Dan Wos: Have You Been MISLED By Gun "Facts?"

In response to the Sunday Gazette (Schenectady, NY) Opinion article, “Are Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolutions Wise?” dated 12/22/2019, I was compelled to set the record straight and correct the inaccuracies of an Anti-Gun Lobbyist.

 As an author on the topic of anti-gun strategies and the tactics used by the gun-grabbers to corrupt the gun narrative, I thought the article in the Gazette needed a reality check. The article was presented as a Pro and Con debate, however, the Con (anti-gun) side of the debate by Chelsea Parsons, (Vice President for Gun-Violence Prevention at the Center for American Progress in Washington) was riddled with inaccuracies and falsehoods.

Chelsea starts off by declaring that 2^nd Amendment Sanctuaries “undermine these crucial [gun] laws by tacitly (or in some cases explicitly) encouraging residents to violate them.”

You would think that in an attempt to at least appear fair amidst the support of illegal immigrant sanctuaries in some political circles, the anti-gun crowd would also support 2A sanctuaries. Nope. They hope you don’t compare their support of one and disdain for the other, as it would show their political bias and reveal the stark differences between the two. Sanctuaries for illegal immigrants violate federal law in an attempt to undermine the constitution and pander to a growing group of new potential voters, while 2^nd amendment sanctuaries are created to uphold the constitution and defend it against state legislators who violate the God-given rights of their citizens. 2A sanctuaries are an attempt at correcting the burdensome, dangerous and corrupt laws some states force on their people.

During her attempt to defend Extreme Risk Protection Orders aka: Red Flag Laws, Chelsea says they are “designed to prevent shootings by addressing different aspects of the ‘gun-violence’ problem,” but she fails to mention that these state-authorized gun-confiscations have never proven to do so, and they violate the due-process rights of lawful gun-owners. Red Flag Laws can be enforced on lawful citizens with as little as an anonymous accusation from an acquaintance (a violation of the 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th and 6^th amendments.) Good people have lost their lives because of these dangerous laws. Here’s an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8soz-w2dX78

Throughout the article, Chelsea references the term “public safety.” This commonly used fear tactic is aimed at those who have already been convinced to fear guns. In typical anti-gun fashion, Chelsea claims that by not having universal background checks, we are “…potentially putting the community at risk for future violence.” This has been debunked time and time again, most notably via a DOJ study that proved over 90% of criminals in jail avoid firearms background checks altogether. The anti-gun crowd continues to ignore this study in the hopes that the implementation of a “universal background check” law will give them the gun-owner data-base they so desperately want. They understand that “universal background checks” will only reduce gun-ownership among law-abiding citizens and will do nothing to reduce violence but they leverage the fear of the “community” to gain support for them anyway.

When referring to the infamous anti-gun lobbying group Everytown, Chelsea said, “Research by Everytown for Gun Safety found that in more than half of mass shootings between 2009 and 2018, the perpetrator shot an intimate partner as part of the attack.”

There is an underlying strategy among the anti-gun crowd to instill fear in people who live with gun-owners. This type of subtle implication is heinous in the way it scares people and encourages them to distance themselves from loved ones who own guns. It is fueled purely on an irrational fear of guns and often aimed at female spouses or partners of gun owners. Rather than empowering women with firearms training so they can protect themselves, the prominently left-wing anti-gun crowd chooses to scare women into unarmed helplessness by cultivating an irrational fear of guns.

Quoting from another Everytown “analysis,” Chelsea said, “Stunningly, an Everytown analysis found that there have been at least 193 unintentional shootings by children so far in 2019.”

This “Toddler and the Gun” strategy is designed to help the reader envision cute little diaper-bottomed babies getting ahold of loaded guns that are irresponsibly left loaded and laying around the house. The truth is, this hardly ever happens. The “children” used for studies like this can be anyone under the age of eighteen and may include robberies, gang or drug-related incidents. When the word “children” is used, what do you envision? That’s the idea.

Chelsea also said that strong gun laws will keep communities safe from so called “gun-violence,” (“human-violence” would be more appropriate but that doesn’t help the gun-control agenda.) Chelsea says, “With 100 people dying by gunfire every day, nothing could be more important.”

What Chelsea doesn’t tell the reader is:

It is always important to get both sides of the gun story, as the Anti-Gunners continue to skew the data, use fear tactics and mislead readers in an attempt to gain more support for their politically-driven cause.