shopify analytics ecommerce
American Sheepdog Online CCW Resource Magazine - The Brady spin machine
  • The Brady spin machine

    By Phillip Williams

    In the last 20 years, great progress has been made in allowing law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for protection. In recent years larger victories have been seen in SCOTUS decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment itself. This has, to say the least, been a heavy blow to the anti-gun crowd. All too often we hear their rebuttals and rants in the mainstream media reports; rarely do they offer an opposing view.

    Almost all states now have some form of carry laws in place to issue a license to carry a handgun openly, concealed or both. The general terms used are Shall Issue and May Issue regarding the type of licensing system they have.

    May Issue licensing system - also referred to as discretionary permit
    systems, allow legal authorities to grant licenses to carry concealed firearms to
    citizens who establish a compelling need for doing so.

    Shall Issue licensing system - also referred to as presumptive right-to-carry
    laws, require authorities to provide a license to any applicant who meets specified

    Florida was the first state to effectively develop a licensing system to allow its citizens to carry. Although their concealed carry bill began in the early 1980’s and the legislature passed it several times, Democratic Governor Bob Graham vetoed it. That is until 1987 when Republican Governor Bob Martinez signed it into law. Since then many states have modeled their carry bills based upon the Florida bill and the anti-gun crowds have told of the horror and tragedy that would occur. A very common phrase used is “It will be like the Wild West again, there will be shootouts on every corner” with added things like the streets turning red with blood. This has never happened and never will. The Brady Campaign (formerly likes to paint a picture of savage attacks and bloody battles between everyday Americans. They have great access to the media and share common goals. If a tragic shooting occurs, you can bet the network news media calls upon them first to add them to their story. Do they call the NRA for an opposing view? When a gun-control advocate gives false information and distorted facts in a TV interview, you will not hear a retraction. It fades away into oblivion and viewers that fail to investigate or think for themselves are left believing it as fact.

    A recent Blog on the Brady Campaign website caught my attention. The Blog centers around John Lott’s book; “More Guns = Less Crime”. The facts in the book cannot be discredited, but those for gun control always try to distort and confuse the facts. The following is quote is by one of the Brady Campaign bloggers. You can read the full Blog by clicking provided link in the quote.

    by Dennis Henigan on July 23rd, 2010 || You can view the full Blog HERE

    Apart from the statistics, the deterrence theory poses an interesting conundrum. If criminals are deterred by the prospect that their victim may be armed, how can we account for attacks by armed criminals against other armed criminals? Why do armed drug dealers have anything to fear from other armed drug dealers? Why do armed gangs have anything to fear from other armed gangs? Pro-gun researcher Gary Kleck of Florida State University reports that street gang members are over eight times more likely to own handguns than other youths, and nineteen times more likely to be homicide victims. Drug dealers are almost four times more likely to own a handgun and six times more likely to be homicide victims. Why doesn’t their gun possession deter attacks on these criminals? Surely it can’t be true that bad guys fear only armed good guys, but not other armed bad guys.

    The real problem with the deterrence theory is that it little to do with the real world. It has a tough time explaining, for example, what happened last Saturday in Lake Sammamish State Park near Seattle. A fistfight broke out between two groups of people with apparent gang affiliations, and ended in a gun battle in which two were killed and three others were wounded. It seems safe to assume that when the fistfight began, those present had reason to believe that some in the two groups were armed with guns. Yet the likely presence of guns did nothing to deter violence. The guns simply made the violence more lethal. What started as a fistfight ended up with two dead and three wounded (with the attendant public cost of treating the wounded).

    More guns means less crime only in the imaginary world of the “gun rights” movement as it tries to push us toward an America where there is nowhere to go to escape the guns – even into churches. The real world was last Saturday in that state park near Seattle.
    In an attempt to confuse readers about the fact that criminals do fear the prospect that their innocent victim could be armed, he tries to compare criminal vs. innocent victim to criminals vs. criminals. Let’s explore the difference between the two. When a gang member attacks a rival gang member, they expect them to be armed. Whether it’s over one gang disrespecting another, drugs or territory, they are going to attack one another regardless of them being armed. They don’t hold them at gun point to rob them and run away afterward, they kill them. Gangs don’t threaten to rob one another or give them bloody noses, they are prepared to kill. Why do gangs use “drive by’s” as a means of assault? They expect them to be armed and shoot back so they remain mobile to quickly get away. Let us not overlook the fact that these same criminals illegally arm themselves to protect themselves from other illegally armed criminals. The fact that criminals are already ignoring and breaking gun laws escapes them when they cry for more gun control laws. When a criminal engages with another criminal, they expect to be shot if they do not shoot first. The specific case the author speaks of near Seattle is a story of rival gangs crossing paths and doing what gang members do… they kill each other. There is a completely different circumstance in a pack-mentality such as the two gangs shooting it out after a fist fight as the author mentions. Being compelled to keep the respect of fellow members and acquaintances, or flat out self-defense is a factor. Though they are criminals, illegally armed and placing themselves in situations and a lifestyle that could kill them, self-defense is human nature and they will use anything to do so. Whether it’s a gun, knife or claw hammer, they will fight back! I respectfully submit that it is not “gang savvy” for a member to pack a claw hammer and have respect from their friends…

    Would a lone gang member try to carjack a known rival gang member knowing they are armed? Only if they could approach and shoot before the other could defend their self. Picture this scene, a gang member approaches a known rival knowing that he is armed and pulls out a gun and says “Give me your wallet and all your jewelry!” Does that seem likely? Armed criminals do not attack other armed criminals as a normal armed robbery, carjacking or rape. The motivation is completely different. They attack and kill for respect, drugs, drug territory and revenge. Do they fear each other? Absolutely!

    In the matter of criminals attacking innocent victims, criminals are wolves that prey on the weak. There is a selection involved and they will avoid attacking anyone they fear as being able to resist enough to cause harm to them unless they are in absolute desperation. They observe and strike when they find the easy target. If the choice is between a man walking with his head up, confident and observing his environment and another who is walking with his head down, failing to make eye contact and oblivious to their environment, a criminal will choose the lesser threat in the oblivious citizen. Picture a woman walking to her car in the mall parking lot, chatting on a cell phone unaware of any potential threats. Now picture a woman in the same situation, scanning the parking lot and walking with her hand in her purse, if you were a criminal, which would you choose to attack? Who is most likely armed?

    Another comment made in the Blog regards states passing pro-carry laws to allow citizens to carry firearms in church. He refers to guns in churches as a bad thing, well I agree that guns in churches is a bad thing only because we have reached a point where carrying in church is needed. He made no mention of the countless shootings in churches across the nation. Google “church shootings” for yourself and see the results. Criminals and deranged gunmen often seek venues where their victims are less likely to be armed, like churches, schools and government buildings. Because criminals ignore and break the law, these “Gun Free Zones” are actually “Criminal Safe Zones.” They take advantage of this relative safety to kill as many people as they can, then take their own lives before the police can arrive and shoot back.

    I admit that the authors Blog on the Brady website is preaching to the choir with its followers just as this article is to the pro-carry crowd. The problem lies with the uninformed. Those that fail to think for themselves and believe the first point of view which most often comes from the message of the gun-control crowd and the drive-by media.

    I conclude with the following quote:

    "Remember that Jefferson told us that the Second Amendment would not be needed until they tried to abolish it. There are people who have that in mind right now. The personal ownership and usage of firearms is not a common aspect of today's culture worldwide. It is up to Americans - those who know what it means to be an American - to uphold the light of liberty in the face of those both here and elsewhere who would extinguish it. We see the hysterics who feel that the abolition of firearms would bring about major changes in the human psyche, and that crime would disappear. We cannot reason with these people because they are impervious to reason, but we can expose them to ridicule and frustrate their political clout. That is a job not just for the National Rifle Association, but for everyone. If you want to make a resolution for the coming century, resolve to do something in defense of liberty every day, and by liberty, of course, we mean true liberty - the right to keep and bear arms. Without that liberty all other liberties are meaningless."

    -Col. Jeff Cooper
    This article was originally published in blog: The Brady spin machine started by UGA
    Comments 2 Comments
    1. mmszbi's Avatar
      mmszbi -
      Phillip, I will continue to carry openly and concealed and let myself be the example that proves these idiots wrong! I harbor no ill will against anyone, but don't tread on me or mess with my family.
    1. Eccentric's Avatar
      Eccentric -
      As was said, Dennis Henigan is, in essence, comparing apples to oranges and totally dismissing the psychology involved.

      Gangs vs gangs is totally unrelated to the home invaders whether they are alone or traveling with companions. The home invader follows the path of least resistance and does not knowingly try to break in anywhere where they may be in jeopardy. I think car jackers fall into the same category in that they do not believe that ordinary people will offer resistance.

      Predators expect that most people (80% of the population?) to act like sheep and it does not generally occur to them that the sheep will act other than sheep do. I think that the sheepdog portion of the population does not fully register with them, yet.

      As the concealed carry laws are relatively new, so to speak, and the bloody streets have not materialized as more and more citizens are arming themselves, it will be interesting to see what happens over the long run in the types of crimes committed. If the trend continues as noted in Lott's book, and eventually all crime is greatly reduced, not just violent crime, I have to wonder what the sociopaths will come up with next as a source of income and in some cases, entertainment.

Important Site Information