I don’t know. Seems pretty convincing to me. I find it interesting that you attacked her article generically, then had to pop back in to attack this point specifically.
You catch the most flak when you’re over the target.
You are correct that I responded impulsively to the bulk of the article, before boiling it down to a specific point that I deemed necessary of a specific response.
So allow to me to be more explicit about why this point is utter nonsense. The original author claimed:
Concealed carry permit holders are among the nation’s most law-abiding citizens.
Then supported this with the following evidence:
Florida has issued the most carry permits–nearly 2 million — but revoked only 168 (0.008 percent) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.
This supporting evidence is irrelevant. It only refers to the revocation rate due to firearm-related offenses — with no mention of any other crimes; no context for what that revocation would entail under existing NRA-sponsored laws; and no comparative statistical assessment of “the average American.”
Also it’s…kind of inherently impossible to compare the rate of “permits revoked due to firearm-related offenses” by concealed carriers and the “average American” because the “average American” isn’t going to have a concealed carry permit that could revoked in the first place.
tl;dr this is deceptive, manipulative nonsense disguised as overly-technical legalese that’s intended to confuse detractors, and uphold some fantasy of “informed” “fact-based” objectivity.
So how does the NRA do this [re: The NRA has been famously stubborn on fighting any and all attempts to revoke firearms and/or firearm licenses and allowances from anyone, regardless of whether they are proven to be violent criminals, or are mentally ill (despite the fact that the NRA also falsely blames gun violence on mental illness)]?
For starters, here’s a quick Twitter search of every time the NRA has deflected with “mental health”-relate issues despite the fact that people with mental illnesses make up about 20% of the population, and they are significantly more likely to be victims than perpetrators of gun violence in the United States.
Realistically, less than 5% of gun-related killings from 2001–2010 were perpetrated by someone with a diagnosed mental illness, according to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2015. Mass shootings in particular account for less than 1% of firearm deaths, and some sources project mental illness figure into only about half of those.
It’s kind of hard to draw any useful predictions or conclusions from those kinds of fractions, ya know?
Meanwhile, people like Dana Loesch will openly criticize the inherent flaws of NICS while doing nothing to change those same loopholes they criticize, soooooo…my point still stands.
When you are convicted of a felony, you lose your right to own firearms (along with your permit). You can also lose your permit for non-criminal violations like carrying your gun where you shouldn’t, or allowing your concealed firearm to “show”. (They call that an “administrative” violation.)
Yup. That’s all technically true. But how many domestic abusers, for example, are actually convicted with felons, despite repeated patterns of behavior? How many courts go easy on those guys, or offer them a plea bargain? And how many states actually actively work to retrieve firearms from those who have been convicted of such things? Not many!
And that’s not even touching the surface of the way our military keeps records and classifies things as other than honorable or bad conduct discharges, and how that plays into issues like domestic violence.
You mean those who followed the law and had a righteous shoot? Those who where not charged with a crime and who defended themselves. And who didn’t have a glory-seeking D.A. as in the case of the Trayvon Martin shooting?
Uhhh. Trayvon Martin was minding his own business, when he was attacked by an armed person and tried to defend himself…and then got shot and killed anyway. “Stand Your Ground Laws” are literally based 100% on objectivity, justifying the shooter’s actions simply because they felt in danger, regardless of the rational reasoning for such an emotional reaction. Nexti.
Do you not believe in due process? Scratch that, you already want to disarm me without due process, so I guess the answer is “no”.
Oh, I’m sorry, where did I say that I wanted to disarm you without due process? Sounds like you’re throwing a tantrum — which is, by definition, an emotional reaction. I actually have a gun license, along with a neurological condition that is not and should not be a hinderance on my rights. I am a firm defender of civil liberties in all of my journalistic and advocacy work—but you would rather jump to conclusions than to have a civil conversation regarding the actual words that were used.