Unsurprisingly, a report released Friday by the Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate prioritizes placing the blame for the “Shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School” on ownership of firearms, with particular emphasis on the semi-automatic kind that can accept standard capacity magazines. The “findings” are the result of direction from the Connecticut Child Fatality Review Panel “to prepare a report that would focus on Adam Lanza [and] develop any recommendations for public health system improvement that emanated from the review.”
That administration functionaries concluded impeding the right to keep and bear arms would be a “public health system improvement” is also unsurprising. An advocacy role in itself is telling, along with the office’s allegiance to Gov. Dannel Malloy though his appointment of “primary author” Sarah Eagan to head a state agency that holds powers of intervention and subpoena.
“Access to assault weapons with high capacity magazines did play a major role in this and other mass shootings in recent history,” the government polemic masked as authoritative study results declares, in the first of 13 references to the term “weapon” contained in the report. “Our emphasis on AL’s developmental trajectory and issues of mental illness should not be understood to mean that these issues were considered more important than access to these weapons or that we do not consider such access to be a critical public health issue.”
That “conclusion” is restated several times, along with several side trips obviously intended to further demonize private gun ownership.
Along with “gun-related homicides in Australia … The firearm-suicide rate dropped 65 percent,’” the advocates claim, citing a 2010 “study” in the American Journal of Law and Economics This was after meaningful gun control regulations which outlawed possession of assault weapons were passed following a mass shooting.”
Interestingly, the much-touted Australian experience is not all those with an agenda to advocate for defenselessness would have us believe. No less an authority than The British Journal of Criminology observed “The Australian situation enables evaluation of the effect of a national buy-back, accompanied by tightened legislation in a country with relatively secure borders. AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) was used to predict future values of the time series for homicide, suicide and accidental death before and after the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA). When compared with observed values, firearm suicide was the only parameter the NFA may have influenced, although societal factors could also have influenced observed changes.”
With “suicide” being the one potential, but not conclusive, influenced parameter, the question of what difference having a magazine of any capacity attached would make to someone putting a gun to their head. Conveniently ignored were higher suicide rates in places like “gun free” Japan, with a “rate 60 percent higher than the world average” per the World Health Organization.
Also conspicuously unmentioned is the higher rate suicide problem among law enforcement personnel. Expect trial balloons to disarm them while off duty to continue being floated. Those who think it can never happen to them ought to recall the insulting pledge of Polyphemus to eat Odysseus last, and consider that if and when ordered to enforce Malloy’s gun ban, as his media cheerleaders are demanding.
“Great Britain has also shown a marked reduction in gun crimes since instituting a hand gun ban,” the “report” adds, tellingly revealing an end game of the “commons sense gun safety law” crowd that has been masked in order to advance incrementally. That strategy has not changed since the goal and tactic were revealed by Handgun Control, Inc. founder Nelson “Pete” Shields in 1976. They’ll take whatever advantage gun rights compromisers foolishly cede to them without a fight, and then press on to their next objective, characterizing each successive gain as “a good first step.”
Disregarding “’Inexcusably poor’ records [that] omit 1 in 5 UK crimes,” the fallacy in the comparison is that gun ownership is the culprit. Were that otherwise, the five million members of the National Rifle Association, one of the most heavily-armed populations on the planet, would suffer violent crime rates exceeding those in the UK, or Japan, or any of those “countries that have tight gun controls” being credited with “progressive” gun policies. Only yesterday, this column provided just such an example of that false narrative being refuted in Russia, which has decided since “gun control” hasn’t worked, it’s time to start allowing people to use guns to stem the high murder rate.
That tax-funded propaganda is being used to advance citizen disarmament is nothing new. Statements like CDC Director Mark Rosenberg declaring he wanted to see guns “dirty, deadly and banned” are what led Congress to defund the government using tax dollars to spread a one-sided “perversion of science and medicine” (not that Emperor Obama lets a little thing like the will of the representatives of the people stop him from issuing a counter-decree).
Even research critical of studies estimating defensive gun uses in the millions shows them dwarfing “gun homicides” (already supposedly prohibited by numerous “good first steps,” by the way). By omitting that, Gov. Malloy’s monopoly of violence agenda flacks are purposely suppressing from public scrutiny (in other words, lying) the factoring in of lives saved with guns. Significantly, they’re also deliberately indifferent to the predictable consequences of lives that will be lost if the state either changes that – or tries to.