Jill Filipovic is a New York-based journalist who appears to be pro-gun control.
In a recent op-ed published by CNN Filipovic argues that those of us who defend the 2A are being intellectually dishonest about our position.
She contends we don’t fully recognize the downsides of a Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms and that by resisting efforts to restrict the 2A we are complicit in the death of America’s children.
Filipovic writes:
Gun proponents need to be honest: If they believe that the costs of lax gun laws – endemic gun violence, mass death, guns as the leading killer of American children – are a worthwhile tradeoff for the vast right for just about anyone in America to own as many deadly weapons as they like with little regulation, that is their prerogative. This is America, after all, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But they should stand behind their principles, accept the facts and argue on the merits. And they may have to accept that their principles are not held by most Americans that most of us will choose life and safety over nearly unlimited rights to weaponry and the mass violence and death that come as a result.
There are so many half-truths, lies, and omissions within her piece it’s hard to know where to start. But, I’ll pick out just five. And if she’s really interested in productive dialogue between the two camps, she’d address these points one by one.
Claim: “Guns Are the Leading Killer of American Children“
I recently wrote an article responding to this claim. It’s misleading, to say the least. Guns aren’t the leading killer of American “children.”
Well, unless you believe 18 and 19-year-old adults are “children” and that children under 1 don’t count as “children.”
That’s correct. Gun-control advocates have manipulated the data to reach this tendentious conclusion. Ms. Filipovic can read my article on the subject or she can check out what Snopes.com had to say on the subject.
But either way, one can’t make that claim without “some clarifications,” as Snopes puts it.
Claim: “The Research on this Question is Thorough and It Couldn’t Be Clearer: American Gun Violence is a Result of Loose American Gun Laws.“
What research?
It turns out that many of the research that gun-control advocates cite is deeply flawed.
I’d invite Ms. Filipovic to watch this video:
Here’s the main takeaway from Reason.com (emphasis added):
There has been a massive research effort going back decades to determine whether gun control measures work. A 2020 analysis by the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, parsed the results of 27,900 research publications on the effectiveness of gun control laws. From this vast body of work, the RAND authors found only 123 studies, or 0.4 percent, that tested the effects rigorously. Some of the other 27,777 studies may have been useful for non-empirical discussions, but many others were deeply flawed. We took a look at the significance of the 123 rigorous empirical studies and what they actually say about the efficacy of gun control laws. The answer: nothing. The 123 studies that met RAND’s criteria may have been the best of the 27,900 that were analyzed, but they still had serious statistical defects, such as a lack of controls, too many parameters or hypotheses for the data, undisclosed data, erroneous data, misspecified models, and other problems.
Claim: “In fact, States with Lax Gun Laws Have Higher Rates of Mass Shootings than Those with Stricter Laws.“
Attorney Konstadinos Moro covered the “red state murder problem” recently for GunsAmerica and explained why it’s not a convincing argument for more gun control.
For starters, it’s an overly simplistic and arbitrary way to view a complex problem. And, once again, gun control advocates manipulate the data to push their agenda.
In Missouri, the “red state murder problem” is primarily driven by homicides in just three counties: Jackson County, St. Louis County, and St. Louis City, as Moro explains.
Available on GunsAmerica Now
These areas, containing Kansas City and St. Louis, account for only 32.5% of Missouri’s population but are responsible for approximately 73% of the state’s homicides. Excluding these counties, the homicide rate for the rest of Missouri falls to around 4.6 per 100,000, significantly below the US national average of 7.8 per 100,000 in 2021.
Moro goes on to point out that Kansas City and St. Louis have had predominantly Democratic leadership. Kansas City’s last Republican mayor left office in 1991, while St. Louis’s last Republican mayor left office in 1949.
The rest of the state, which leans more conservative, does not contribute as significantly to the overall homicide rates.
Claim: “One Reason the Gun Debate in the US Feels So Stuck is That It’s Not Happening On Shared Terms.“
The debate doesn’t happen on “shared terms” because gun control advocates consistently ignore the main driver of gun crime: repeat offenders in Democrat-controlled cities.
A 2021 study from the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform found that a small, identifiable group of lawbreakers, rather than law-abiding gun owners, is responsible for the majority of criminal firearm misuse in Washington, D.C.
Despite strict Second Amendment restrictions in Democrat-run cities, gun crimes remain concentrated among these individuals, proving gun control doesn’t work on these hardened criminals, as the NSSF has pointed out.
In 2020, homicide rates in D.C. rose significantly, reaching the highest levels in nearly 20 years in 2021.
The study analyzed all 341 homicides from 2019-2020 and found that 86% of victims and suspects had prior involvement with the D.C. criminal justice system.
“Overall, most victims and suspects with prior criminal offenses had been arrested about 11 times for about 13 different offenses by the time of the homicide,” the study said.
Additionally, approximately 86% of the examined murders involved a firearm, excluding cases of justified self-defense.
The study concluded that around 500 identifiable individuals drive 60-70% of the city’s shootings annually, with no more than 200 individuals responsible at any given moment.
If we’re talking honestly about stopping gun violence, as Ms. Filipovic wishes, the elephant in the room is what we’re doing — or not doing — to put these violent individuals behind bars. After all, we know who they are. We know they don’t give a rip about gun control laws. We know that they’re a threat to public safety. Yet it appears we’re allowing them to re-offend with impunity.
— Conservatarian General (@4starGeneral17) May 8, 2023
Claim: “Taking a Principled Moral Stance Requires Honesty, Including About Costs and Downsides.“
Ms. Filipovic never considers the downside of disarming the population in her piece, nor does she acknowledge the number of times responsible armed citizens defend themselves and their families with guns each year.
Guns do, indeed, save lives. How often it happens is a matter of debate.
At the high end, researchers like Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz claim there are roughly 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) each year in the U.S.
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), suggests a lower number of around 100,000 DGUs per year.
Even taking the low number from the NCVS, there’s no disputing that good guys use guns in this country in self-defense each year.
Moreover, they also use firearms to stop mass killers.
Dr. John Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), found that 14.6% of active shooter incidents between 2014-2021 were stopped by armed citizen responders.
Dr. Lott also discovered that armed citizens stopped 40% of active shooters in gun-friendly zones during that period. This significant figure underscores the potential effectiveness of armed citizen responders in preventing mass killings.
Conclusion
Jill Filipovic’s op-ed arguing for gun control overlooks key factors and manipulates data to push her agenda. She fails to consider the role of repeat offenders in gun crimes, the potential of armed citizens in stopping active shooters, and the downside of disarming law-abiding citizens.
A genuine, honest debate on gun control should take into account the complex nature of the problem, addressing the underlying causes of gun violence and acknowledging the real-world impact of responsible gun ownership in the United States.
Hopefully, she responds. We’ll see.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***
There is a simple rebuttal to those like Filipovic. Just ask her, well do you also support limiting your first amendment right? That we can restrict your right to free speech by making a rule you can’t complain about the 2nd amendment? Or that you can’t complain about abortion restrictions? Of course she wouldn’t. That violates her right to speech. Just the same, we aren’t kosher with someone gutting our 2A rights and we aren’t interested in giving another inch. There are thousands of gun lawso n the books, and if the criminal element is unwavering in violating the current laws, what makes anyone think they’ll stop with one more law? CA, NY and IL have proven time and time again with their endless gun laws, old and new, that more laws don’t change anything. The previous AWB back in the 90’s was shown to have statistically changed nothing. So worthless democrats want to pass another do nothing law that only violates law abiding citizens. Well, in the words of Twisted Sister, We ain’t gonna take it anymore.
if freedom is too scary for you,go somewhere where there’s no freedom.
You Marxists like to say the constitution is a living, breathing document, and it is. Not to the extent that you elitist trash would like it to be to submit to your arrogant meddling, but the heart and lungs of the Constitution IS, in fact, Article IV. Amendment and Repeal. But that is a difficult and cumbersome process to bend to your treasonous desires, so you arrogantly ignore it as well as the will of the American people themselves, whose sacred document you choose to defile, and commit your acts of tyranny instead. THAT alone makes you my sworn mortal enemy!
You want an honest conversation? It is really this simple. I am a responsible and law-abiding gun owner. You and your ilk want to hold me responsible for the acts of criminals, lunatics, and psychopaths. I refuse to be punished or held responsible for those people and their anti-social actions. This point is not negotiable, and there is nothing intellectually dishonest about it.
I wonder how she’d feel about having to have every story she wrote and/or presented be pre-vetted for factual accuracy and potentially harmful content. After all, there are numerous cases of reporters fabricating stories, misstating facts or details, faking sources, committing other transgressions of journalistic integrity. How would she feel about being held responsible for their malfeasance? Cute, but stupid. Seems to be a lot of that these days.
Yes this is America, after all, you treasonous twit, so leave those 27 words inculcated in our Constitution alone. If you hate the 2nd amendment so much, then get your lying lazy ass busy and invoke Article IV and repeal it. THAT is what the framers intended, not a treasonous attack from tyrants. 2/3 s of both houses of Congress voting to repeal and 38 (3/4) state legislatures affirming the repeal, and it is gone! Until then, go pound sand!
If the Democrat-Communist party wanted to pass unconstitutional laws banning guns they would allow all of these repeat offinders to run wild with no consequences or law enforcement to make their argument and that’s exactly what is happening.
Why don’t they study the race of people committing all the gun violence and pass laws against those people? Wouldn’t that make just as much sense as their other proposals and maybe help? It would make more sense and could focus the gun laws where it would do the most good but I also wouldn’t support that because it would also focus laws against innocent individuals who have a right to defend themselves. Maybe lock away all the criminals found with guns. That would go a long way to keeping more people safe.
The gun laws aren’t “lax,” the enforcement is.
Doesn’t matter how much training, education, screening, etc that you do…..humans will always find a way or morbid justification to commit evil acts, or ways to act impulsively, erratically, etc. Yet, liberals and “do-gooders” always believe that a new law will “prevent” bad things from happening, when, in fact, the main purpose of laws is to serve as a platform to punish someone after the fact🤷🏽
She won’t respond, she doesn’t want any debate at all.
If you want to have a responsible conversation about the violence that exists in the country. Let’s drop the tools used from the conversation at the beginning, the tools aren’t the violence, it’s the people that use the tools. Why are they seeking to murder instead of seeking help with their problems? We don’t ask that question(s). We don’t look for the atmosphere that produces these problems. People that use any tool to kill children are a real problem and they appear to be surfacing at an incredible rate. You never hear these discussions, all you hear are the tools are the bad item here. I’m wondering if the very people that ignore the effects and real causes of such violence are not the very perpetrator’s!!
So let’s stop the blaming of the tools and work on the real problem at hand, our society. Guns have been around for two hundred years, all of a sudden since leaders are taking us down the socialist road and apparently people(sheeple) are willingly following, guns are now a problem. Get real!!!
Who cares what that whore Jill Filipovic has to say about anything. Her opinion and what she has to say about anything at all is worth about as much as my last bowel movement.
Hmmmm…..pretty and stupid….I guess that makes her pretty stupid..
One of the worst offenders in Harvard School of Public Health professor Dr. David Hemenway. He is, of course, given the nature of his occupation, well versed in performing statistical studies, and from what can be ascertained from his publications is that he cherry picks his data sets to reach a preconceived result. Unsurprisingly, he has refused to share his data set with other researchers, especially not Dr. Lott, who is an expert statistician. Because doing so would expose him for the Bloomberg mouthpiece that he is. One does not get Daddy Bloombucks money unless one touts the party line. Liberals should understand that they are being manipulated so that they stay on the bandwagon. And they are quite reliable because they have neither the skills not the data to know when they are being lied to.