Newest Fox News piece: "Obama and guns: Eleven false or misleading claims from the president's remarks this week"

My newest op-ed at Fox News discusses some of the errors in Obama's talk on Tuesday.

With tears in his eyes, President Obama pulled out all the stops in pushing his new executive orders on gun control this week.  A Washington Post headline exclaimed, "President Obama’s amazingly emotional speech on gun control.”  But the president also tried to appeal to people’s minds with a barrage of factual claims. 

Unfortunately, the president’s remarks had a large number of errors.  Here are 11 of the false or misleading claims that the president made. 

1. “But we are the only advanced country on Earth that sees this kind of mass violence erupt with this kind of frequency. It doesn’t happen in other advanced countries. It’s not even close.” 

Last year, both France and the US had four mass public shootings.  France suffered more casualties (murders and injuries) from mass public shootings in 2015 than the US has suffered during Obama’s entire presidency (532 to 396).  And this occurred despite the US being five times more populous than France. 

But it isn’t just the horrific year that France had last year.  Far from being well below the frequency found in US, other European countries actually have a worse problem.  From 2009 through December 2015, eleven European countries experienced mass public shootings at a greater frequency than did the US, after adjusting for population.  These countries include Switzerland, Norway, Belgium, and the Czech Republic. 

President Obama’s statement is clearly false. 

2. Five years ago this week, a sitting member of Congress and 18 others were shot at, at a supermarket in Tucson, Arizona. It wasn’t the first time I had to talk to the nation in response to a mass shooting, nor would it be the last. Fort Hood. Binghamton. Aurora. Oak Creek. Newtown. The Navy Yard. Santa Barbara. Charleston. San Bernardino. . . . with common-sense gun safety measures we can reduce gun violence a whole lot more. . . .  Number one, anybody in the business of selling firearms must get a license and conduct background checks, or be subject to criminal prosecutions.” 

Obama claims that expanding background checks to include any private transfers of guns will reduce mass public shootings.  But he offers no evidence.  Not one mass public shooting during Obama’s administration would have prevented by these checks. . . .

The rest of the piece is available here.

Why are gun control advocates so excited about Vivek Murthy's confirmation when he promised that he wouldn't push gun control?

Gun control groups are excited about Vivek Murthy's confirmation's, but before his confirmation his supporters were pointing to his promise not "use the Surgeon General's office as a bully pulpit for gun control," and instead would make his top priority "obesity prevention."  So why should the gun control groups be so excited? Was it because he didn't mean his promise to the Senate?

Fortune Magazine completely mangles story on gun sales "declining"

Fortune magazine's Laura Lorenzetti makes a lot of logical mistakes in her "news" article here.

It looks like Americans may be buying fewer guns this year. 

Smith & Wesson  SWHC , the 162-year-old gunmaker, lowered its guidance for the quarter and rest of the year, even as it reported better than expected sales in its fiscal fourth quarter that ended Apr. 30. Shares of Smith & Wesson’s stock had dropped nearly 9% by the close of trading Friday following the announcement. 

The company reported sales of $170 million in its fourth quarter, higher than the average analyst estimate of about $164 million, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Revenue was almost 5% less than the year-earlier quarter. . . . 

The once high-selling gun industry may be facing a comedown as incidents of gun violence have soared this year. There has been an average of almost one school shooting every week for the past year and a half, the Washington Post reported earlier this month. . . .

Does reporter Laura Lorenzetti have any idea how inaccurate the Bloomberg claim is that there was one school shooting every week for the last year and a half?  The claim that increased gun violence is responsible for a drop in sales makes many errors.  Does a sales drop for Smith & Wesson imply an overall drop in gun sales?  No.

So what do the NICS checks numbers show on gun sales (click on screenshot to enlarge it)?  NICS checks are not a perfect measure of gun sales, but it is hard to see how its biases have changed in a systematic way this past year.

With the exception of background checks in January and February, 2014's background checks exceed those in 2013 and they are well ahead of those in 2012 for all months.  Fortune incredibly fails to even mention the explosion of gun sales right after Newtown and President Obama's re-election.  Does anyone believe that January and February sales in 2013 were normal sales to make comparisons with?  Even if Smith & Wesson's sales might be down for the last quarter, sales for the entire industry during the April through June quarter look like they are still higher than 2013.  How the Fortune reporter can spin a discussion from one gun maker into a general commentary on the entire gun industry is pretty disappointing.

Obama uses Russia's actions in the Ukraine to ban importation of AK-47s

The day before the tragic shooting down of a passenger airline the Obama administration banned the importation of AK-47s from Kalashnikov company.  Here is the Treasury order:

374. If I own a Kalashnikov product, is that product blocked by sanctions?  Am I able to resell a Kalashnikov product at a gun show or other secondary market?  

If a U.S. person is in possession of a Kalashnikov Concern product that was bought and fully paid for prior to the date of designation (i.e., no payment remains due to Kalashnikov Concern), then that product is not blocked and OFAC sanctions would not prohibit the U.S. person from keeping or selling the product in the secondary market, so long as Kalashnikov Concern has no interest in the transaction.  New transactions by U.S. persons with Kalashnikov Concern are prohibited, however, and any property in which Kalashnikov Concern has an interest is blocked pursuant to OFAC’s designation of Kalashnikov Concern on July 16, 2014.  If a U.S. person has an inventory of Kalashnikov Concern products in which Kalashnikov Concern has an interest (for example, the products are not fully paid for or are being sold on consignment), we advise that U.S. person to contact OFAC for further guidance on handling of the inventory. [7-16-2014]

Of course, these aren't the military versions of the AK-47 that are used in wars around the world, but civilian semi-automatic versions of the guns. 

Collecting articles on the Justice Department's Operation Choke Point

Washington Times: Congress: Obama uses Justice Dept. to target gun sellers, ‘high risk’ businesses

A House panel says the Obama administration is using the Justice Department to target and “choke out” businesses it finds objectionable, from gun dealers and payday lenders to drug paraphernalia sellers and porn merchants.
The administration is using an anti-credit card fraud effort dubbed Operation Choke Point to go after legitimate businesses it deems “high-risk,” says a staff report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. . . . .
“Operation Choke Point is the Justice Department’s newest abuse of power,” Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican and committee chairman, said Thursday. “If the administration believes some businesses should be out of business, they should prosecute them before a judge and jury. By forcibly conscripting banks to do their bidding, the Justice Department has avoided any review and any check on their power.”
The Washington Times has reported that several gun retailers have been dropped by their banks as a result of the operation — the most recent being Powderhorn Outfitters, a sporting goods shop in Hyannis, Massachusetts, which was dropped last week by TD Bank after a 36-year business relationship. . . .

Daily Caller: Congressman Proposes Choking Off Funding For DOJ Program Targeting Gun Dealers

A Missouri congressman . . . Blaine Luetkemeyer wants to choke off funding for “Operation Choke Point.”
“What it does is goes after an entire industry whether it’s obeying the law or not. And that’s just wrong,” Luetkemeyer said of the initiative in an interview with The Daily Caller.
The Republican lawmaker’s amendment was successfully attached to the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill which passed a vote in the House late Thursday.
The amendment comes on the heels of a staff report issued Thursday by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The report claims that “Operation Choke Point has forced banks to terminate relationships with a wide variety of entirely lawful and legitimate merchants.”
This happens because the anti-fraud initiative, which is operated by the Department of Justice which works in conjunction with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, forces banks to more closely monitor their business relationships with companies in industries deemed “high risk.”
Banks can suffer “reputational risk” by failing to spot fraudulent practices.
This has had a chilling effect in forcing banks to be overly cautious in who they do business with, says Luetkemeyer.
“They are operating legally, and yet Operation Choke Point is not there to go after the bad actors, which I support them doing,” he said, adding, “the problem I have with Operation Choke Point is it goes one step further.”
Luetkemeyer said that gun sellers, ammunition sellers, coin dealers, tobacco sellers, career repair service providers and many other businesses have been wrongly ensnared because of the initiative’s overreach. . . .

AWR Hawkins has some discussion on these issues here. 

Democrats pushing for $60 million to "study" gun violence

Does anyone really believe that the government can keep politics out of the research that it funds on controversial issues?  From the Washington Times:

Democrats in the House and Senate are pushing to spend $60 million for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to research gun violence, rekindling a debate over whether political agendas taint these taxpayer-funded studies.
The legislation, introduced by Sen. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat, and Rep. Carolyn Maloney, New York Democrat, would provide $10 million a year for six years, beginning in 2015, for the research.
President Obama, who last year lifted the 17-year ban on studies of violence involving firearms, included $10 million for the research in his 2015 budget proposal. But that proposal went down along with the rest of Mr. Obama’s spending plan in a crushing 413-2 defeat in the House.
“It is time we study the issue of gun violence like the public health crisis it is,” Mr. Markey said. “If we want to prevent injury and deaths from guns, we need to know what can be done to prevent it. No one should be afraid of more nonpartisan, scientific research of this issue — not Democrats, not Republicans and not the [National Rifle Association].” . . .

Fox News has a discussion here. 

The illogic of the Obama administration stopping the importation of Russian surplus 5.45×39 type ammo

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives announces Russian surplus 5.45×39 type ammo is “armor piercing." From the Daily Caller:

According to information BATFE provided to NRA, these actions are based on BATFE’s determination that the availability of a handgun in this caliber triggers so-called “armor piercing” ammunition provisions of federal law, which generally prohibit manufacture and importation. . . .

The 5.45x39 is slightly narrower and a little longer than a .22 magnum.  If you want to see the illogic of banning the importation of the 5.45x39 compare it to the .44 magnum or the 38 special.

In inches 5.45 is about .21 inches, so that is less than half the diameter of the .44 inches magnum shell.  The 38 special is .359 inches in diameter.
The 39 millimeter length is 1.535 inches, while the .44 magnum is 1.61 inches (41 millimeters).  The .38 special is also slightly longer than the 5.45x39 -- it is 1.55 inches long.

Gun control groups planning on pushing for another gun control vote in the Senate

From the Newtown Bee:

Brian Malte, senior policy director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence , said advocates will push to get another vote in the Senate on legislation that would broaden FBI background checks of gun buyers. That bill failed last year to get the 60 votes it needed to overcome a procedural hurdle in the Senate. Supporters were five votes short, and it’s doubtful they would be able to win them in an election year that features several Democrats running tough races in states that favor gun rights. . . .

Irony: Obama Admin, which cut off funding to Project Child Safe, the free child lock program for firearms, now Department of Health and Human Services may launch a public safety campaign about the dangers of gun ownership

The evidence seems pretty strong that gunlock laws are dangerous, disarming law-abiding citizens so that they are unable to defend themselves.  So I wasn't too upset when the Obama administration ended the funding for Project Child Safe in 2009, which provided free gunlocks.  But the Obama administration's motivation was probably that they just didn't want to have anything to do with the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which was involved with the program.

Anyway, it looks like the Obama administration is planning a public safety campaign to "educate" people about the dangers of gun ownership.

“As you might imagine, those are conversations that we aren't ready to speak to the media about,” said Erika Soto Lamb, spokeswoman for Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group formed and funded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. 

But others, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they are hoping the president will direct the Department of Health and Human Services to launch a public safety campaign about the dangers of gun ownership, much like the agency did about the dangers of smoking. Gun control advocates are also pressing President Obama to spend more money on research about guns and gun ownership. 

In last week’s State of the Union message, in his only reference to guns, Obama said, “I intend to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters, shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook.”
But the president did not say what steps he would take using his authority. . . . 

In a study released in September, the NPA also recommended that the HHS “build an evidence-based approach to gun violence prevention, which includes restoration of robust funding and training for epidemiological research in this area (through the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and gathering data that tracks gun-related deaths and injuries, safety interventions, and the impact of measures to reduce the incidence of gun violence over time.” . . .

Will Obama push gun control in his State of the Union Address on Tuesday?

From The Hill newspaper:

In his 2013 address, Obama called for a vote on gun control legislation . . . . 

None of that got done, opening the possibility for plenty of recycling in Tuesday’s speech. 

Gun control seems the least likely to be a repeat. It’s not an issue that would help Democratic Senate candidates or incumbents running in Alaska, Arkansas, South Dakota, West Virginia or Montana. . . .

Given how much Obama pushed for gun control AND has continued to push for it up until very recently, I have a hard time believing that he will let the issue drop.  On the other hand, the polling support for more gun control is weak.  If he pushes for it despite these political costs, it will help show how fixated he is on the issue.

Obama uses Newtown anniversary to call for more gun control

So much for keeping politics out of the events today.  From Obama's weekly presidential address:

. . . Over the past year, their voices have sustained us.  And their example has inspired us – to be better parents and better neighbors; to give our children everything they need to face the world without fear; to meet our responsibilities not just to our own families, but to our communities.  More than the tragedy itself, that’s how Newtown will be remembered.  

And on this anniversary of a day we will never forget, that’s the example we should continue to follow.  Because we haven’t yet done enough to make our communities and our country safer.  We have to do more to keep dangerous people from getting their hands on a gun so easily. . . .

Even the Washington Post described Obama's address this way: "Obama marks Newtown anniversary with call for action on gun control"

Politico spins gun control debate positively for gun control advocates

Politico says that renewing the plastic gun ban is a "small gain" for gun control efforts.  I actually think that gun control advocates are making gains, but not in terms of the issues that this piece at Politico is looking at.  The article in Politico is entitled: "Gun control efforts must settle for small gains."

The Republican House version of the bill, which would renew the law with no additional provisions, passed the chamber on a voice vote Tuesday afternoon — meaning no roll call was taken to provide a list of who had supported or opposed the measure. 

But the Democratic-controlled Senate is where things get complicated. . . . 

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the No. 3 Democratic leader, will likely attempt on Monday to pass a more comprehensive bill, one that requires a piece of metal to be permanently attached to guns to prevent them from becoming undetectable by removing their metallic parts. Republicans are expected to object to Schumer’s move, meaning he wouldn’t be able to secure a vote before the current law expires. The Democratic strategy appears to be a messaging effort to push the GOP to articulate its opposition. 

Ultimately, the Senate is expected to just swallow the House version. . . .

Obama pushing gun control rallies on Newtown anniversary

Of course, the Senate gun control bill that Obama is pushing wouldn't have stopped Newtown, but that seems largely besides the point.  And of course the claims being pushed by Obama to get these new gun control rules are completely inaccurate.  From The Hill Newspaper:

The political advocacy group born from President Obama's reelection campaign is encouraging supporters to host "anniversary events" marking one year since the Newtown Elementary School shooting. 

Organizing for America (OFA) says it intends the events to be a "powerful reminder of what we lost a year ago, and a reminder that we as a nation need to do more to prevent gun violence and keep our communities safe." 

OFA says that the events will be held in towns and cities across the country and will be used to "call on Congress to finally take action to make our communities safer." . . . 

Some Republicans accused the president and his allies of exploiting the victims of the tragedy to build support for the bill. . . .  

OFA held a similar round of events at the six month anniversary of the shooting. According to the group, more than 1,000 people attended nearly 80 vigils and remembrance events across the country.

Obama using executive orders pushing gun control: Lots of costs, no benefits

So exactly why would it matter for stopping crime whether gun dealers do their inventories once a month or once every quarter?  Obviously doing inventories more frequently is more costly.  But suppose that gun dealers report any stolen guns more quickly.  What exactly will the government do with this information that will help solve crime?  The point here is more quickly to "shine light on an often unseen corner of the gun market."  Clearly the goal is just to make getting a gun more costly, not to lower crime rates.  From The Hill newspaper:

Police have a hard time tracking firearms that disappear from gun shops, which “just feeds the sort of already large and existing secondary market on guns,” said Sam Hoover, a staff attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. 

It is unclear precisely what the draft regulations, drawn up by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and under review at the White House’s regulations office, would do. . . . 

The draft rule was sent to the White House five months after the ATF completed a report that found that more than 190,000 firearms were estimated to have been lost or stolen last year. The report was one of 23 executive actions President Obama announced in January to reduce gun violence in the wake of last year’s shooting in Newtown, Conn. 

That report helped to shine light on an often unseen corner of the gun market, supporters of stricter gun laws say. . . .

With weekly meetings, Obama administration gearing up for big gun control push to coincide with Newtown anniversary

Newtown might not be planning any town wide events to mark the shooting tragedy last December 14th. but the Obama administration and gun control groups are still planning enough.  From the Associated Press:

The leader of the board that governs Newtown, Conn., says it will not host any townwide events to mark the anniversary of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. 

First Selectman Pat Llodra says the community is choosing to remember and honor the victims in ways that are "quiet, personal and respectful." . . .

Information on the Obama administration plans is available from Politico:

Officials from the White House Office of Public Engagement, which reports to senior Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, are now carrying the administration’s gun control efforts. OPE officials hold a regular meeting with the major gun control groups known as the Gun Violence Table.   

The weekly sessions often include OPE Director Paulette Aniskoff or official Paul Monteiro along with representatives from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Moms Demand Action, the Center for American Progress, Organizing for Action and Americans for Responsible Solutions. 

The groups are coordinating a November lobbying effort and planning events to commemorate the first anniversary of the Newtown, Conn., massacre last December. . . .

As I have written about before, the White House is apparently still deeply involved in the push for gun control at the state level.

“What’s happening now is a necessary and appropriate drilling down into states both to push the ball forward at the state level,” said Arkadi Gerney of the Center for American Progress, who participates in the sessions. “Also, that’s the best way to move the ball forward at the federal level.” . . .

The coordinated events include a nationwide bus tour sponsored by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Bloomberg-funded effort, a series of Americans for Responsible Solutions stops by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, and some 200 local Organizing for Action events in August. . . .

The article also had information on the exact timing of the federal push is discussed here:

The groups and the White House are considering events pegged to Dec. 14, the anniversary of the Newtown shooting, which launched Obama’s gun control push. The Brady Campaign is planning four days of events the second week of November, including what its president, Dan Gross, called the largest gun control lobbying day ever at the Capitol and a day of speeches from prominent officials at the Mayflower Hotel. 

Gross said the Brady Campaign also is planning to commemorate Nov. 30, the 20th anniversary of former President Bill Clinton signing legislation that required background checks for commercial gun sales. That event, Gross said, will remind gun control supporters that it took seven votes over six years to become law. . . . 

The rest of the article mentions that while Biden is still involved publicly with the gun control issue, he is not participating in the weekly White House meetings.

Piers Morgan viciously attacked Alan Gottlieb for his "guns save lives" day, but any guesses whether Morgan will attack gun control advocates for their own push for gun control on that day?



Meanwhile, a "news" article in the New York Daily News makes this point:

The heartless gun nuts who hoped to make the anniversary of the Newtown massacre “Guns Save Lives Day” have changed their callous plan. 

The rallies, organized by the Washington state-based Second Amendment Foundation, will now be held one day later, on Dec. 15, which happens to be Bill of Rights Day. 

“We will not politicize the day, and we hope (gun-control advocates) will not politicize and push their anti-civil rights agenda on the 14th,” the group’s founder and executive vice president, Alan Gottlieb, told the New Haven Register.
“We’re going to show that we are sensitive.” . . . .

I have checked this author's other articles and they seems like pretty straightforward news stories. 

Interview on Fox News Live: Is the push for gun control over?

My discussion about how the push for gun control is likely to intensify (available here). 

Newest piece from National Review Online: "Democrats knew what they wanted in Colorado, but they overreached"

From the beginning of my piece:

Two weeks ago, the Washington Post declared the recall elections of two powerful state senators in Colorado a national “referendum on guns.” Indeed, the defeat of state-senate president John Morse and fellow state senator Angela Giron will cause some Democrats to rethink their push on gun control. 

But of course, many Democrats have reacted by shrugging off the results. Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has dismissed the losses as the result of “voter suppression, pure and simple” (orchestrated by the National Rifle Association and the Koch brothers, of course). Mark Glaze, executive director of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, predicted that the victory by gun owners would be short-lived at best and that gun-control legislators would take comfort in knowing that his group “will have their back.” 

In reality, it is hard not to appreciate what was accomplished. The difficulties facing the recall were overwhelming: . . .

UPDATE: Even the some people who support gun ownership at the Daily Kos have a useful discussion of some of the false claims about the recall election.

UPDATE: Here is Angela Giron's continued attempt to claim that she lost because of voter suppression (available here)

SunNews TV: Gun Law Flaws, interview with Brian Lilley

also available here.

Newest Fox News piece: The truth about Obama's new executive orders targeting guns

My newest piece starts this way:

It sure sounds scary. "Military weapons" being reimported back into the United States. Or people getting guns without background checks. But the reception being given President Obama's two new executive orders on guns largely relies on ignorance of how the current rules work.  

The president's executive order banning the reimportation of "military weapons" really only affects old M-1 Garand 30-06 rifles. These rifles have been used in the Civilian Marksmanship Program program and are mainly purchased by collectors. At one time they were &quotmilitary weapons,&quot but they were used in World War II and the Korean War.  

No other US-made military rifles are being imported. And, more importantly, this semi-automatic rifle is functionally no different than any semi-automatic deer hunting. They fire the same bullets at the same rapidity and do the same damage as other deer hunting rifles.  . . .

One of the emails that I received about the op-ed.

Number one in the opinion section

A list of the guns is available here, but the Garand semiautomatic rifle is the only one of any real significance.  Most of the others are extremely old guns (Marlin, Model 1894 or Winchester, Model 1894).

Obama's two new executive orders on guns, relying on the media's ignorance of guns

The Associated Press has this very poorly done piece on the proposed changes.  These executive orders rely on the typical ignorance of the media regarding guns.

One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities, where some may end up on the streets. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms. 

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns. . . .

1. The only "military weapons" that are affected by this are old M-1 Garand 30-06 rifles used in the CMP program, available to collectors mainly. No other US-made military rifles are being imported. And more importantly, how is this semi-automatic rifle functionally different than any semi-automatic deer hunting?  The only difference that I know is that these old Garands tended to be pretty heavy.  I know of no cases when any imported US-made military weapon has been used in a crime.

2. The only "corporate" registration I'm aware of is for Class III (machine guns) weapons. I've never known an individual to use a corporation to register a handgun or other firearm to bypass a background check. Corporations are used (primarily) to obtain fully-automatic machine guns, as they are usually out of the price range of most citizens (minimum of $20,000 each). Yes, when registered to a corporation any officer is allowed to posses the machine gun, but my understanding that at the point that the transfer occurs there has to be a NICS check for the person actually picking up the gun.  What happens under current law is that if a gun is registered to a corporation, then anyone who is an officer in the corporation would be allowed to use the gun  I don't see how he can make this change without these rules without congressional action.  I know of no case where someone who was barred from getting a gun was able to obtain a gun through the mechanism that the president is pointing to.  No crime has occurred as a result of this loophole.