CNN host Erin Burnett and reporter Deb Feyerick gave serious treatment to National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent's baseless claim that President Obama will attempt to confiscate firearms, even discussing what would happen if the government tried to "take all the guns away tomorrow." Significantly, none of the proposals to reduce gun violence supported by the Obama administration in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut elementary school massacre involve firearm confiscation.
Even though Nugent, who in part blamed the Newtown massacre on an "embarrassing, politically correct culture," is not a credible figure in the gun policy debate, Feyerick repeated his wild-eyed conspiracy theories on Erin Burnett OutFront:
BURNETT: President Obama has said he doesn't have any intention of confiscating guns, that that is not his goal, he's not trying to attack the Second Amendment. Nugent, though, doesn't believe him, why?
FEYERICK: No, he doesn't believe him at all. Because the way he sees it, he says, look, the majority of guns, 310 million guns, are in the hands of law-abiding citizens. The minority are in the hands of criminals, they're the ones who are committing the crimes. And that's why he says, look, why is the government coming after us saying we are going to ban these guns when we are not the ones who are doing anything. And so he focuses on criminality, on people who have mental illness, on making sure people stay in prisons long enough. But he says it's not the gun. And that's really the point that the NRA is trying to convey as part of this debate that is going on in the country right now.
BURNETT: So what would you do if there were a gun ban, just ignore it?
FEYERICH: Well, in many cases, yes. Because how do you enforce a gun ban? What do you do? If you take all the guns away tomorrow, people are out there who are going to find and get their hands on guns --
BURNETT: And as you said there are hundreds of millions already out there.
FEYERICH: Absolutely. What do you do? Do you give them -- do you hand in your guns? And that's the slippery slope that [Nugent] sees. That in fact once you start in that direction you're going to be giving up these things, or law enforcement is going to be coming, and trying to register them. So there is a whole series of reasons why they simply do not trust any sort of gun restriction in that way.
While much of Obama's plan to reduce gun violence involves strengthening the background check system for gun transactions, improving mental health services and making schools safer, the proposals that directly regulate firearms don't involve confiscation.
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza is pushing the myth of the National Rifle Association's electoral invulnerability as his latest rationale for why he believes stronger gun laws won't pass Congress.
Cillizza moved on to this myth after claiming that such laws were unlikely to pass because the American people didn't support them -- a claim now no longer plausible given new data from the same poll question he previously cited.
During the January 30 hearing on gun violence, National Rifle Association representative Wayne LaPierre said a proposal to expand background checks would be a "nightmare" for Americans, contradicting his 1999 testimony on behalf of the NRA in support of such an expansion -- a flip-flop highlighted by Sen. Pat Leahy during the hearing. In their coverage of the hearing, several major national newspapers failed to pick up on this important position switch, which highlighted the hardline stance of the NRA towards gun violence prevention proposals.
In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre reiterated his organization's position that armed guards are the solution to school violence. Yesterday the NRA's televised news show, Cam & Company, shed light on what the NRA envisions when it calls for armed guards in all schools when it previewed a special on Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's school defense "posse."
The three-minute preview shows Sheriff Arpaio and a member of his self-styled "posse" discussing the workings of a group of armed volunteers who now patrol public school zones in Maricopa County, Arizona. While the NRA has called for school guards to be "an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained, qualified citizens," no mention was made in the NRA feature of a March 2012 investigation's finding that a number of "posse" members had violent criminal records.
As Arpaio explains in the NRA News segment, "posse" members have "gone through 100 hours of weapons training, plus follow-ups. They buy their own jeeps, airplanes, cars. I swear them in. The only difference is no money, they don't get paid."
The preview also features an interview with "posse" member Jerry Johnson who says, "We're the eyes and ears of the sheriff's department. We're all volunteers. Some are ex-law enforcement, but me I'm retired. And some of us had no experience at all, but we've been trained," and concludes the preview by stating, "We've got so well trained people that you put them in a situation and they're ready to roll."
On March 14, 2012 Phoenix area CBS affiliate KPHO reported on "a number of posse members with arrests for assault, drug possession, domestic violence, sex crimes against children, disorderly conduct, impersonating an officer - and the list goes on." In one incident described by KPHO a "posse" member "threw his girlfriend to the ground and choked her while trying to sexually assault her" and on another occasion a "posse" member held at gunpoint a man who had backed into his car and driven off.
Arpaio has previously drawn criticism for using his "posse" to investigate President Obama's long-form birth certificate, finding it fraudulent, and for promoting what the Justice Department termed "a pervasive culture of discriminatory bias against Latinos."
The NRA preview also takes a hard line against gun violence prevention measures with Sheriff Arpaio stating that, "It is sad [politicians supportive of stronger gun laws] are using us for politics. They are going through the pony show, they talking to everybody, but we know the fix is in."
While polling has consistently shown that nearly all Americans support requiring a criminal background check on every gun sale, some conservatives in the media are writing in opposition to expanding background checks, a position also held by the National Rifle Association.
A January 23 Gallup poll indicates that 91 percent of Americans would vote for a law that required a criminal background check on every gun sale. Only eight percent of respondents would vote against such a law. As ThinkProgress notes, this polling indicates that opposition to strengthening background checks is less popular than human cloning, polygamy and the perennially unpopular Congress.
[ThinkProgress, accessed 1/30/13]
In recent columns, Washington Times senior opinion editor Emily Miller, MSNBC host S.E. Cupp and Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich all expressed opposition to expanding background checks, even as research demonstrates that a significant proportion of firearms are sold and purchased without a check.
In a New York Daily News column, Cupp quoted the faulty logic of NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, who said before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 30 that checks should not be strengthened "because criminals will never submit to them," before worrying about the "psychological" impact of background checks on gun purchasers.
Ultimately, Cupp compared criminal background checks -- the vast majority of which are completed in seconds -- to Arizona's infamous SB 1070 immigration law:
But even though we accept background checks as a necessary preemptive measure, there is a real psychological and cultural impact when law-abiding gun owners are routinely treated en masse like suspects.
If it sounds silly to worry about the hurt feelings of gun owners, let me point out that liberals are both familiar and comfortable with this argument. Arizona's so-called "papers please" law, which allowed law enforcement officials to determine an individual's immigration status during a lawful stop, barred the use of racial profiling as the sole basis for investigating immigration status. But that didn't stop liberal critics of SB 1070 from insisting it was offensive, prejudicial and unfairly treated minorities as if they were criminals.
Opponents of stronger gun laws have used their media platforms to continue to promote myths and falsehoods about firearm policy, often parroting gun lobby talking points, in the weeks leading up to today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence.
Ahead of tomorrow's hearing on gun violence before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the National Rifle Association released the testimony of its representative, executive vice president Wayne LaPierre. When reporting on LaPierre's remarks, the media have a responsibility to provide context for his frequently inaccurate statements.
In his remarks, LaPierre dismissed the idea of requiring a criminal background check on every gun sale while unwittingly demonstrating how these checks keep guns out of the hands of criminals, falsely suggested that assault weapons are no more dangerous than firearms available to civilians 100 years ago, and exaggerated the effectiveness of armed guards in schools.
In his testimony, LaPierre attacked the proposal to require criminal background checks on nearly all gun sales "because criminals will never submit to them." According to LaPierre's rigid reasoning, because background checks will not stop every dangerous person from acquiring a gun, there is no point in strengthening the system.
But even under our current set of laws that allow a significant proportion of firearms transactions occur without a background check, evidence has shown that over 1.5 million individuals have been prevented from acquiring a firearm after failing a background check.
LaPierre even acknowledged earlier in his testimony that over 76,000 firearms purchases in 2011 were denied by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). It should be noted that LaPierre is either referring to FBI denials only or understating the figure, as over 150,000 purchases a year are typically denied through the background check system, with about half of denials being processed by the FBI.
According to the FBI, less than five percent of denials are reversed upon appeal. The primary reasons for denial were a felony conviction or indictment (47.4 percent) or status as a fugitive (19.1 percent).
Right-wing media are attacking New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an advocate of stronger gun laws, for traveling with armed security. These attacks are illogical given that Bloomberg supports the right of citizens to own guns.
The attacks are based on a video of senior Talk Radio Network investigative reporter Jason Mattera asking Bloomberg during a Washington, D.C. ambush interview, "in the spirit of gun control, will you disarm your entire security team?"
But contrary to the premise of the Mattera's question, Bloomberg does not oppose the rights of citizens to own firearms. In a joint letter with Boston Mayor Thomas Menino explaining the goals of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition, he wrote:
We support the Second Amendment and the rights of citizens to own guns. We recognize that the vast majority of gun dealers and gun owners carefully follow the law. And we know that a policy that is appropriate for a small town in one region of the country is not necessarily appropriate for a big city in another region of the country.
Gun researcher and FoxNews.com columnist John Lott is ignoring the evidence in an attempt to undermine claims from supporters of strengthening gun laws that a large percentage of guns are purchased without the buyer undergoing a background check.
In a National Review Online article, Lott wrote that President Obama's recent claim that "as many as 40 percent of guns are purchased without a background check" is false, instead stating that "it closer to 10 percent." However, research shows that significant numbers of firearms are in fact sold without a background check - perhaps a figure greater than the 40 percent cited by Obama.
It is true that the 40 percent figure is based on a 1994 poll with a small survey sample, and that the authors of the study have said that they estimated that the actual figure for gun sales from private sellers ranges from 30 to 40 percent of all sales. But no data has been compiled that contradicts that figure, while several more recent data points support a figure in that range.
In finding that the "40 percent" statistic is "Mostly True," Politifact pointed out that neither the National Rifle Association nor the National Shooting Sports Foundation, groups that oppose expanding background checks to private sales, provided data contradicting that figure.
As Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler reported, part of the problem in obtaining up-to-date figures on the private sales of firearms is that National Rifle Association lobbyists have been successful in convincing Congress to block funding for such research. In his analysis of the 40 percent figure, Kessler quoted one of the authors of the 1994 study, Jens Ludwig, who stated, "While there is no perfect estimate in social science, we'd have a better estimate for this proportion had the federal government not decided to get out of the business of supporting research on guns and gun violence several years ago."
But the data that has been made available since the 1994 report lends credence to that estimate. For example, a 2012 analysis of how handguns are sold in Michigan, the Michigan State Police reported that 48 percent of all handguntransfers in the state are conducted through private sales where no background check is required. Criminals in particular tend to seek weapons from sources where they are not subject to background checks - only 11 percent of inmates incarcerated for gun crimes said that they got the weapon from a licensed gun dealer, according to a 2004 survey.
Data from the gun industry itself also suggests sales without a background check are commonplace. According to 2010 data from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, only 45 percent of assault weapon owners reported buying their firearm from a retail location, including independent and chain retail stores. Approximately half of respondents reported buying their firearm from venues where a background check is not necessarily required, including over the Internet, from gun shows, or through a face-to-face sale.
Townhall news editor Katie Pavlich, who was recently hired as a Fox News contributor, twisted comments made by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) at a press conference announcing the introduction of assault weapons ban legislation to make it seem as if the senator claimed that all weapons used in mass shootings were obtained from gun shows.
Palvich, who reversed the order and altered the content of Sen. Feinstein's statements, used this distortion to claim that "no gun purchased at a gun show has ever been used in a mass shooting," a false statement contradicted by the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. All four firearms used in that shooting -- which left 13 dead and 21 wounded -- passed through an area gun show. From Pavlich's article:
National Rifle Association board member and Washington Times columnist Ted Nugent alluded to the start of the American Revolution in an interview with Guns.com during the Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show, claiming that the Obama administration "is attempting to re-implement the tyranny of King George" and that "if you want another Concord Bridge, I got some buddies."
NUGENT: I'm part of a very great experiment in self-government where we the people determine our own pursuit of happiness and our own individual freedom and liberty not to be confused with the Barack Obama gang who believes in we the sheeple and actually is attempting to re-implement the tyranny of King George that we escaped from in 1776. And if you want another Concord Bridge, I got some buddies.
Nugent's mention of "Concord Bridge" is presumably a reference to the Battle of Concord, which was fought on the North Bridge. The battle, one of the early encounters of the Revolutionary War, forced the British to retreat.
Media outlets are reviving the myth that passage of the assault weapons ban was the crucial factor in Democratic defeats during the 1994 elections as President Obama moves to institute a new ban on assault weapons.
In some cases, those media are citing President Bill Clinton, who, according to Politico's uncritical report on his January 19 speech, "said that passing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban 'devastated' more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers in the 1994 midterms -- and cost then-Speaker of the House Tom Foley (D-Wash.) his job and his seat in Congress." Clinton also credited the National Rifle Association for the Democrats losing control of the House in his 2004 autobiography.
By contrast, The Chicago Tribune reported that while Clinton and others have cited gun violence prevention legislation as the key factor in the 1994 election, "[o]ther factors were at play in the Democrats' 1994 loss: Congress had raised taxes in 1993 and fought over health care reform."
Indeed, as US News reported in a January 17 article, political scientists who have analyzed the 1994 election say it is "mythology" that gun violence prevention laws were the primary reason the Democrats were defeated. According to the article, headlined "Gun Control Laws Weren't Primary Reason Dems Lost in 1994" (emphasis added):
While the '94 election proved Americans wanted Democrats out of congressional power (more than 50 Democratic seats were lost), it's less clear if the weapons ban, or any one issue, was the primary reason for their loss.
"This is a mythology that has developed," says Philip Klinkner, who edited a book about the '94 elections. "That narrative stretches things way too far."
The truth, political scientists say, is that it can be attributed to a combination of factors, and the "assault weapons" ban was just one of several controversial votes that led to the loss.
With Democrats in charge of the House, Senate and White House, the 103rd Congress tackled a long, progressive wish list. The White House pressured legislators to take on healthcare reform (unsuccessfully), pass the North American Free Trade Agreement and raise taxes through a deficit reduction act, which was fraught with political land mines for congressional Democrats. None of the policies helped earn legislators points back home among their more conservative constituents.
"The vote for gun control mattered, but the vote for the tax increase and healthcare were more important," says Gary Jacobson, who has done a statistical analysis of what votes affected the outcome of the 1994 election.
After President Obama announced an executive action clarifying that doctors are permitted -- but not required -- to discuss gun safety with patients, conservatives in the media trumpeted a number of falsehoods, including the baseless claim that Obama is requiring doctors to report all gun owners to law enforcement.
Once again the right-wing media is pushing a falsehood based on their misrepresentation of whether a Democratic proposal involving doctors is mandatory.
The right-wing media is falsely claiming that President Obama is requiring doctors to ask their patients if they have guns, a claim that echoes their 2009 freak-out about supposed "death panels" in a proposed health care bill. In fact, as was the case with the end-of-life counseling provision in the health care bill, Obama's policies related to doctors and guns are voluntary.
In July 2009, shortly after a Democratic health care bill was introduced in the House of Representatives, serial health care misinformer Betsy McCaughey claimed that a provision of the bill would "absolutely require" seniors to "submit" to regular counseling sessions "that will tell them how to end their life sooner." This was false: the provision would have actually ensured that voluntary advanced care planning session where doctors and patients could discuss options like living wills were covered by Medicare - a proposal that had previously been supported by Republicans like Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA).
Nonetheless, after McCaughey offered up her false claim regarding the provision, the right-wing media - led by Rush Limbaugh -- was quick to trumpet it. And the falsehood took on an even greater intensity after Sarah Palin claimed that under the proposal, "my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel,'" an absurd statement that was quickly adopted by Fox News.
Meanwhile, mainstream outlets repeatedly debunked the claim - more than 40 times in the month after McCaughey offered her initial claim. But in spite of the media's effort to debunk the right-wing's claims, the provision was dropped from the Senate's health care bill, and did not become law with the passage of the Affordable Care Act.
A similar pattern is unfolding with regard to a policy on guns and doctors President Obama's unveiled during his January 16 announcement regarding gun violence prevention policies he supports. Among a variety of other proposals, the White House announced that the administration would "issue guidance clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not ban doctors from asking patients "about firearms in their patients' homes and safe storage of those firearms."
While nothing in the White House proposal suggests that this is a mandatory requirement that doctors ask patients if they have firearms in the home, right-wing media quickly began suggesting that the proposal did just that.
On his January 16 broadcast, Limbaugh claimed that under that policy:
So now doctors are being ordered, instructed to talk to patients and get information from them about gun ownership, where they are in their house, who has access to them, where the ammunition is kept.
He later added: "The doctors are now under the thumb of Obamacare. They had better comply. This is not a choice." Fox News' Andrew Napolitano also fearmongered over the provision.
The National Rifle Association has released a four-and-a-half minute video in response to the proposals to curb gun violence unveiled by the Obama administration. Chock-full of fast cuts and given a heart-pounding soundtrack, the ad attacks members of the media for criticizing the NRA and calls Obama a hypocrite for protecting his children with armed guards.
The ad opens with a montage of criticisms in media of the NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre's December speech calling for armed guards in schools in a response to the massacre at a Newtown, CT, school earlier that month. A narrator then states, "The media speaks for elites. America speaks for itself."
The ad also highlights the number of armed guards at the school attended by President Obama's daughters to make the claim that the President is a hypocrite for stating that he is "skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools." This attack follows up on a similar one made by the NRA in a recently released ad. The release of the White House's gun violence prevention plan today calls for federal funds to be used on school safety programs, including hiring more school resource officers, in addition to a number of proposals for stronger gun laws.
After a graphic purports to show massive increases in NRA membership, the advertisement concludes with the claim that "America agrees with Wayne and the NRA." In fact, polling demonstrates that America does not agree with the group's opposition to the proposals Obama laid out in his address.
Polling has demonstrated nearly unanimous support for requiring a criminal background check on every gun sale, including nearly three-quarters of NRA members who favor such a proposal. The NRA opposes requiring background checks on the private sale of firearms, which constitute up to 40 percent of the gun market. Majorities of Americans also support banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, while the NRA has promised to oppose any new gun violence prevention measures.