Breakdowns are not hit pieces toward the people or outlets highlighted. They are simply down to point out fallacies, inaccurate facts, tone, and wording used.
On April 8, 2021, Vice-President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden, Jr held an event in the Rose Garden regarding actions, presidential and otherwise, that will tackle gun violence in the United States.
There were several inaccuracies and usage of tone that will pointed out here.
If you missed part one, you can read it by clicking here.
We pick up with President Biden talking about Red Flag laws.
Yellow: I believe a word was left out of this sentence. Biden wants a template from the Department of Justice regarding Red Flag Laws. This will then be used as a guide for the states to craft their own.
As I previously stated, Red Flag Laws can be a double edged sword. I can’t help but think about the Romeo and Juliet Laws and Statutory Rape Laws in states. These have been abused by parents who simply didn’t like the person their child was seeing, leading to the person being on a registry for life.
I would not be surprised if these Red Flag Laws would be abused for many of the same reasons:
Wife lying about the husband and vice-versa
Parents miscommunicating with their child, etc.
Light blue: I would like to see concrete evidence of this. I would like to see what he means by vast majority in firm numbers.
Blue: Notice how he doesn’t list any cities? There can be as little as three cities placed from East to West and it would be “across the country”. He lists homicide, but not the method which leads to the death.
Yellow: He launches into well-known statistics about violence in the black communities and lists homicide as being the leading cause of death. He lists a VERY specific age group. He does this because he knows his assertion falls apart when you look at black males as a whole.
When you factor in all ages, heart disease is the top reason. I will let you decide if this was a case of picking cherries to make the problem sound worse than what it is, not that it isn’t bad.
He goes on to talk about programs that are either closed or underfunded. Who funds these programs? There are Big Brother/Big Sister and YMCA locations. There are also charities that host outreach programs, but in general, the states have the power to fund these programs. So, you need to ask yourself why they are either no longer funded or underfunded.
Yellow: I would be remiss in not pointing out when he is correct as he is here with this number and how it is broken down.
Pink: Here we go with another appeal to emotion… THINK OF THE CHILDREN
Chipman: David Chipman is a gun control advocate who claimed that two helicopters were shot don’t during the Branch Davidian Compound in 1993. The Law Officer website quotes him as saying:
He was the Policy Director for Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
I don’t know about you. I don’t have confidence in this nomination. How can you nominate someone to that position who probably knows less about firearms than myself? If not that, how can you be confident in someone who peddles conspiracy theories? The Branch Davidian incident was bad enough. You don’t need to manufacture what happened to make it worse.
We are now on the gun show and Charleston Loopholes. In the case of background checks in gun shows, only licensed dealers have to run background checks. Private sellers, who are often collectors, do not. This is what is called the “Gun Show loophole.”
The Charleston Loophole is the Law that allows sale of a firearm if the background check lasts more than three days.
HR 8 was passed March 11th of this year closing the Charleston Loophole. HR 1446 passed on the same day and lengthens the time for back ground check from 3 to 10 days.
I will be looking deeper into both bills to see what else they may contain. I didn’t do that here, because I did want the post to read like a novel.
Instead of a violence against women act, why not a domestic violence act encompassing both sexes? It’s a thought. He is, as best as I can interpret, trying to put forth an idea of an abuser registry that will ban registered abusers from owning a gun.
He also mentioned restraining or protection orders, which do NOT keep the abuser away in most cases.
I will respond to this by including a screencap of a study done on the efficacy of the law. I think it speaks better than I. Keep in mind, the things I find to breakdown articles and speeches may not always refute what is being asserted.
This is a bold-faced lie. Gun manufacturers can be sued for various reasons. They canNOT be held accountable for what someone does with their product, which is what he is looking to accomplish.
Writer’s Opinion: Imagine a world where you can sue the car companies for injuries you sustained in an accident, eating utensil makers for obesity, and so on and so forth. I know I am being hyperbolic, but in all seriousness, what is to stop them if they are able to make legislation so people can sue gun manufacturers?
What would be next?
Slippery slope fallacy, I know. This is why I mark these parts like this.
The rest of the speech is him wrapping it up to hand it over to the Attorney General. Please, let me know what you think in the comments below. You can even correct me if you wish. All I ask is for you to provide citations like I have below.
Anissa “Maddy” Walker