Christopher Ingraham, from The Washington Post, penned a new article attacking peaceful, law abiding gun owners once again this morning. This time, as far as he’s convinced, he’s got all of the answers, and the “proof” to back them up. Just for reference, we will be pulling his various points from the article he wrote which you can read for yourself by clicking here.
With absolute disregard for journalistic integrity, Ingraham bases his hate piece on a study that was commissioned by the “National Gun Victims Action Council” (NGVAC) and claims that average, every day gun owners “perform poorly” in simulated scenarios – like a car jacking, or armed robbery.
As stated from NGVAC about the results of their “study”:
They [study participants] didn’t take cover. They didn’t attempt to issue commands to their assailants. Their trigger fingers were either too itchy — they shot innocent bystanders or unarmed people, or not itchy enough — they didn’t shoot armed assailants until they were already being shot at.
Ingarahm also writes that “Guns are rarely used in self-defense”, and gives us a link to another article that he, himself, wrote where he tries, emphatically, to convince his readers of the validity of his claims by linking to another group whose approach and info-gathering methods have been proven, time and time again, to be piss poor, at best, and in some cases, flat out made up.
I wonder if he missed the headlines a while back when the CDC, by command of Barack Hussein Obama (Mmm, Mmm, Mmm), spent tax payer dollars to study “gun violence”. Before the results were released, if you’ll remember, there were headlines EVERYWHERE about this: “The executive order the NRA should fear most”, as if somehow implying that the NRA are nothing more than blood thirsty gun nuts who ignore reality even when it’s slapping them in the face. Well, as irony would have it, the results of that study were NOT received well, and actually completely ignored by the likes of Obama and Ingraham, because they were in stark contrast to the claims made by the Anti-2nd Amendment audience. Chief among the results:
Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.
Well, that’s certainly strange. According to the NGVAC, this shouldn’t be the case.
Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
Again, very odd, because according to Ingraham, “Guns are rarely used in self-defense”…well, Mr Ingraham, the study from the United States Federal Government disagrees with you (as do millions and millions of law abiding gun owners from coast to coast)
Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
Once again, completely destroying the claims of the NGVAC and Mr. Ingraham, who preach that “More guns = more homicide”
Towards the end of his hate piece, Ingraham actually chimes in words of wisdom:
if you want to be able to use a gun in self-defense, you should be trained in how to do so.
And, for the most part, I do agree. I think we all would. I believe the fact that new gun ranges are popping up left & right in every State in the Union should be testament to that. But, eager to not leave on a good note, Ingraham decides to open his mouth again, completely destroying what little doubt may have remained as to whether or not he’s just a shill talking piece for his handlers:
The NRA likes the idea of training so much that it’s floated the idea of mandatory firearms training for school children. On the other hand, it’s opposed laws requiring mandatory training for gun purchases.
He likens gun training to drivers ed in High School, but then insinuates that it’s preposterous to train high school kids on gun safety. Well, Mr. Ingraham, which is it? Are you about educating kids for a safer tomorrow, or just moving the goal post any time it’s a little too far for your scrawny legs to kick?
In the end, though, while we all encourage the concept of training for self-defense, to the degree that Ingraham does, and that the study in question tested people on, we do not condone that Government make it a requisite to legally possessing a firearm for the purposes of self defense. We are talking about a RIGHT and *NOT* a privilege. Something, I think, this Washington Post writer refuses to comprehend.
I would challenge Ingraham and his ilk to name one other right that one must seek Government Mandated training in order to exercise. Driving a car doesn’t appear to be in the Constitution, so that one is out. But, that’s not good enough for our would-be gun-grabber, as the last paragraph of his article proves:
There’s a lot of middle ground between “repealing the Second Amendment” and “requiring school children to pass firearm training.” Requiring gun owners to be trained and licensed, similar to what we require of say, automobile drivers, may be in a middle area that more people could agree on.
I wonder what Mr. Ingraham would think if the US Government suddenly started to require extensive training in the field of Journalism & Research before allowing him to write columns and exercise his 1st Amendment Rights? I’m pretty sure he’d have something to say about it, but judging by his hit piece here, he wouldn’t pass the test, and we’d all be just a little less stupid for having not read it.