Boston Globe Readers Misled About Guns

An anti-gun opinion piece from John Rosenthal, co-founder of such prohibitionist groups as Stop Handgun Violence and American Hunters and Shooters Association, isn’t surprising, but we wish the Boston Globe’s op-ed editors had caught at least some of the inaccuracies in “A Chance for Sensible Gun Laws” before it reached print. Here is NSSF’s response to this misleading column:

To The Editor:
 
“Sensible” dialog on any topic begins with a factually accurate statement of the situation. In this, John Rosenthal (“A Chance for Sensible Gun Laws, Nov. 27) falls short, to the point of misleading your readers on the emotional topic of gun control.
 
He states that there is an “unrestricted access to guns,” ignoring the over 20,000 federal, state and local gun control laws on the books. Indeed, firearms are the only consumer product which, nationwide, require either an FBI or state police clearance after an electronic criminal records background check before anyone can buy a firearm at retail.
 
And his statement that “Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont do not require background checks” is just plain wrong. Federal Law has required background checks for all retail sales in every state for 15 years.
 
He claims that “gun violence has risen steadily,” yet he cites a 22- percent decrease in gun-related homicides in Boston. During the last 15 years, homicides involving firearms have decreased by 32 percent, and assaults with firearms decreased by 33 percent—despite increases in firearms ownership.
 
America is not “the gun violence capital of the world,” as Rosenthal states, and law enforcement has full access to firearms trace data as a part of law enforcement investigations; again, not what he avers.
 
Honest citizens certainly can and do disagree about the need for, and the effectiveness of, even more gun laws than we already have. But we all have a responsibility to study this complex issue in light of facts, not fears.

Mr. Rosenthal has been misleading Greater Boston residents for a long time about firearms, mainly through the use of a billboard spouting anti-gun messages that sits prominently on the Massachusetts Turnpike just outside of Boston.

Comments

[Bruce]

Fortunately, Rosenthal got completely schooled in the comments to his steaming pile of poopaganda.

Here's my post with links (I'm RKBA_in_MA in the Boston Globe comment pages).

http://tinyurl.com/5h4re4

- Bruce

[Becca Knox]

NSSF's letter points out that during the last 15 years, homicides involving firearms have decreased by 32 percent, and assaults with firearms decreased by 33 percent—despite increases in firearms ownership.

This happens to be the same fifteen years during which the Brady law has been in effect. Before the Brady law, gun crimes were rising sharply; after the Brady law, they plummeted.

The Brady law contributed to this decline by blocking more than 1.6 million dangerous purchases at licensed gun dealers including attempts to purchase by an estimated 842,000 convicted felons, 236,000 domestic abusers and 68,000 fugitives from justice. (See: http://www.bradycampaign.org/#bradylaw15year).

[Seamus]

Becca

You should read up on the difference between cause and effect vs a mere association. The the Brady Act was in place during the decline does not prove it caused the decline. If it rains when I wear my blue shirt does not prove wearing that shirt causes it to rain. You also are aware I'm sure that the CDC study (Oct 2003) was unable to proof background checks reduce crime.