The NRA On Sen. John McCain, Then And Now

Sen. John McCain is scheduled to speak before the NRA convention in Louisville this Friday, May 16, 2008, and I suspect he might have to perform a high-wire act to impress most of the folks in attendance.

The NRA has pilloried and even ridiculed Sen. McCain over the years in its magazine articles and graphic caricatures of him.

For example, there's an article from the NRA magazine America's First Freedom from July 2001, called, "What's Happened To John McCain?" In it the NRA says:

The gun control debate in Washington has hit center stage because Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has now become one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment. ... McCain has joined with Al Gore running mate Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn. - a gun ban advocate rated "F" by NRA's Political Victory Fund - in championing legislation to close the so-called 'gun show loophole.' McCain is the poster boy for Americans For Gun Safety ... appearing in their television ads calling for new federal restrictions on gun shows.

(There are other notable attacks in the June 2001, February 2002, and September 2002 issues, as well. Online access to the magazine is restricted.)

Importantly, however, Sen. McCain still favors closing the gun show loophole, still defends the McCain-Feingold campaign financing law that the NRA bitterly denounced, and still maintains Sen. Lieberman as a close associate, taking him as an adviser in his campaign.

If C-plus rated Sen. McCain hasn't changed, why is the NRA highlighting him in Louisville?

Does the NRA still believe McCain is a "premier flag carrier for the enemies of the Second Amendment"? Or, is the NRA now willing to concede that the politics of gun control is now leaving them?

I think the answers will say more about the credibility of the NRA's political leadership than they do about Sen. McCain.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[ebaLnoloM]

"Well, Molon, you have repeatedly misspelled Moorhouse's name--...." -jade

And there it is, folks, the coup de grace.....

Nice!

[Thirdpower2]

Note not a single actual refutation of the report and instead has to resort to the usual ad hominem attacks to distract form his innumeracy. He claimed:

"Those who are not math-challenged can probably see this isn't going to turn out well for the NRA stalkers claiming Chicago homicides were "5X" the rest of the state. But let us go to the calculator:"

But that's not quite what was said, was it Jade? What was stated was that the homicide RATE was 5x that of the rest of the state. But, since poor, poor Jade got caught in his little fib about the population of the city to justify his original fudged numbers, he has to invent some other false claims to try and cover that up even more.

Here's the original numbers:

Illinois Factoids according to the 2006 IL UCR.

Illinois had a population of 12.8 million w/ a murder rate of 6.1/100K (780)

Chicago had 22.2% of the population of Illinois yet accounted for 60% of murders w/ a per capita rate of 16.4/100K

If Chicago were to fall into Lake Michigan, the Illinois murder rate would drop to 3.14.

When is Jade going to apologize for lying? Will he admit he has no problem w/ people threatening NRA members w/ his usual hypocrisy?

[Jadegold]

I'm pleased Molon admits he hasn't read any of the studies he disagrees with or agrees with.

It points up his intellectual dishonesty but it's refreshing to see a candid admission by an NRA adherent. This reinforces a point that I made down thread: most NRA quislings don't read reports or studies. Instead, they rely on others to "interpret" those studies or reports.

You can always tell; there are a few tips on finding out:

1. Ask the NRA mouthbreather to describe--in his own words--what the study's methodology is. You will invariably get a response of something like "I don't care--I disagree with the conclusion."

2. Ask the NRA parrot if he agrees (or disagrees) with everything in the study in question. Usually you will get no answer. In Molon's case, we hit paydirt: it turns out he disagreed with the thesis of the study.

3. Often an NRA cultist will respond to your queries by citing another source (remember Molon citing WorldNutDaily?). Check out the cite; often it will say something outrageously wrong.

[djkrlsn]

Stoner--I quess lies and ad hominems are all you got

[Mark0]

"most NRA quislings "

"Ask the NRA mouthbreather ...You will invariably get a response..."

"Often an NRA cultist..."


Jade, since you continue to make these referances in nearly every post, I'd like you to expound on your chosen subject.

You have obviously amassed, and continue to harbor, great anger toward NRA members, to the point where you continually claim to know "most" of them, and how they will act and react to stimulus, somewhat like a stalker (an obvious ploy: you would demonize any action in order to point your finger at your own mock brilliance).

Perhaps you have a peer-reviewed study of your own on which to base your claims, and if so, I'd ask that you present it here.

If not, why don't you tell us all what, exactly, is your problem is with these "mouthbreathers" Guy?

Is it that you percieve NRA members as substandard citizens? As criminals?
Would you deny NRA members their rights?
Did the NRA reject you? Are you bitter?
Are you perhaps a prohibitted person?
Has the NRA engaged in some horribly salacious activities which can you honestly claim that the VPC, BC, and any other antirights group has not?

I'm only asking because thus far you have not made a cogent point (except that you really dislike members of the NRA and will spare no effort to smear them).

Be the lightening rod you so obviously want to be.

[djkrlsn]

Marko--I would say Jaded views NRA members as substandard citizens, gunowners as criminals, he would definitely deny gunowners (and everyone else who disagrees with him) their rights, he is definitely bitter, and anything the NRA does is horrible and anything the Brady campaign and VPC do is wonderful

[ebaLnoloM]

"Again, Molon's "problem" is that he hasn't read the study.

He looks at the study's case subjects and sees "suicides" and believes that has nothing to do with gun violence." -jade

You're right. Suicides in the context of this discussion doesn't have anything to do with gun violence. If you remember (I do concede it was a long time ago, at least 5 or 6 posts) that we were discussing studies refuting the Moorehouse study about "crime". How does suicides, which just so happens to account for 75% of the test subjects, fit into a crime category?

Poor jade. Poor, poor jade.

[ebaLnoloM]

"Additionally, pretending that real gun control has been tried and failed is also ridiculous."

So what is your idea of "real" gun control, jade?

[djkrlsn]

eba--I figger his definition of real gun control leaves firearms in the hands of the government and criminals leaving the lawabiding disarmed.

[ebaLnoloM]

Well, obviously everything up til this point has been "pretend gun control." Maybe that's why it hasn't worked for the last few decades?

[ebaLnoloM]

Just when I thought it couldn't get any better.

Let's have a look at jade's other "study". All I needed to see was the test subject composition:

"Case subjects were the 353 suicide victims and 117 homicide victims among the members from 1980 through 1992."

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1380933

jade, are you kidding me?

Conclusion: "Legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death."

Appears to be. Wow. Am I convinced.

[Jadegold]

You have a problem with the sample size, Molon? If so, why not tell us--in your own words--why the sample size is unsuitable?

Another common trait of NRA mouthbreathers is they have no clue as to statistics; most would benefit enormously from an intro-level, survey course on probability and statistics.

Unfortunately, most NRA quislings view statistics as voodoo or alchemy. They really have no clue that stats are used daily in their lives--from travel on airliners to the medicines they take to the foods they eat to their doctors diagnosis, etc.

[Thirdpower2]

This coming from the person who claimed the NORC report "controlled" for numbers even after I presented the raw data.

Can't dispute the facts, throw out the insults.

So Jade, care to comment on your claim that Chicago has 9.7 million people?

[ebaLnoloM]

I'm more concerned with the conclusion. If there was one.

[djkrlsn]

Stoner, I have a problem with the fact that 75% of the sample consists of suicides, and as evidenced by Japan and Russia suicides occur even with strict gun control.

[ebaLnoloM]

*Ding Ding Ding Ding!! Winner!!!*

Exactly.

"Dr. Jamison, a professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, concludes that 90 to 95 percent of people who commit suicide had a diagnosable psychiatric illness and that the number of young people who kill themselves in the United States has tripled since the 1950's. She found that 60 percent of the 30,000 Americans who on average take their own lives each year do so with guns, which works out to about 18,000 a year."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E5D81F30F934A25753C1A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Not really an unbiased test group is it?

[ebaLnoloM]

"Sadly, Molon understands logic about as well as he understands econometrics.

Molon asked for studies which refute--or come to different conclusions--than Moorhouse. Since Moorhouse argues that gun control laws don't affect crime and, in fact, are associated with higher crime rates--the study cited refutes that." - jade


Even more sadly is the fact that it took jade 3 days to find an inconclusive apples to oranges 1997 study which not only includes suicide statistics known to overinflate and obscure the crime/gun death issue by broadly including all gun deaths and not zeroing in on deaths as a result of crime, but also examines the effectivness of gun control to overall gun deaths, aside from the Moorehouse study from 2006 which specifically examined gun control vs effectivness on CRIME and contagion theory).

Kirk to Sulu. Maintain course. jade is using his cloaking device again.

[Jadegold]

Molon assumes that I spend all day waiting for his next comment to answer him as fast as I can. I wish to disabuse Molon of that notion. I'm not Roy Kubicek.

The fact is you didn't read the Moorhouse report. That is evident when you your sole objection to his report was his central thesis. That's akin to stating you believe in evolution except for the parts about natural selection and genetic drift.

[Thirdpower2]

Ah, another "The fact is" post. We all know how "factual" those are.

[ebaLnoloM]

Hum....I wonder who didn't read the report? Moorehouse's central thesis what to test whether or not stringent gun control laws had any effect on crime. The part I disagree with was his secondary findings indicating an inverse situation where high crime rates lead to more stringent gun control laws.

There's a difference. It would be like hypothesizing that "rational debate causes jadegold to short-circuit." But you could see the differnce if I found that "jade short circuiting causes rational debate."

But I myself have yet to substantiate MY position via statistical study. So maybe Dr Moorehouse is onto something after all.

[MorgansRifles]

Kelli:

What do you think about alderamn Richard Mell rewriting the law so he can legally reregister his guns. He goofed up and now is trying to fix it by passing a new law that gives amnesty.

What a hypocrite! He claims it is for everyone but why didn't he do it before now?

Michael

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/958879,CST-NWS-mell20.article

[kaveman]

Notice how he said...paraphrasing

"This isn't just for me, but for all who are in the same situation."

Yet, he didn't consider doing anything to help anyone else until he found himself in non-compliance.

Precious.

[Thirdpower2]

Just released study on Microstamping from UC Davis

At the present time, therefore, because its forensic
potential has yet to be fully assessed, a mandate for the implementation of this
technology in all new semiautomatic handguns sold in the state of California is
counter-indicated.

http://extension.ucdavis.edu/masters/forensic_science/pdf/UCD-Microserial%20Number%20CPRC%20Report%20May%20April.pdf

[ebaLnoloM]

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns. The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control.

However, the National Research Council decided even more thorough research on the topic is needed. The study by the Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Science, was sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Joyce Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Meanwhile, a study released by the Justice Department suggesting background checks at gun shows would do little to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42167

jade? macca? Funny that the Joyce Foundation-funded NRC calls into question the need for more research, while ignoring the results and questioning the validity of the results of the study. You guys should be familiar with that, right?

[Jadegold]

See what happens when you read a WorldNutDaily account report rather than the actual report.

{{a survey of 80 different gun-control laws }}

Nope, they actually looked at 80 different fire arms education programs. The NAS found "There is almost no evidence that violence-prevention programs intended to steer children away from guns have had any effects on their behavior, knowledge, or attitudes regarding firearms. More than 80 such programs exist. "

{{ In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns. }}

No. The NAS report conclusion was not that the laws have no effect, but that the evidence doesn’t tell us what effect, if any, the laws have.

{{The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control. }}

Again, untrue.

From the NAS press release findings:

{{There is no credible evidence that “right-to-carry” laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime. To date, 34 states have enacted these laws.
There is almost no evidence that violence-prevention programs intended to steer children away from guns have had any effects on their behavior, knowledge, or attitudes regarding firearms. More than 80 such programs exist.
Research has found associations between gun availability and suicide with guns, but it does not show whether such associations reveal genuine patterns of cause and effect. }}

[Jadegold]

Soooo...the NAS report didn't say what Molon claimed it said.

Not a big surprise, there. We can assume one of three things: 1.) Molon didn't read the report; 2.) Molon willfully lied; or 3.) Molon read the report but didn't understand it.

Often NRA quislings won't read the material they claim supports their argument. Most often, they'll rely on another NRA cultist to "interpret" a report or study for them. There should be no big surprise when NRA parrots are later publicly humiliated.

In the case above, WorldNut Daily "borrowed" from an op/ed written by the disgraced John Lott/Mary Rosh. In fact, several entire sections are plagiarized from Lott's op/ed.

Such is the state of NRA scholarship.

[ebaLnoloM]

"You neglected to answer the question.

Did you read the study? Not the author's interview in some newspaper--the actual study.

Also, can you describe--in your own words--the methodology used by Moorhouse and co-author? This is important because if you're going to defend this study as authoritative--you have to know why it's superior to other studies with different findings." -jadegold

Poor, poor jade. More lies. Who said anything about the Moorehouse study being authoritative? I certainly didn't. For all I know, Moorehouse could be a crack addict (but I'm guessing probably not). What I asked you is whether or not you could produce any evidence, statistics, or studies which would refute Moorehouse's conclusion that gun control has no effect on crime, and that the contagion theory is bogus. After all, don't you anti's use the '06 ATF trace date to support the contagion theory, even though you ignore the time-to-crime statistics? There must be SOME study done out there which supports your claims, no?

Keep dancing, jade.

[Jadegold]

Well, Molon. let's review.

You apparently reject Moorhouse's central thesis and you claim his study is not authoritative. Who am I to argue with that? I agree.

Essentially, Moorhouse uses two sources as his primary research--a 1993 report by Kleck and Patterson and an Open Society Institute report on assessing gun laws on a state basis. The Kleck and Patterson report has been roundly refuted in a number of studies. I'll provide a few:

Ik-Whan Kwon, Bradley Scott, Scott R. Safranski and Muen Bae: "The Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws: Multivariate Statistical Analysis"

Cummings, P., T. D. Koepsell, D. C. Grossman, J. Savarino, and R. S. Thompson. "The Association between the Purchase of a Handgun and Homicide or Suicide"

Morganstern, H. "Gun availability and violent death."

What is amusing about Moorhouse's study is that he relies very heavily on the Open Society Institute--a group aligned with gun control advocacy. Moorhouse states it's unbiased. Glad you agree.

[Thirdpower2]

Wow, Jade, did you take lessons for all that dancing? Not a singe refutation of Moorehouses study in your ad hominem attack.

Now that you've added "essentially" to your lexicon of "in reality" and "the fact is" diatribe, you've just increased your nonsense posts by 30%.

[ebaLnoloM]

Obviously jade hasn't even read any of the studies he has linked. If he had, he'd have read this from The Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws Study:

"This study examined the effectiveness of gun control laws and regulations using state level data. The multivariate statistical regression model suggests that the existence of gun control laws indeed have a deterrent effect on firearm deaths, although this relationship is weaker than previously reported.

However, and more important, this study also shows that the major association for firearm fatalities is with socioeconomic factors such as poverty levels and alcohol consumption. Unless this country directs its efforts toward the socio-economic ills which appear to bear the strongest relationship to violent deaths by firearms, the fatalities likely will remain high whether this country has gun control laws or not."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_n1_v56/ai_19266179/pg_1

Thanks for solidifying the ongoing argument jade, that gun control is worthless unless, as a society, we are willing to address the socio-economic factors which contribute toward violence.

Got any others?

[ebaLnoloM]

Here's some other tid bits from jade's link....

"According to the model, states with gun control laws had almost 3 fewer deaths per 100,000 population than states without any such laws. The relationship, however, is not statistically significant.

The results indicate that the most important variables with respect to numbers of firearm deaths are socioeconomic variables, especially the poverty level (p = 0.000), the racial mix (African-Americans, p = 0.006) and alcohol consumption (p = 0.046). It is interesting to note that states with a higher than national average Hispanic population have a lower number of firearm deaths while the opposite is true for the states with a higher than national average Asian and/or African-American population.

As expected, a strong relationship between poverty levels and firearm deaths was also found, confirming the findings of earlier studies by Lofftin et. al., (1989), Parker (1989), and Void (1986)."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_n1_v56/ai_19266179/pg_1

Right about now, jade is feverishly googling a Joyce Foundation funded study right about now for his argumental coup de grace.....or fall from grace....

[djkrlsn]

If Marcia Cross accepted a paycheck for using a tool that she opposes her viewers owning--she is a hypocritical elitist (not the member of an elite (unless the you consider the elite to be an overpaid drone--those who can write the script, those who can't--mouth someone else's words)). Gun control is immoral and unethical because it gets innocent people killed because it makes it more difficult to defend their lives against criminals who will have guns no matter what unconstitutional laws the Brady Campaign and the Misled Mommies manage to lie, cheat and steal through the legislative process. It is looking more and more likely that you Marsha and Stoner are NRA wannabes, because the best way to damage the effectiveness of an advocacy group is to damage its credibility, and Marsha and Stoner obviously can not handle the truth in any form or forum.

[Jadegold]

djkrlsn is detached from reality.

{{If Marcia Cross accepted a paycheck for using a tool that she opposes her viewers owning--she is a hypocritical elitist }}

Sooo..when an actor portrays, say, Hitler in a movie--he is a "hypocritical elitist" for opposing genocide?

Wow.

[Thirdpower2]

If he portrays it as Hitler being correct in doing so, yes. But of course nuances like that are beyond you.

[djkrlsn]

BTW stoner--there is a major difference between opposing the criminal act of genocide and trying to keep someone else from exercising their civil rights. The wacky 'baccy you are smoking has fried a few of your brain cells.

[djkrlsn]

Stoner--I call actors that support gun control that use firearms in various roles hypocritical elitists because of their extensive use of armed security and the documented evidence that they squeal like stuck pigs if their "rights" are violated (piece of evidence is Rosie O and her complaints about not being able to "marry" her girl friend (civil unions I absolutely support), and her insisting that law abiding gun owners be thrown in jail and property confiscated for owning a gun while she has armed bodyguards). The rich and famous have no more right to self defense than the least powerful in our society.

[MMimi]

Marcia Cross is playing a part. Possibly you don't understand that???

Source...her. She was talking about it on the View.

Try not to confuse the actor with the real person. Remember Robin Williams played a woman, it was a part; he had not become a woman. T r y i n g t o s p e a k s l o w l y s o y o u c a n u n d e r s t a n d.

(Are you angry at good ol' Sly ???)

[tadees]

Source, please? (given the abundance of youtube and google videos, not to mention the networks' own showings, for sure you have..some­thing...to substantiate that claim?) I am simply saying I have not seen said video, and if I am wrong so be it. However, up until this very minute the only source I have is a reputed liar, whose word I wouldn't believe if it was enumerated in the Gospel! (Yea...THAT one!)

[muffinman2]

I'm pretty familiar with the Fishtown are of Philly, where "good ole Sly" is from. If he doesn't own a gun, I'll eat my keyboard. Everybody in Fishtown has a gun.

Of course he may not need one now, what with the bodyguards and everything.

[MorgansRifles]

Marsha:

Why is it you won't answer my question about Spike Lee and your response to his comment about how Charlton Heston should be shot with a .44 Bulldog? Is it because you might have to admit you are being a hypocrite? Why is it okay for you to criticize Huckabee for joking about shooting someone but not criticize Spike Lee?

We also have to remember here that Spike Lee had released his film "Son of Sam" where the killer used a Charter Arms Bulldog .44 to shoot his victims. So, Spike advocated shooting another human being not only because he disagreed with him but also to promote his movie. That seems pretty cold to me.

But, I guess you feel it is okay to advocate killing another human being if you disagree with them.

Michael

[tadees]

Standard herring mimi, but thanks for trying. I asked Question A, but instead of Answer A, I get Question B in return. About what I'd expect, given the example jaded has set for you (see the Moorehouse study discussion below).

[ebaLnoloM]

Anyone catch Joe Grace (Ceasfire PA) on the PCN channel (for you Pennsylvanians) this evening? He was opposite Kim Stolfer (sp?) of the Allegheny Sportsman's Assn. It was a call-in show about PA gun laws. Besides the fact that he got roasted about Philly's recent criminal actions (that whole pesky state preemption thing) my head was spinning listening to him talk about not wanting to ban the SKS, while stating he and his organization support the renewal of the AWB, which would include the SKS. (I know, sounds like a jadeism). He stated over and over again that "as civic duty" he's asking all gun dealers to make a good faith effort at curbing the importation and availability of the SKS.

He never did answer the questions addressing criminals and recidivism though, and shy our judicial system can't keep criminals off the streets....where have we all experienced THAT ignorance before???

[Jadegold]

What's sad, but so predictable, is that not one NRA quisling has denounced Mike Huckabee (R-Cracker) and his comment about shooting Obama.

Not one.

I can only imagine the outrage if, say, Obama had advocated shooting Huckabee. We would have seen the rending of clothing as each NRA mouthbreather tried to outdo his fellow NRA adherent in outrage and bile.

[muffinman2]

Plenty of people have denounced it. Again, Jade is trying to snag the few who won't read too far into the blog.

[tadees]

common political ploy actually, mm2. "Fool the foolish"

[vespasian1]

He's been denounced sufficiently. Move on.

[Thirdpower2]

It's all he's got.