Obama’s Gun Proposals Ignore the Facts

Comments Off on Obama’s Gun Proposals Ignore the Facts

By John Lott.., Author of ‘More Guns, Less Crime

President Obama believes that people who oppose his gun control regulations do so “because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves.” That they will do “everything they can to block any commonsense reform” that is necessary “to protect our communities and our kids.”

Two things stand out as particularly disappointing in Obama’s offering of new gun control regulations: 1) his willing to make so many false claims and 2) his inability to acknowledge that gun control regulations have real costs. Take his first couple “facts” during his presentation.

“In the month since 20 precious children and six brave adults were violently taken from us at Sandy Hook Elementary, more than 900 of our fellow Americans have reportedly died at the end of a gun—900 in the past month.”

The impression that the president creates here is surely that these people would not have died if guns hadn’t existed. Yet, in 2010, the most recent year that we have data for, shows 62.4 percent of gun deaths involve suicides. That would amount to 562 of 900 deaths. Surely a tragedy, but most research suggests that even if guns ceased to exist people would just commit suicide in other ways.

Guns do make it easier to kill people. But what Obama fails to ever acknowledge is that guns also make it easier for people to defend themselves and prevent bad things from happening. Looking at gun deaths without talking about the lives that were saved is not a very useful comparison. We can debate how large that number is, but Obama’s assumption that it is zero is obviously not correct.

“The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun.”

This is simply false. There have been 1.5 million initial denials from background checks, but virtually all these denial were “false positives.” That is, innocent law-abiding citizens were prevented from buying guns for anything from a few days to months because their name was similar to someone who was actually on the prohibited list. In 2010, there were 76,142 initial denials, but even after just the preliminary review by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms there were only 4,732 cases left. Further review by the bureau’s field offices and the Department of Justice left only 62 cases to be referred to prosecutors, and only 13 were strong enough to produce a conviction.

Remember the five times that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, a Democrat of Massachusetts, missed flights because his name was on the “no fly” list? Obama’s method of counting would be the equivalent of saying that the “no fly” list stopped five flights by terrorists. Senator Kennedy may have been “kept” off those flights, but he still flew on later planes. If Obama padded numbers that way for the benefit of “no fly” lists, people would be outraged. Well, they should be just as outraged for how he used the data on gun background checks.

There were numerous other mistakes in his talk.

President Obama likes to set up straw men to argue against. Yet, if he really could make a strong case for his position, he wouldn’t have to demonize opponents and constantly exaggerate or misstate facts.

US News

Also:Stronger background checks will make government gun confiscation easier but won’t stop killings

Compelling FBI statistics that show 50% less violent crime than 20 years ago

  • Between 1992 and 2011, the violent crime rate in the U.S. has fallen by almost 50 percent (from 757.7 per 100,000 to 386.3 per 100,000).
  • The murder rate in 2011 rate was 4.7 per 100,000, down from 1992’s 9.3 per 100,000. That’s a 54 percent decrease.
  • In metropolitan areas where the population is greater than 250,000, the violent crime rate is double that of the national average.
  • In metropolitan areas where the population is greater than 250,000, the murder rate is double that of the national average.
Advertisements

Anonymous Responds To Obama gun control policy

Comments Off on Anonymous Responds To Obama gun control policy

 

Barack Obama inauguration: President aims to hit benchmark set by Abraham Lincoln

Comments Off on Barack Obama inauguration: President aims to hit benchmark set by Abraham Lincoln

Well this would be a breath of fresh air, if he’d really do it…Let’s see as far as honesty goes, “you can keep your coverage under Obamacare” , not really he was only kidding…”won’t raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000″, not really he was only kidding here as well…“We’ve excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs.”, ha ha…these are just a few.

Barack Obama must make brevity, honesty and humility his watchwords in his second inaugural speech if he is to live up to the benchmark set by his hero Abraham Lincoln 150 years ago, writes Peter Foster.

In the White House Situation Room there is a suite of rather old-fashioned looking digital clocks that hang above the presidential seals of office, spelling out the time in oblong red numbers in mission-critical places around the world, including the location of the President himself at any given moment.

But as the hours count down towards Barack Obama’s second inaugural celebrations, America’s first black president and his staff will be measured not just against the tick-tock of daily deadlines that come with organising a party for up to a million people, but against the grand sweep of history.

Those who have been in the thick of it before, recall how time telescopes wildly in the run up to inauguration day, as White House members of staff find themselves juggling demands that are petty one minute, and profound the next.

Far more importantly, how will Mr Obama’s second inaugural address live up to the historical benchmarks set by Abraham Lincoln in his second inaugural address more than 150 years ago? And how will Mr Obama answer the call of a divided America, in a changing world?

“It is an incredibly intense period,” recalls Jeffrey Lord, a former political aide in the Reagan White House, “aside from doing your day job – drawing up gun control measures or strategising over the debt ceiling – you cannot escape the fact there’s all these people running round in the front yard with hammers constructing all this stuff.”

Across that front yard – or the North Lawn of the White House to use its official title – the bullet-proof viewing dais on Pennsylvania Avenue is already built, and the work crews are tightening the last nuts and bolts on the temporary grandstands where the elite invitees will review the inaugural parade.

Read more

Obama officials ditch ‘exchanges’ in rebranding of healthcare reform law

Comments Off on Obama officials ditch ‘exchanges’ in rebranding of healthcare reform law

The Obama administration is re-branding the central component of its signature healthcare law.

The Health and Human Services Department suddenly stopped referring to insurance “exchanges” this week, even as it heralded ongoing efforts to prod states into setting up their own. Instead, press materials and a website for the public referred to insurance “marketplaces” in each state.

The change comes amid a determined push by conservative activists to block state-based exchanges in hopes of crippling the federal implementation effort. Dean Clancy, the director of healthcare policy at FreedomWorks, said HHS’s decision to ditch the “exchanges” label shows that opponents of the healthcare law are succeeding. “I think the patient-centered care movement can chalk up a minor victory here,” he said. “If they’re trying to re-label, it means they’re flailing.” Nearly every Republican governor has rejected a state-based exchange, although some could end up working in partnership with the federal government.

Even Republicans who had previously seemed open to the idea have since said they wouldn’t pursue their own exchanges, instead leaving the task up to HHS.Changing the name to “marketplaces” won’t make any difference, Clancy said.“They could call them motherhood or apple pie, but it wouldn’t change our feelings about them,” Clancy said. “We’re encouraged that they’re showing signs of desperation. I think that it’s too late in the game to try to start calling this something different. And [we’re] not going to spend a lot of effort fighting over a word.” Democrats and supporters of the healthcare law say the name change wasn’t meant to assuage political opposition to the healthcare law. “Exchange” simply isn’t a very good description, they said.“It’s not that exchanges are unpopular, but there also isn’t broad awareness about what they are and what they will do for the people who will benefit from them across the country, so it makes sense to use a more descriptive name,” a Democratic source said.

“The fact is, both Democratic and Republican Governors across the country are building this infrastructure and open enrollment is only eight months away so it’s time to start raising awareness. Once people get used to having these marketplaces to increase competition and deliver tax credits, there’s no question they will be popular.”

Read more