The Trace: Experts Say Cash for Guns Dont' Work

There's an old saying that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then.  That could apply to Michael Bloomberg's online anti-gun news outlet posting this story last weekend on how compensated confiscation (so-called gun buybacks) schemes are a waste of money:

In news reports about the buyback event, Tampa police stressed the impact the buyback would have on preventing crime in the future. In the words of Janelle McGregor, a spokesperson for the department, “That’s 521 firearms that will now be destroyed and never get into the hands of a criminal.”

That kind of endorsement is common from law enforcement officials, yet it runs counter to the facts: There’s no evidence that gun buybacks actually curb gun violence. Though the events have become ubiquitous in the U.S. since the ’90s, they’re coupled with a number of academic studies that pointedly demonstrate the ways that buybacks fail to reduce crime. “[Studies show that] the guns you get back are nonfunctioning, that we’re paying money and we’re not getting real benefits,” Ralph Fascitelli, the president of Washington CeaseFire, a Seattle-based gun safety organization, tells The Trace. “They’re just feel-good things that don’t do much real good.”

That's quite an admission for a gun ban group.  If a gun ban advocate can admit such schemes have no impact on crime, you would think police chiefs who push for compensated confiscation events would find a better use of taxpayer money.  According to one policy advisor, most police chiefs who push "buy backs" know they don't reduce crime:

“Experienced police officers will have a sense that [gun buybacks] are likely to be of marginal value,” says Michael Scott, director of the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing. “I think that’s safe to say that the primary function of a gun buyback program is to do something symbolic.”

So, what does work?  Scott recommends more effective efforts to reduce crime like Boston's “focused deterrence” - a strategy developed by John Jay College criminologist David Kennedy, that requires coordination between law enforcement and social-service providers to objectively identify the most dangerous offenders in a community, and make an effort to routinely check those individuals for firearms.

Second Amendment Advances in the States

Over on the Volokh Conspiracy, Dave Kopel runs down a comprehensive list of bills passed in state legislatures in 2015.  His list includes both pro-gun and pro-hunting bills.

Everytown Announces New Ad Campaign Targeting "Background Check Loophole"

The Hill has the story here.

“It’s time for Congress to take action and close the NRA-backed loophole that allows people like the Charleston shooter to obtain a gun without a complete background check,” John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, said in a statement.

Never mind the fact it was apparently the FBI that dropped the ball.  It would seem that in this digital age that three days would be more than enough time to complete the background check. 

Just more proof that every law supported by the gun ban lobby that includes provisions they did not oppose at the time it was passed ends up being a "loophole" when they want further restrictions on our rights.

Glock 43 NRA's Gun of the Week, VSSA Annual Raffle 1st Prize

Today, on the American Rifleman web site, NRA named the Glock 43 the Gun of the Week.  It will also be this year's 1st Prize in the VSSA Annual Raffle that coincides with the VSSA Annual Meeting.  Members will receive more information about this great prize when they receive their Annual Meeting mailing but be on the look out for your chance to win this great firearm.

Firearms is the Issue Hillary Backers Choose to Sink Bernie

It's been said before that Bernie Sanders is no friend to gun owners, having voted to criminalize private sales of firearms and for a ban on modern sporting rifles in 2013.  But because he voted for the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and is not willing to go along with every gun control scheme with no questions asked, his is not pure enough for those on the left who strongly support taking away our rights.
Sanders continues to be hammered on the issue.  Late last week, the Christian Science Monitor had a post on it's web site by Matthew Dickinson, a blogger and professor of political science at Middlebury College, titled "Bernie Sanders Gun Control Record Gives Hillary Clinton an Opening":

And while it certainly does not represent a shift in presidential politics (contrary to this Washington Post article), Hillary Clinton has been sure to include a reference to strengthening gun control laws in her stump speech, albeit without mentioning Bernie by name.

Dickinson refers to Sanders' position on the issue as "ambivalent" several times.  The piece also brought out the fact that it's not just Clinton's supporters who think Sanders is vulnerable on the gun issue.  The same article linked back to a previous post by Dickinson that included a link to an ad paid for by a superpac supporting Martin O'Malley:
There is one Democrat who is much more pro-rights than Sanders, but that candidate (Jim Webb) gets no attention for his position because he is no threat to Clinton.  The fact that Bernie is getting so much attention must be an indication that he at least has taken away the sense of coronation that once surrounded Clinton.

Did the New York Times Really Expect Scott Walker to Bring Up Gun Control in South Carolina?

Patrick Healy wrote on the New York Times' First Draft blog:

Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, in his first visit to South Carolina since nine people died in the church shootings, chose to address the massacre by praising the people of the Charleston region for their unity rather than discussing the gun control issues or the Confederate battle flag debate that arose afterward.

First Draft bills itself as a "fast-paced and comprehensive coverage of politics and elections by The New York Times. Come back throughout the day for the latest news and analysis, and be part of the political conversation."  Walker rightly chose to talk about what everyone should take away from the shooting - that in times of tragedy, good people come together and support each other. 

It's the left and the gun ban lobby that try to take advantage of such incidents to push an agenda.

Apply for 2015-2016 DGIF Quota Hunts

From the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries:

Apply for the 2015-2016 Quota Hunts Online!

Applications are being accepted NOW!

The website for the 2015-2016 Virginia Quota Hunts is the best way to apply for some of Virginia's best hunt opportunities. It's fast and easy! All you need is a valid email address.

Once you create a VA Quota Hunts online account, you can:

• Apply for a variety of quota hunts
• Pay using a credit or debit card (we also accept check and money order)
• Check the status of the hunts you applied for,
• And if you win a hunt, download all the necessary documents and permits.
• Pay your permit/refuge fees online. (This applies to hunts 206, 207, 208, 210, 501, & 701 only.)

Apply for Quota Hunts today! www.vaquotahunts.com

NEW for 2015-2016!

TWO HUNTS added...

• 113 – Game Farm Marsh (WMA) Waterfowl Hunt - Hunting on the opening day of each of the three segments of the regular duck hunting season and first Saturday of the October segment on Game Farm Marsh WMA in New Kent County is now by Quota Hunt drawing.
  
• 608 – Chickahominy WMA Dove Hunt - Hunt managed dove fields on the Chickahominy wildlife management area in Charles City County.

New APPLICATION DEADLINE!

• 211 – Radford Army Ammunition Plant Deer Hunts – Application DUE JULY 31!
  Please be aware, the application due date the 2015 Radford Army Ammunitions Plant Deer Hunt has been moved to an earlier date. Your application must be received by Friday July 31, 2015! The required background checks take a long time to process and we don't want you to miss out on your chance to participate in Virginia's premier deer hunt!

More features...

• Radford Deer Hunt (RAAP, #211) Paperwork Tracker!
  Our most popular deer hunt also has the tightest deadlines for submitting paperwork and hunt fees. If you apply and are selected for the Radford Deer Hunt, your status screen (the first screen you see after logging in) will show you if and when your payment, criminal history/background check, and shotgun serial number form have been received.
  
• Pay Permit Fees Online - If you win a hunt and are required to pay an additional permit or refuge fee, you can now do so ONLINE with a credit or debit card for hunts 206, 207, 208, 210, and 501. You'll be able to immediately download your hunting permit.
  
• Text Messaging - If you indicate on the online application that you want alerts sent to your cell phone, we'll send you a text message as soon as the hunt drawing results are made public. You'll also get a text message if there is a change or update to a hunt you've won (such as extended hunting days or hunting area inaccessibility due to inclement weather.)


• Connect to Facebook - "Like" the VA Quota Hunts page on Facebook and receive alerts via your Facebook account.

About

Quota hunts provide hunters unique opportunities to access public lands that otherwise may be closed to hunting (such as our most popular hunt, the Radford Army Ammunitions Plant Deer Hunt.) Hunters can participate in random drawings to hunt waterfowl, white-tailed deer, black bear, quail, rabbits, turkeys, and feral hogs.

For rules and regulations, or for a complete list of hunts including ones new for the 2015-2016 season, consult the Virginia Hunting Guide or visit http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/hunting/quotahunts/

No Surprise - Justice Department Finds No Proof of Targeting Gun Shops in Operation Choke Point

The Daily Signal reports that a U.S. Justice Department Investigation has found the department did not deliberately target firearm and ammunition manufacturers and retailers with Operation Choke Point:

“Based on the results of this inquiry, [the Office of Professional Responsibility] concluded that Department of Justice attorneys involved in Operation Choke Point did not engage in professional misconduct,” wrote Deputy Counsel G. Bradley Weinsheimer, in the report issued July 7.

The investigation did, however, find evidence that Justice Department employees “seem to disparage payday lending practices” and were “clearly pleased” by the effect Operation Choke Point was having on the payday lending industry.

Kind of looks like the fox guarding the hen house.  The congressman (Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo) who requested the investigation is having none of it however:

Luetkemeyer said the Office of Professional Responsibility “blew off” what was the intent of his request, “which was to investigate those people whose actions were illegal and inappropriate.”

Luethemeyer this is not going to go a way and promised to keep pushing to get the answers.

Yes, People Do Use Guns for Self Defense

The gun ban advocates tout a recent study that claims owning a gun does not make you safer.   While that study has already been debunked, it is far more convincing to hear from someone who did fear for her life and turned to buying a firearm and training to use it for the purpose of protecting her life.   This morning, actress Kelly Carlson appeared on Fox News to talk a little about her experience and how she turned to the NRA for help, as well as promoting her appearance on the Outdoor Channel's NRA All Access airing tonight.

Here is a preview of the NRA All Access segment.

Update:Carlson spoke more in-depth with Cam Edwards about her experience during Wednesday's NRANews program.

Everytown Making Things Up on Background Checks

Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety has gone on the attack against Cabela's, the retailer where the racist murderer who shot nine people in a Charleston Church last month bought his gun.  Last Friday, the FBI admitted it was it's error that allowed the sale to be completed.  So, you might ask, why is Everytown going after Cabela's.  Because of what they are now calling and "NRA backed loophole in the law" that allows someone to take possession of their firearm is the retailer has not received a NICS rejection of the transaction within three days.   This from Guns.com:

This has former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety and the affiliated Moms Demand Action pushing a large national firearms retailer to close what they are calling, “The Charleston Loophole.”

Both groups are mounting a social media campaign asking the Nebraska-based Cabela’s to halt allowing guns to transfer with a delay status unresolved after the three day period. With some 60 stores and a large direct marketing arm, Cabela’s had more than $3 billion in revenue in 2014.

“Retailers have the right — and responsibility — to delay a gun sale until a background check is completed,” reads a post from Everytown. “But Cabela’s, one of the largest gun retailers in the country, will sell to anyone after three business days, even without a completed background check.”

Here are the facts about background checks:

When a delay response is received, this indicates that information supplied on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Form 4473 has been matched with information contained in the National Crime Information Center, the Interstate Identification Index, and/or the NICS Index. Complete information is not always available and a further review of these records is necessary. The NICS exhausts all efforts to retrieve current record information by contacting law enforcement agencies, i.e., local, state, federal, courts, etc. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 allows three business days to obtain this information prior to the transfer of the firearm. The Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) is not prohibited from transferring the firearm after three business days have passed; however, the FFL is not required to transfer the firearm.

But facts never get in the way of Bloomberg's minions when it comes to exploiting a tragedy.  Katie Pavlich wrote about this at Townhall.com and spoke about the article and Everytown's false claims on NRANews.com.

Gunsite Coming to Colonial Shooting Academy

The Outdoor Wire carried the story this morning:

The collaboration between Colonial and Gunsite will bring Gunsite classes like the popular 250 Defensive Pistol course to Colonial Shooting Academy's indoor tactical range and indoor shoot house starting in September, 2015. The 250 Defensive Pistol Course was first presented in 1976 by Colonel Jeff Cooper and is one of the most sought after firearms classes in the country. Suitable for shooters of all experience levels, the 250 Defensive Pistol Course is designed to achieve gun handling confidence & competence, includes 5 days of range work, lectures & intensive live-fire simulators, including low-light scenarios.

You can get more information about the classes here.

New Crime Prevention Research Study Finds 12.8 Million Concealed Carry Permit Holders

CPRC has the story here.  The study notes that the number of concealed handgun permits is increasing at an ever- increasing rate with a 15.4% increase in just one single year. Slightly over five percent of the total adult population has a permit, five states now have more than 10% of their adult population with concealed handgun permits and ten states no longer require a permit to carry in all or virtually all of the state. According to the study, this is a major reason why legal carrying handguns is growing faster than the number of permits.  Also of note, since 2007, permits for women have increased by 270% and for men by156%.  The study also found some evidence suggesting that permit holding by minorities is increasing more than twice as fast as for whites. Yet the gun ban lobby tells us that gun ownership continues to decline and that minorities don't support the right of self-defense.

Washington Post Says FBI Background Check Failure Provides Good Argument for Expanding Background Checks

The Washington Post web site carried this editorial last night around 6:00 stating that the FBI's admission it failed to stop the Charleston church shooter from getting a gun provides an argument for "tightened" background checks.

Mr. Comey’s admission should also drive home what should be an obvious point: A tightened, functional background-check system and other simple measures would erect real and practical barriers to people attempting to buy guns for nefarious purposes. If the system had worked correctly in this case, Mr. Roof would have been turned away at the gun store counter. If Congress had tightened up the system’s rules years ago, he would have had a harder time looking elsewhere, such as at gun shows. If federal and state lawmakers weren’t so in thrall to the pro-gun fringe, friends, family members and other potential sources would have faced clear and high penalties for giving Mr. Roof a weapon without taking him to a gun store to get checked out first.

It’s entirely appropriate to talk about imposing basic gun laws in the wake of any mass shooting. All of them underline the fact that guns are shockingly efficient killing machines that no responsible government would ignore. Even if better gun laws wouldn’t prevent every rampage or end street crime, they would certainly cut down on gun deaths from all sorts of causes by making it tougher to obtain and use firearms illegally.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has been urging congress to "Fix NICS" for years.

And the U.S. Department of Justice offered grants to states since 2013 so that they can get their records on prohibited persons more up-to-date.  And yet the FBI still can't get it right.  So, it is a little hard to follow the Post's logic on how this paperwork failure is proof that running more background checks through the system will stop incidents like the one in Charleston from occurring.

Dr. John Lott noted on the Daily Caller on Friday that even if the shooter had failed the background check, due to the fact that he had been planning the attack for six months, he would likely have done what most other criminals do, get a firearm through an illegal source.  Lott also noted that the larger problem is the fact that like any database involving names, there will always be incorrect information:

This is the same problem experienced with the “No Fly” list. Remember the five times that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy was “initially denied” flights because his name was on the anti-terror “no fly” list? His name was just too similar to someone that we really did want to keep from flying. By Obama’s method of counting, that means the “no fly” list stopped five flights by terrorists.

For gun purchases, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives dropped over 94 percent of “initial denials” after just the first preliminary review. The annual National Instant Criminal Background Check System report explains that these cases were dropped either because the additional information showed that the wrong people had been stopped or because the covered offenses were so many decades old that the government decided not to prosecute. At least a fifth of the remaining 6 percent were still false positives.

If anything, the FBI's failure in this case is proof why so-called "universal background" checks won't do anything to deter crime.  The only thing it will do is make people who want to sell a firearm from their personal collection a criminal if they don't abide by this registration scheme.

Washington Post Blogger Encourages Hillary to Keep Talking About Gun Control

What a difference between 2008 and 2016..  During 2008, Hillary Clinton rarely talked about gun control during her campaign for the Democratic nomination.  Democrats did not want to talk about guns in congressional elections either in 2010 and 2012.  That all changed after the Sandy Hook school shooting.  The Charleston church shooting gave them even more resolve.  Hillary Clinton doesn't shy away from the subject.


On Friday, the Washington Post Plum Line blog's Paul Waldman encouraged her to keep talking about it, even though she is unlikely to get anything passed if she is elected:

Let’s address the matter of the gun issue’s political potency first. As is the case on so many issues, the Republican position is more popular when the questions are vague, while the Democratic position is more popular when the questions are specific. If you look at polling on guns, what you see is that the country is split pretty evenly on the broad question of whether gun laws should be more strict or less strict. But particular measures to regulate guns get much more support, especially universal background checks, which as many as nine out of ten Americans endorse.

At some point in this discussion, someone will always say: “But what about the NRA? They’re so powerful!” The NRA’s power is real in some ways and illusory in others, and it’s important to understand which is which. When it comes to lobbying, the NRA is indeed hugely powerful. It has the ability to stop any legislation on guns, often before it even gets written. But elections are an entirely different story. Almost all the congressional candidates who win the NRA’s supposedly coveted endorsement are Republican incumbents from conservative districts who win their elections by huge margins. When Republicans have a good election, as they did in 2014 and 2010, the NRA rushes to reporters to claim credit, saying the election proves that voters will punish any candidate who isn’t pro-gun. But when Democrats have a good election, as they did in 2012 and 2008, the NRA is strangely silent.

Waldman also trots out the gun ban lobby's talking point that gun ownership has steadily declined since the 1970's, inferring that sooner or later, there won't be enough gun owners to matter.  Waldman links to a New York Times article that sites the General Social Survey (GSS) for it's source to back up the claim of declining gun ownership.  But other surveys show very different data related to gun ownership. The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) has pointed out:

...the GSS survey shows a large drop that you don’t see in many other surveys.  According to Gallup, in October 2011, they wrote: “At 47%, reported gun ownership is the highest it has been in nearly two decades — a finding that may be related to Americans’ dampened support for gun-control laws.”

CRPC notes that a more accurate way is to look at the number of firearm permits year over year.  While few states require licensing of gun owners, Illinois requires a Firearms Owner ID or FOID card to own a firearm.  If the number of cards increase, it stands to follow that is because there are new gun owners who have applied for those cards.  You can also look at the number of concealed carry permits:

The number of concealed handgun permits also provide some information, with the number of permits increasing from about 4.6 million in 2007 to well over 9.3 million at the beginning of 2013.

All you have to do is talk to firearm instructors to know that all those new firearm purchases were not made by current gun owners.  It simply does not make since that someone who has owned firearms for years would all of a sudden start signing up for firearms training classes.  Ask any firearms instructor and they will tell you they see a lot of first time gun owners in their classes.  Now if we could just get them all to vote to protect their freedom.

But to Waldman's larger point that Hillary should continue to talk about the issue, let's hope gun owners see the real threat of another four years of an anti-rights Democrat in the White House and will do what it takes to see it does not happen.

Bernie Sanders Defends Vote for Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

Bernie Sanders is not what I would consider pro-gun but he is the closest thing you can find among national Democrats.  Thursday, while appearing at a policy forum in Arlington, VA, he was challenged on his vote by a local member of Moms Demand.

Saunders is not the type of candidate I would want in the White House and there is a lot to dislike in that answer (like the need for different gun laws in urban America and rural America) but I do have to at least give him credit for not backing away from his vote in favor of the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act..

Hat tip to The Blaze.

Shooting Sports is Hot New Sport for High Schools

Bloomberg Business has the story here.  I bet you did not know that the Minnesota State High School Clay Target League championship is the world's largest shooting sports event.

In 2009, the contest’s first year, it drew 30 shooters. In June there were 5,134, more than 20,000 spectators and sponsors including Benelli Armi SpA and SKB Shotguns. Trap shooting is the fastest-growing sport in Minnesota high schools, and was recently introduced in neighboring Wisconsin and North Dakota. While it may make anti-gun activists uneasy, it’s a boon for manufacturers and retailers that have stoked its growth.

According to the article, Trap Shooting is the fastest growing sport in Minnesota high schools.  One proud grandfather told the reporter after watching his grandson shoot:

“This is the best thing to happen to the shooting sports in 50 years,” said Dennis Knudson, a 74-year-old lifelong trap shooter, after watching his grandson compete. “It’s so fun to see the youngsters stepping up. It will preserve the sport, and they’ll do it for the rest of their lives.”

The article noted that in 2015, 9,245 students in Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota participated in the sport.  In fact, trap is so popular in Minnesota that the legislature appropriated $2 million for the expansion of shooting ranges where the teams compete. Next year, schools in Arizona, South Dakota, Illinois and Kansas will have teams. Additionally, middle school students can also join high-school squads.

It's a very positive article and worth the read.

Hat tip to VSSA Executive Director Lu Charette for passing it along.

Blacks and Guns

Gun control has a racist past.  Some of the laws that still exist, like the one in North Carolina requiring a potential handgun purchaser to get the chief law enforcement officer in their locality to sign off on a permit to purchase a handgun were originally passed to make it harder for Blacks to purchase firearms.  More recently, Mike Bloomberg made comments in February regarding getting guns out of the hands of young blacks that had it been made by a conservative Republican would have been all but crucified. But because it was Bloomberg, it barely made news.

“It’s controversial but, first thing is all of your, 95 percent, 95 percent of your murders and murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take the description and Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male minorities 15 to 25. That’s true in New York, it’s true in virtually every city in America. And that’s where the real crime is. You’ve got to get the guns out of the hands of the people that are getting killed.”

NRA Commentator Colion Noir addresses such thinking in a new video titled Black People Can Think Too.  In the video, Noir states:

This race-baiting rhetoric is a disgusting attempt to take advantage of certain sensitivities. Yes, the inner cities’ young black men kill each other at an embarrassingly high rate, but instead of addressing the real issue, anti-gun politicians and the mainstream media would rather exploit the symptoms because there’s no money in the cure.

Take a look at the full video.


Update: Ater this was posted on Wednesday, Noir appeared on NRANews to talk more in depth about the video.

Another Anti-Gun "More Guns Equal More Crime" Study

Tuesday, Live Science touted a new study by Harvard Injury Control Research Center Director David Hemenway and fellow researchers Michael Monuteaux, Lois K. Lee, Rebekah Mannix, and Eric W. Fleegler that makes the claim that guns don't deter crime:

"We found no support for the hypothesis that owning more guns leads to a drop or a reduction in violent crime," said study researcher Michael Monuteaux, an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. "Instead, we found the opposite."

The Crime Prevention Research Center got a copy and found that the study did not test the theory that it claims to have studied.  CPRC notes that the study doesn't test whether increased gun ownership causes crime rates to increase, and is "far too simplistic and doesn’t include even the basic control variables that are typically included in other crime studies."

Here is a simple example.  Many people point to the fact that the UK has both a lower homicide and gun ownership rate than the United States.  The claim is often made then that the reason that they have a lower homicide rate is because they have fewer guns.  However, this ignores the fact that the UK homicide rate actually went up after their 1997 handgun ban or after their other very strict earlier gun control regulations.  The UK homicide rate still remained low relative to the US, but it was higher than it otherwise would have been.

The point here is simple: there are lots of reasons why the UK homicide rate was lower than that in the US before they even had gun control.  The question that needs to be asked is how the UK homicide rate changed relative to that in the US after its gun control regulations went into effect.  To do this, you have to control for the fact that the UK had a much lower homicide rate to begin with.  Statistically you do that by having what are called geographic “fixed effects” (dummy variables that pick up the average difference in each jurisdiction that you are examining).  Any test would also do the same thing by year so as to account for any national trends in crime rates.  So, for example, crime might have been falling nationally, but was it falling relatively more in those states that were getting more gun ownership.

And that's not all.  Anti-rights researchers tend to cherry pick the data they use to prove their hypothesis and this study is no different:

The controls that are being used in this paper can’t begin to account for the differences in crime rates.  The regression estimates reported in Table 2 don’t tell what percent of the variation in crime rates are being explained by the variables used in these regressions, but I am willing to bet that it is less than 10 percent.

Yet, this paper in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine doesn’t account for either of these factors.  It is essentially making a purely cross-sectional comparison across states.  On account of that, if they had included Washington, DC in their estimates (with its high crime rates and low gun ownership), it would have dramatically altered their results.

This is another study that appears to be swimming up stream as public opinion is firmly on the side of gun ownership.  Even cherry picking data probably won't change that fact.

Gun Watch Blog on the NCPC "Lock it Up" Billboard

Last year, this blog reported on the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC)/ Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)/AdCouncil public service announcements that are suppose to encourage gun owners to properly store their firearms when not in use.  BJA is one of the grant making bureaus at the U.S. Department of Justice and the Obama administration found $1 million laying around in 2013 and directed BJA to give the funds to NCPC to produce these ads.  Setting aside the obviously anti-gun bias of the ads in question, the fact that public service announcements for the most part run on TV and radio when no one is likely to hear them, they are probably the best way to waste taxpayer money.

Probably for that reason, the radio and TV ads have not garnered much attention from either side of the issue.  But over the weekend, Gun Watch blogger Dean Weingarten noticed one of the billboard ads in Yuma, Arizona and wrote about it.

What is wrong with the above picture?  Everything.  First, it gives the impression that small children gaining access to firearms is a big problem in this country.  It isn't.  The number of children under five that die in firearm accidents each year is in the single digits.  Most of those are shot by an adult.  In a country of 313 million people and 347 million firearms, that is a remarkable safety record.

So why the picture of a 4 year old with a revolver?  Simple.  Shock propaganda value aimed at the non-gun owner, and an attempt to demonize guns more than they already are.  If you dig into the campaign further, the attempt is to push gun owners to lock up their guns when "not in use".   The ad is couched in terms of in terms of "gun safety", pushing the idea that guns should be "locked up".

This happens to echo the latest push for gun control by the left, the San Francisco ordinance that any handgun in the home, that is not being carried on the person of an adult, "must" be locked up, which is now being echoed in a proposed Los Angeles ordinance.  

Weingarten's comments echo those posted on this blog last June when the campaign was originally launched - that far from simply being a campaign asking people to voluntarily secure their guns, the very images created for the campaign were developed to demonize firearms and promote the idea that guns are bad and should be locked up.  A far more effective campaign is NSSF's Project ChildSafe.