{"id":102554,"date":"2024-06-20T11:10:18","date_gmt":"2024-06-20T16:10:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=102554"},"modified":"2024-06-20T11:14:12","modified_gmt":"2024-06-20T16:14:12","slug":"102554","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=102554","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Still No TRACE of the Truth<\/a><\/p>\n

In our\u00a0first installment<\/a> of a critical analysis of an anti-gun propaganda podcast series from The Trace, we covered the lies, misinformation, and deceptive emotional arguments made in the first four episodes. Here, we will delve into the fifth episode, which continues the previous format, but adds embarrassing incidents where The Trace contradicts itself in an attempt to push its anti-gun messaging.<\/p>\n

The intro to the transcript of the 5th<\/sup>\u00a0installment of the podcast, which is titled \u201cHow a SCOTUS Decision Led to an Unprecedented Gun Sales Boom,\u201d kicks off with the completely discredited claim popular among the anti-2A crowd;<\/p>\n

\u201cFor most of American history, gun ownership was understood to be a collective right tied to militia membership. But that changed in 2008, when The U.S. Supreme Court established for the first time that gun ownership is an individual right.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In fact, American history\u2014judicial and otherwise\u2014is replete with proof that our\u00a0Founding Fathers<\/a>\u00a0intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to arms that is in no way dependent on citizens being affiliated with a militia.<\/strong><\/p>\n

While there have not been many rulings on the Second Amendment from our highest court since the Founding Era, in\u00a0U.S. v. Cruikshank<\/em>\u00a0(1876),\u00a0Presser v. Illinois<\/em>\u00a0(1886),\u00a0Miller v. Texas<\/em>\u00a0(1894) and\u00a0U.S. v. Miller<\/em>\u00a0(1939), the Supreme Court recognized that the amendment protects an individual right. It has never taken a different position.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
The Heller<\/em>\u00a0decision in 2008 followed the long-standing precedent of recognizing the individual right to arms when it struck down as unconstitutional the ban on possessing handguns in Washington, D.C.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Of course, it comes as no surprise that anti-gun fanatics would ignore history and court precedent to further their desire to disarm as many law-abiding Americans as possible. But the rewriting of history is something we\u2019ve begun to see as a\u00a0weirdly-common trope<\/a>\u00a0with those who oppose the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n

The Trace, seemingly fixated on the\u00a0Heller<\/em>\u00a0decision and the year 2008, implies the ruling led to that \u201cunprecedented gun sales boom\u201d mentioned in the title of its fifth episode of the propaganda podcast series. One of the \u201cjournalists\u201d is so vested in this new \u201cgun sales boom\u201d connection to Heller that she forgets that last year she seemed to attribute the 2008 \u201cboom\u201d in the manufacture and importation of firearms in the U.S. to the election of Barrack Obama. In that earlier piece, she went with the term \u201csurge\u201d instead of \u201cboom,\u201d and attributed another \u201csurge\u201d between 2011 and 2012 to Obama\u2019s reelection, then attributed another \u201csurge\u201d from 2015 to 2016 to the election of Donald Trump, and finally noted the \u201cbiggest year-over-year jump on record\u201d was between 2019 and 2020. That \u201csurge\u201d she attributes to the pandemic.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
So, it seems that any increase in firearm purchases\/production can be attributed to whatever suits one\u2019s anti-gun fancy.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Of course, the\u00a0Heller<\/em>\u00a0decision isn\u2019t the only apparent villain for these \u201cjournalists.\u201d They also seem to attribute the post-Heller<\/em>\u00a0\u201cboom\u201d to \u201cthe National Rifle Association trott(ing) out its most successful marketing strategy: defensive gun use.\u201d But NRA has been espousing \u201cdefensive gun use\u201d for more than a century, and The Trace even recognizes that \u201cdefensive gun use\u201d has long been a part of America.<\/p>\n

Starting in the late 1980s, NRA began promoting legislation to make it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense\u2014Right to Carry laws\u2014which, at its heart, is \u201cdefensive gun use\u201d away from the home.<\/p>\n

In the 1970s, we opposed efforts to ban \u201cplastic guns\u201d (e.g., Glocks) and \u201cSaturday Night Specials\u201d (inexpensive handguns); firearms law-abiding citizens commonly purchased for \u201cdefensive gun use.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

And rolling all the way back to 1911, after the passage of New York City\u2019s Sullivan Law\u2014arguably the granddaddy of all anti-gun laws\u2014our publications began\u00a0a century of opposition<\/a>\u00a0to the law based on concerns that it infringed on lawful \u201cdefensive gun use.\u201d<\/p>\n

Then there\u2019s the fact that we have been publishing stories about \u201cdefensive gun use\u201d for nearly as long in our Armed Citizen column.<\/p>\n

Even the transcript itself contradicts the post-Heller\/defensive gun use argument, noting that \u201cdefensive gun use became the animating force of the gun rights debate in the 80\u2019s and 90s,\u201d then it tries to pivot by saying that the concept \u201creally took off after Florida passed Stand Your Ground in 2005.\u201d<\/p>\n

The 1980s and 1990s certainly predate 2008\/Heller, as does 2005, not to mention the near century over which NRA has been talking about \u201cdefensive gun use.\u201d<\/p>\n

In fact, the podcast includes the statement, \u201cAnd the use of firearms for self-defense goes back over a century\u2026.\u201d While that is true, it sells the timeframe extremely short. Firearms have been used for self-defense ever since they became commonly available\u2014a period that spans many centuries.<\/p>\n

The podcast even specifically notes an ad it uncovered from 1913 that depicted \u201ca woman defending herself with a (firearm).\u201d<\/p>\n

But The Trace wants to pretend it was NRA that started the \u201cdefensive gun use\u201d messaging around the time of\u00a0Heller.<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Of course, The Trace doesn\u2019t actually like the concept of \u201cdefensive gun use,\u201d which is clear when it tries to negate it by dramatically undercounting its frequency.<\/strong><\/p>\n

One of the \u201cjournalists\u201d tries to claim that even the lowest reported number for defensive gun use\u2014The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which estimates roughly 70,000 annual defensive gun uses\u2014is too high. But the\u00a0Heritage Foundation<\/a>\u00a0notes that even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) mentions \u201calmost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between\u00a0500,000 and 3 million times each year.\u201d<\/p>\n

This \u201cjournalist\u201d seems to have trouble wrapping her head around the concept that guns are not just used to defend lives very regularly, but that law-abiding citizens who use guns for self-defense don\u2019t have to shoot anyone in order to defend themselves or their loved ones with a firearm.<\/p>\n

She tries to dispute, presumably, the well-established research done by criminologists\u00a0Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz<\/a>, who found that there are an estimated 2.1-2.5 million defensive gun uses every year in America. Her contention seems to be that, since there \u201caren\u2019t 2.5 million instances of criminal gun violence every year,\u201d there cannot possibly be 2.5 million defensive uses.<\/p>\n

Does she think that violent crime involving firearms and defensive gun use can only exist in a world of equilibrium, each dependent on the frequency of the other? She mentions \u201c45,000 shootings last year where someone was injured or killed,\u201d although she doesn\u2019t bother to explain if that number refers to criminals shooting victims. This seems to imply that there cannot be much more than 45,000 defensive gun uses (since she seems to think the NCVS estimate of 70,000 is too high). What she ignores is the fact that, as previously stated, a law-abiding citizen doesn\u2019t have to fire a single shot for a firearm to be used in self-defense.<\/p>\n

In fact, virtually every survey of people using firearms in self-defense tells us that the vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve a single shot being fired. Economist John Lott\u2019s work estimates that 95-98% of defensive gun uses involve merely brandishing a firearm to \u201cbreak off an attack.\u201d Other research indicates a lower percentage, but still in the 70-80% range.<\/p>\n

It would seem that, contrary to reality, The Trace has convinced itself that the only way to defend yourself with a gun is to shoot someone. This likely stems from the deep anti-gun bias these \u201cjournalists\u201d have when it comes to both firearms and law-abiding gun owners. In their minds, guns are only intended to kill people, so gun owners must WANT to kill people.<\/p>\n

But the disparity between the number of people shot by criminals and the number of people who use firearms for defensive purposes speaks to a more profound truth than anti-gun extremists wish to admit.<\/p>\n

Criminals don\u2019t care about the safety of others, while law-abiding gun owners do. Or, in another way of looking at it, criminals use firearms to commit crimes (cause harm), while law-abiding gun owners use them to prevent them (avoid harm).<\/p>\n

The gun in the hands of a criminal is intended to better ensure the completion of the intended criminal act. If that intended act is murder, they will shoot. If it is robbery, rape, kidnapping, or some other crime that is not initially intended to kill someone, but the victim puts up resistance, the criminal is likely to shoot.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, law-abiding citizens own firearms\u2014in part\u2014to prevent crime. If a criminal approaches an armed citizen in a threatening manner and the armed citizen draws or displays a firearm, the criminal will often retreat. With the threat no longer present, the armed citizen has no reason to fire a shot.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s just common sense to gun owners, as well as the average American who may not own guns but also doesn\u2019t have a visceral fear or hatred of guns and gun owners.<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Anti-gun extremists, like those at The Trace, just cannot seem to comprehend the idea of firearms being used as a crime deterrent unless someone gets shot.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Even worse, the \u201cjournalists\u201d at The Trace appear to think that gun owners are simply reckless fantasists. One tries to dismiss perhaps two million-plus instances of self-defense as, at best, an overactive imagination. At worst, she believes that reported self-defense is actually criminal activity.<\/p>\n

She states, \u201cPeople tend to overstate their role in self-defense encounters.\u201d She then goes on to claim, \u201cBut the truth is, a lot of times, what they think of as defensive gun use is assault. You know, diffusing an argument by flashing a gun at a friend is not heading off a crime.\u201d<\/p>\n

This distorted perception of law-abiding gun owners gives her colleague the opportunity to launch into his own twisted view of how he perceives gun owners as reckless, trigger-happy miscreants. His addition to the negative depiction of law-abiding gun owners is to seemingly imply that they are possibly racist.<\/p>\n

They both then segue into lamenting over the fact that NRA was able to stop the use of taxpayer dollars to produce biased, anti-gun research. While these \u201cjournalists\u201d claimed the NRA-supported\u00a0Dickey Amendment<\/a>\u00a0was a threat to the CDC to not conduct any research on deaths and injuries that involve firearms, all it stated was federal funds could not be used by the CDC to \u201cadvocate or promote gun control.\u201d<\/p>\n

But the relatively paltry $2.6 million that The Trace implies the CDC could no longer earmark for anti-gun research has had\u00a0little effect<\/a>\u00a0on anti-gun extremists churning out biased, flawed \u201cresearch\u201d to promote their efforts to gut the Second Amendment. After all, anti-gun billionaires like Michael Bloomberg are always willing to\u00a0open up the checkbook<\/a>\u00a0to pay for anti-gun \u201cresearchers.\u201d And well-funded\u00a0anti-gun foundations<\/a>\u00a0have always pumped far more money into anti-gun \u201cresearch\u201d than was generally spent by the CDC.<\/p>\n

Capping off its whine about a lack of \u201cresearch,\u201d The Trace then shows why it, and other anti-gun advocates, should never be believed when they start making claims about firearm-related fatalities\u2014claims presumably based on the type of \u201cresearch\u201d they would like your tax dollars to go toward.<\/p>\n

The Trace alleges that \u201cgun violence is now the leading cause of death for children\u201d\u2014a lie that began being\u00a0promoted in 2022<\/a>, and has been repeated\u00a0by\u00a0Joe Biden<\/a>, as his\u00a0vice president<\/a>, the\u00a0White House Briefing Room<\/a>,\u00a0and myriad gun control advocates and anti-gun media outlets (for example:\u00a0here<\/a>,\u00a0here<\/a>,\u00a0here<\/a>,\u00a0here<\/a>,\u00a0here<\/a>,\u00a0here<\/a>, and\u00a0here<\/a>, to cite merely a few examples).<\/p>\n

Just repeating something over and over again does not make it true, and we\u2019ve\u00a0exposed this lie<\/a>\u00a0before, and we\u2019ve been supported in our position by the unlikely source of the generally-anti-gun Washington Post.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Trace spends the rest of its time (roughly 1\/3) for this edition of the podcast series talking about several high-profile mass-casualty events where firearms were used. While the anecdotal reporting is moving, it does not change the fact that, statistically speaking, such horrendous violent crimes are, thankfully, rare.<\/p>\n

This episode had a great deal of misinformation and lies to unpack, so we\u2019ll save coverage of the final episode for another time.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Still No TRACE of the Truth In our\u00a0first installment of a critical analysis of an anti-gun propaganda podcast series from The Trace, we covered the lies, misinformation, and deceptive emotional arguments made in the first four episodes. Here, we will delve into the fifth episode, which continues the previous format, but adds embarrassing incidents where … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[64,9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-102554","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-deceit","category-enemies-foreign-domestic","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102554","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=102554"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102554\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":102558,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102554\/revisions\/102558"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=102554"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=102554"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=102554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}