Brady campaign watch: Lies, manipulation, sensationalism and deception.

[lawodevolution]

I found this on their website. Let's analyze this.



1. They didn't publish the rate of murder per 100,000, but rather they just put the total number of murders ignoring the fact that the USA is much larger than any of the countries listed.

2. Why didn't they include Mexico, Russia, Nigeria, Brazil, Colombia or other nations that have very low gun possession rates? Why did they post up Finland, Australia, Germany and Canada all of which have high gun possession rates compared to the rest of the world?

3. You can buy an "assault" rifle in Finland, Germany and Canada. The brady campaign still posts up this information knowing that people are ignorant of these facts.

[sharesunited]

1. How many GUNS per 100,000?

[TheWraith]

3. How many guns in Switzerland?

1.2 to 3 million among a population of 7.8 million.

[RSillsbee]

6. In America the ratio is 100,000 : 100:000 EOM

[spin]

2. You just showed why the Brady Campaign is largely irrelevant today.

they have been "crying wolf" for many years.

[jazzhound]

4. Number 4:

4. Consistent with all past publication, they criminally concealed the fact that defensive gun uses far exceed offensive gun uses. Can't have an informed electorate now can we?!

[RSillsbee]

5. If guns murdered that many people

why aren't our prisons full of guns?

[jazzhound]

7. You know that one of the very few members of the Brady

"Campaign" is lying when his/her lips are moving.

[RSillsbee]

8. I'm trying to decide if I like that color scheme on a Glock. EOM

[PavePusher]

9. We already know that Mickey Bloomin'pants doesn't

I'd get it just to piss that authoritarian S.O.B. off. :evilgrin:

[RSillsbee]

10. I'd like to see it in an Oleg Volk poster

But I probably wouldn't ever carry it.

[russ1943]

11. This OP is a joke.

You went to their website, found and copied what is available as a poster and failed to even notice that they DID provide at least some of the information you bitch that they didn’t provide.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts?s=2 Click where it says; (Click here for details……..)
This so called “analysis” of yours is about as foolish as has ever been posted. Three irrelevant inane comments that fail to dispute a single digit or letter of that poster you’ve reproduced. It appears your opinion of analysis consists of questioning why Brady didn’t; 1.) publish the murder rate (they do) & 2.) didn’t include some other countries. Your third comment regarding “assault rifles” is even less pertinent.
Analysis? Not even close!

[lawodevolution]

12. The problem is that they use the same and even more deceptive methods of

Manipulation than corporate media. I detect a lot of anger and frustration in your post. You are backing up my point when you note that they hide the rates per 100,000--they do that because they know people will not look at that data.

The Brady campaign will not publish the inconvenient information, you are right about that. Don't expect them to mention Finland has a very high gun ownership rate.

You really don't like the information I post, I wonder if you'd like to delete my posts.

[russ1943]

13. analyze this.

The point of that poster you reproduced in your OP is to demonstrate the number of people killed with firearms in other countries relative to those killed in the US. IMO it does that quite well. There is no deception, none. There are no lies, none. If there were any, that is what an actual analysis would at least attempt to demonstrate. Your self described analysis is, as I stated, a joke.
You went to their site, copied a small part of all the information available there, posted a tiny piece of information and then criticized them, in what you describe as an analysis for not providing additional information, much of which was available on that website. They didn’t HIDE the information regarding the relationship of the rates, it is readily available to anyone who wants to see it, it’s a WEBSITE for chrissakes, available to billions. It’s your credibility that can be questioned when you that stated they didn’t publish the rate of murder per 100,000 when the even more relevant firearms murder rate comparisons for those same countries are available at that Brady site.
Neither angry nor frustrated, I didn’t say or note they hid anything, quite the contrary, and I did not post the Brady campaign will not publish the inconvenient information. You are again, as usual, misrepresenting, distorting and factually incorrect by posting those comments. As to liking the information you post, I have difficulty understanding the limited mentality of anyone who would even ponder that. Finally, there is an ignore feature here on DU which could effectively accomplish me not seeing your posts and I’d guess I already don’t see many, but those I do, are um…… ah………… er ………………..interesting.

[shadowrider]

14. You're funny n/t

[Euromutt]

15. Anyone notice that RSS headline, by the way?

The one that says "Incumbent Democrats Supporting Gun Control Win; Those Appeasing Gun Lobby <...>" lose (or so I would assume).

The implication, of course, being that "appeasing the gun lobby" (i.e. not being actively anti-RKBA) is sufficiently unpopular with a sufficiently large part of the electorate as to lose you the election. Problem is, of course, that it's a safe bet that the Republicans who defeated the "appeasers" were generally even less inclined towards gun control. More importantly, the anti-RKBA Dems who held on to their seats almost certainly to a man represent safe districts, particularly in areas inclined towards gun control, such as the urban parts of the north-east and California. Their districts are also very likely gerrymandered to the hilt to render them even more safe. If you look at Texas, to name a particularly egregious example, electoral districts are so heavily gerrymandered that the primary is, in effect, the election, because the opposing party simply doesn't bother to field a candidate; it's a foregone conclusion that the district will be Dem or Repub.

In other words, the simple explanation for the Brady Campaign's observation is that pro-RKBA Dems ran in contested districts, while anti-RKBA Dems ran in safe districts. In contested districts, it's not a matter of "appeasing the gun lobby," it's a matter of appeasing the voters.

[jazzhound]

16. The Brady Bunch and Michael Moore operate from the

same playbook ---- the difference being that Moore stops short of outright lies. (as far as I've been able to tell)

That cowardly "snipped" headline is a howler. Same technique employed the Michael Moore with his (sadly) award-winning "documentary" Bowling for Columbine, wherein he stops short of lying, but misleads through clever deception. Another difference between Moore and the Brady Bunch ---- the latter isn't clever.

Here's Dave Kopel's scene by scene demolition of Bowling for Columbine:

http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2003/Bowling-Truths.htm