’s usually usually what goes in the stats even if there is a city/state/county paid pathologist that looks at the case because they take the investigation as fact and don’t look further.

      One case in particular that I know about, because it happened to the mother of two small children, one five and the other seven. This woman was a person my wife had worked with and socialized with many times, friends and colleagues. The woman was found in her home dead of gunshot wounds to the back of the head, she was found upstairs zipped up in a sleeping bag. The police narrative is … her children were in the home at the time (and they actually were), she prepared some food for them and sit them at the table to eat (and she actually did). And then according to the kids, there was a loud noise upstairs and mom said she thought something had fallen over and was going to go look. Then the kids heard some yelling upstairs with mom screaming and a man calling their mom dirty words and a lot of noise and then a loud bang twice and got scared when mom didn’t answer their calls but the seven year old called 911 with moms cell phone that was laying on the counter.

      There was no gun ownership known for the woman and no gun known to be in the home, she had told my wife a few times she did not own a gun but was interested in getting one and her and her husband had been to the range with us several times. The bullet wounds were to the back of the head, her blood was also found on the outside zipper of the sleeping bag in a smudged finger print and the upstairs window was open which according to the husband (who was away from the home at the time) was always locked and he had no knowledge of her having a gun but both of them had decided to go shopping for one together. There was a gun found in the sleeping bag, a S&W snub nose .38 revolver, at the scene but it had been reported stolen three years prior. The police assessment: Firearms suicide – because they claim that mom had gotten a stolen gun from somewhere unknown to anyone else, and suffering some sort of depression state (BTW for which there is no record or witness of such), fed her kids and left them alone in the house to fend for themselves, went up stairs, dug a sleeping bag out of a closet, got into the sleeping bag to shoot herself because she didn’t want to leave blood all over the place, and shot herself in the back of the head twice, and the kids were wrong about the mans voice and the dirty names and mom screaming and the yelling and noise upstairs because they were scared and imagined it. Yeah, that case is about to be re-opened too after being looked at by a few independent pathologists. But its still in the stats as a firearms suicide and will always be there because those things in the stats as firearms suicides that are later found to be murder or accident, those numbers are never removed from the firearms suicide stats.

      Firearm suicide stats are greatly over inflated.

      • Firearms suicides statistics are greatly over inflated. Who say’s so.? Another bloody exalmple of a STATEMENT with absolutely NOTHING factual to back it up.
        An ‘In my opinion” would be nice. Opinion do not rely on FACTS but on information received and ‘opinions’ change as further information becomes available.

  15. SO far as I can see your initial commentis all about making A STATEMENTS not giving the facts. And statements ARE NOT facts just because they are elfin statements .It’s like say the Moon is made of Green Chees andexpecting to be bw elived just becasue mit’s bee staed. And that’s the trouble worth Religion , Religious STATEMEENTS need no fact to back them up. [JESUS SAVES – says who? ] Gun ownership in the USA, has to my way of thinking a lot of similarites with religious fervour. And just as many inconsistencies.

  16. Biased researchers can misuse studies, statistics, and opinion polls to “prove” absolutely anything that they want to prove. For example, some faulty studies use the following iron-clad “logic” (and I’m using “logic” sarcastically):

    “Studies have shown a high correlation with tissue use and having a cold or flu.
    Therefore, using tissues must be the leading cause of colds and flu.
    This means if we ban tissues, we will cut flu deaths by at least 90%, yes, ninety percent!”

    And the ignorant masses would applaud and say, “Yes, we need to ban tissues! If it saves just one life…”

  17. And if they close the so-called “misdemeanor loophole,” next they’ll be saying,
    “We need to close the parking ticket and speeding ticket loopholes! If we banned guns for everyone who’s ever had a parking ticket or speeding ticket, we’ll reduce gun deaths by nine billion percent and save seventy-five billion lives!”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here