Time once again to fact check the fact checker.

WaPo: Yes, We Want Your Guns

Oh, Dana... must you tease me so?  Counter-Fisking is go. Well, let's do this USA!

Wouldn't it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?

I know, because there are no 

mass shootings

anywhere in Europe (or elsewhere)

anymore

because they

banned guns .

(Right?)

This is what I call mixing the facts.  The WaPo author (Fred Hiatt) said far fewer deaths, but Dana trots out the fact that deaths do occur. Hiatt says civilized world, and Dana says Europe, because we all know everyone hates Europe, am I right?

Yes, even saying these words makes the NRA happy. It fuels the slippery-slope argument the gun lobby uses to oppose even the most modest, common-sense reforms. You see? Background checks today, confiscation tomorrow.

Oregon had background checks and "modest common-sense reforms."

Yeah, and they were just implemented this year. And some gun shops and sheriffs offices are going against the law... call them safe havens for guns. Given time these reforms may be able to bring down gun violence like they already do in other states.

When I read this, I didn't think that Hiatt was coming for your guns, but showing the narrative that it doesn't matter what you do, they are going to think they are coming for your guns, I do understand he does ramp up the rhetoric later, however.

And yes, I understand how difficult it would be. This is a matter of changing the culture and norms of an entire society. It would take time.

Actually, just changing the Bill of Rights. Why stop there? The killer cited reckless media coverage for making previous murderers famous; maybe it's time we have a national conversation about common sense solutions to regulate media. 

Actually, Hiatt is looking long term at changing the minds of the people first, not the law.  Because trying to just change the law doesn't work, not with the big voices like the NRA and the little voices like Dana leading the charge against them. It's so smart, Dana seems to have missed it.

But the incremental approach is not succeeding. It sets increasingly modest goals, increasingly polite goals: close a loophole here, restrict a particularly lethal weapon there. Talk about gun safety and public health. Say “reform,” not “control.”

The author says the incremental approach to undoing the Bill of Rights isn't working, they need to go whole hog. Close a non-existent loophole here, restrict whatever weapon is black, has stuff on it, and looks shooty. Tell people that control is "reform." Punish the law-abiding for the deeds of the criminals. 

"The author" is actually saying stop pussy footing around and get shit done.  All the examples he quoted are the incremental approach, yet Dana's response clearly shows she thinks they are the "whole hog" approach.

Every time there is a mass shooting, gun-control advocates argue again for legislation. But almost every time, opponents can argue that this shooter wouldn't have been blocked from buying a gun, or that this gun would not have been on anyone’s banned list — and so why waste time (and political capital) on irrelevant restrictions?

FBI Director James Comey issued a public statement admitting the state and FBI "flawed" in not flagging murderer Dylann Roof. Yes, let's restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans for not only the deeds of criminals, but also because the background check people want expanded is horrifically flawed. Heaven forbid we spend time otherwise making sure that the people administering the law do so and that it's followed to full extent.

I love it when Dana trots out the argument that Dylann Roof was able to buy a gun because of a flawed background check system. A system that trips over itself to placate gun rights advocates like Dana, so killers who should not have had a gun shall purchase one. It is an argument that proves background checks need to be strengthened, not diminished.  Thanks for your work, Dana.

Modest restrictions can help and have helped. The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime.

Based on ... ? Doesn't seem to be working for Chicago, DC, Philly, NYC, etc. Maybe they're anomalies.

Chicago had a problem with guns long before they enacted GOAM last year. It's not like a flick of a switch will turn that light off. And looking at New York... maybe you don't want to talk about New York, Dana  Their murder rates are pretty low.

I am in shock or something, however, because I sort of agree with Dana on this one. It is a law with good intentions, but it doesn't seem to work, and is very likely not legal.

The gun-show loophole should be closed, and closing it would prevent some criminals from obtaining weapons. 

What "loophole?"

Um, Dana, I'll let YOU argue this one for me:

You may purchase a firearm from an occasional seller, not a dealer (differences matter) in your state of residence...

There... that's the loophole.  If you are a criminal this is a way around a background check, the barrier that has stopped many a  prohibited possessor from purchasing from gun stores. Who cares if it is illegal for a  prohibited possessor to buy the gun, let's stop him from getting it in the first place.

Punishing innocent Americans for the decisions of criminals is gun shaming and abhorrent.

Wow, I did not realize putting background checks into place was such a punishment. Although I have heard some gun owners say they would gladly jump through the extra hoops if it brings gun violence down.

As we've seen over the past 15 years with same-sex marriage, such deep cultural change is difficult — and possible. 

It's rich that the side which advocates for the "sanctity" of infanticide is concerned about loss of life elsewhere. 

Well, that escalated quickly. Infanticide, a definition is in order:

in·fan·ti·cide (inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/) noun

1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.

2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.

What Dana is talking about is of course, abortion. Which is not infanticide. Embryoicide? Zygoticide?  Maybe fetiscide? But not infanticide. Maybe we can procure some deep cultural change in this matter, too. But it won't be done by telling lies to make your side look better.

Don't whine about a "cultural change" while you push to mainstream pedophlia [sic] and black market baby organ sales. People aren't so stupid that they'll miss that massive disconnect.

Whine? Hey pot, the kettle is calling. And no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true that anyone is trying to mainstream the sale of "baby" organs and pedophilia.

Given how guns decimate poor black communities every day — not just when there are mass shootings, but every day — this is a civil rights issue. 

Oh, finally, eons down the article the author finally thinks of inner city gang crime. But it's not gang crime causing this, it's guns. If guns didn't exist there wouldn't be any gangs! Ever! Yes, gun rights are a civil rights issue. Anti-Second Amendment advocates constantly find themselves on the wrong side of it. 

Right here Dana picks on one point made in the Hiatt article, but leaves two others alone.  And I bring them up here because in their absence, they are even more significant:

Given how many small children shoot themselves or their siblings accidentally, it is a family issue. Given the suicides that could be prevented, it is a mental health issue. On average 55 Americans shoot themselves to death every day. Every day!

Why not these points, Dana? Did you not find any talking points that wouldn't make you come off as extremely insensitive and hypocritical?

There are strong arguments against setting a gun-free society as the goal, but there are 100,000 arguments in favor — that’s how many of us get shot every year. Every year 11,000 Americans are murdered. Every year some 20,000 kill themselves with guns.

The author would do well to learn how to read statistics and not cite the debunked Kellerman study (he refused to release his findings initially because he knew they were flawed; I also debunked him in my book)

You wrote a book. It was not the definitive book on the subject, and it was a rather flawed book at that. Although it is ballsy. Most people would tiptoe around Martin Luther King and the subject of guns.

But I digress, the Kellrerman study.  He found what he believed to be correlation between gun possession and gun assault. While his research was flawed, many have built on it and proven it right.

This isn't even close to what Hiatt is saying, he's just quoting statistics. Moving on:

Automobile accidents kill more people than guns. (See also drowning, bathtubs.) We should have a national conversation about common sense laws to restrict access to automobiles.

Automobiles not only don't kill people (people kill people, right?), they are designed to prevent the killing of people. Air bags, safety glass, seatbelts, etc. You don't see airbags on a gun, do you?

And oh the times are a changing. It won't be long when Dana won't be able to point to cars as bigger killers than guns. Not to mention that there are common sense laws that restrict access to automobiles. Drink and drive? Lose your license. Too many points? Lose your license. Nobody will insure you? You can't license your car. Can't pass a driver's test? Sorry, no license for you.

Well, you get the idea.

Maybe it’s time to start talking about the most logical way to save their lives.

None of what this author proposed would qualify as "logical." We should talk intelligently about enforcing current laws, strengthening the justice system and reducing the bureaucracy, and stopping gun shaming.

So the answer to what we see happening today is... nothing, let's stay the course because it seems to be working just fine. I think a definition for logical is in order, but my guess is Dana knows, or doesn't care. She's tossed out the red meat for the people who keep her paid and employed. Her job is done here.