More ChicagoFail

Chi-Town police superintendent Jody Weiss on violent criminals:

little could be done to prevent such attacks by people with little regard for human life.

"There's really no level of security you can put up that will prevent a person like that from attacking someone," he said.

So Chicago will simply continue to let law-abiding citizens become victims with no way of defending themselves.

This, Dear Readers, is call lunacy.

(h/t: Thirdpower)

VPC: Ignorant Public = Our Prime Target

In the VPC's "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America," the report says this about the public and assault weapons:

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons--anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun--can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

Look at that again, Dear Reader.

You are absolutely correct.

They're capitalizing on your ignorance of the subject.

The implicaton: "The public is too stupid to know the difference. Let's use that."

And you want to trust them?

I'd think again.

Assault Weapons = Scary!

Here's a great example of how the Brady Bunch uses scare tactics and the propaganda technique of transfer to push their agenda.

Follow along, Dear Reader, and I will illuminate you...

In the FAQs accompanying their report "Assault Weapons: Mass Produced Mayhem," they answer the question "What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic, military-style assault weapons?" and note

Opponents of banning assault weapons argue that these military-style weapons only “look” scary. Assault weapons look scary and are scary because they are equipped with combat hardware.

Observe the language: "look scary and are scary because".

The implication: looking scary = is scary

"Look scary" elicits an emotional reaction.

Emotion. Not fact.

Scare tactic.

They then follow with a list of the "combat hardware" and, if you'll look closely, they add language meant to scare you:

• "continously fire dozen of rounds without reloading"
• "maximum concealability and mobility in close combat"
• "shoot many rounds"
• "rapid fire"
• "allows an assassin to shoot without making noise"
• "accommodate a bayonet which allows someone to stab a person at close quarters in battle"

This is also prime example of the propaganda technique known as transfer or association. Notice that they include the terms "rapid fire" and "shoot many rounds" and associate those terms to semi-automatic assault weapon.

Implication: semi-automatic assault weapons are rapid fire and can shoot many rounds.

The next question asks for the difference between automatic and semi-automatic. The give the correct answer but continue to imply that semi-automatic weapons = automatic weapon.

Observe:

When San Jose, California police test-fired an UZI, a 30-round magazine was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semi-automatic.

Operative word here is UZI, and the thought process of the average person--that means you, Dear Reader--reading this goes, as follows:

Semi-automatic. UZI. We've seen UZIs on TV. They fire like machineguns. Therfore an UZI must be a semi-automatic because they're using it as an example so that means semi-automatic weapons fire just like a machinegun!

Victory. They've duped the reader.

They've duped you.

NRA Arming Felons! ZOMG!

Today we look at a VPC report titled "Guns for Felons: How the NRA Works to Rearm Criminals."

Let's cut to the chase.

Do they (i.e., the NRA) rearm felons?

No.

The report is nothing but the classic case of fitting evidence to achieve a particular result and discarding evidence that doesn't fit.

Says the report:

The NRA has worked to expand and protect this guns-for-felons program that has rearmed thousands of convicted—and often violent—felons.

But it gives no citation for the claim of "thousands."

Furthermore, there is no source given to show that the NRA has actually rearmed criminals.

Unless one assumes the NRA has rearmed criminals simply by supporting certain pieces of legislation.

Look closely. There's a scare tactic employed here.

Rearmed felon = felon who will shoot and kill and cause gun-related mayhem.

Unfortunately, none of the examples provided actually show an armed felon, i.e. one who will shoot and kill and cause gun-related mayhem.

Let's face it. The report is a sham.

Need more examples?

Okay. Here's another one.

Under the sub-heading "Examples of Felons Granted 'Relief' in 1989 for Convictions that Included the Use of Firearms or Violations of Gun Laws" we get a list of four examples, starting with one that reads: "Firearms Violation–Illegal Sale of an NFA Weapon, Machine Gun."

Why start with that one?

Because it's scary. Look. It says "Machine Gun."

But if you actually read the example you'll find the following:

In his recommendation the investigating agent noted, "During this investigation, the law enforcement community and a few neighbors expressed great concern [regarding Williams'] being granted 'relief,' however, no documentable reasons for denying him his 'relief' were produced. Because of this lack of documentation, I have no choice but to recommend that [he be] granted 'relief.' "

Read that again.

If you scan back, you'll notice the sub-heading is in bold letters, and the heading of the first example is underlined. That's so you'll look only there and disregard the "large block of text, must be boring to read, probably just supports the bolded sub-heading and the heading of the example."

Subtle misdirection.

Here's another.

The report says the VPC obtained

100 randomly selected files of felons granted "relief." Among those 100 cases were: five convictions for felony sexual assault; 11 burglary convictions; 13 convictions for distribution of narcotics; and, four homicide convictions. In fact, of the 100 sample cases, one third involved either violent crimes (16 percent) or drug-related crimes (17 percent).[Italics theirs]

Tallying the list given above, we get 33 cases that involved either violent or drug-related crimes. 33 percent, as mentioned.

Which means that 67 cases of felons granted "relief" did not involve either violent or drug-related crimes.

Notice how they conveniently leave that bit out.

Notice in this example how they italicized the bit about one-third of the sample cases. It's meant to draw your attention to that and to that alone and gives it the air of importance and authority.

But it's just lying with statistics.

Yup. Total sham.