BlakeBlog

Money Matters

I was reading the further coverage of the Newtown anniversary, amazed at how the media likes to glorify psycho killers and spur copycats, when I read:

 

"New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, has spent roughly $15 million this year on advertising to influence the debate."

 

I recalled the stats from yesterday's Washington Post article:

 

"In the first half of 2013, the NRA and other gun rights groups outspent gun-control organizations on federal lobbying, $12.2 million to $1.6 million, according to the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation."

 

So, Bloomberg spent $15 million last year, but only $1.6 million (from all anti-gun sources) was spent on lobbying in the first half? Makes sense when you consider Bloomberg spent a lot of advertising money trying to sway State-level elections in November, but that certainly doesn't support the WaPo's narrative that "the NRA" massively outspent the anti's.

 

The distinction between lobbying money and advertising money becomes more clear in light of an article in Advertising Age that notes the anti's outspent pro-gun groups seven to one on TV:

 

"In the year after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., gun-control groups spent $14.1 million on TV advertising. According to Kantar Media's CMAG, that gave such groups a seven to one advantage over gun-rights organizations, which only spent $1.9 million.

 

"At the same time, gun-rights groups, led by the National Rifle Association, spent about $6.2 million on lobbying instead of advertising, according to a study by the Sunlight Foundation.

 

"The gun-rights groups may have had the better tactic -- especially in a quiet election year. [...]

 

"'The return on the investment has been very weak,' said Elizabeth Wilner of Kantar Media. 'When you are doing advocacy advertising you are looking for Congress to pass something.'"

 

If you add all these numbers up, the pro-gun folks spent about $8M on lobbying, while the anti's spent about $2M. When it comes to advertising, though, the pro-gun folks spent only $2M and the anti's spent over $14M. Add the both figures up, and the pro-gun folks spent about $10M while the anti's spent around $16M. Once again, we've been significantly outspent.

 

Don't be disappointed by this, though! Look at our successes, especially at the Federal level, and you can see that we focused our money where it would have the most influence and we were able to avoid any major legislation in the aftermath of Newtown. What this means is that our opponents spent more money, on less-effective channels, and still wound up with nothing to show for it.

 

That, my friends, is smart fighting.

The NSSF and US Firearms Sue Sunnyvale!

We warned the city of Sunnyvale that they were opening themselves up to lawsuits with their misguided efforts to pass local gun control in the form of Measure C. They didn't listen. In fact, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence both counseled the city that the lawsuit threat was a bluff, and they even offered to provide pro bono (free) legal support in case a suit happened.

Well, it has! You can read the entire filing here:

http://nssf.org/PDF/NSSF_Sunnyvale-Suit.pdf

 The National Shooting Sports Foundation, as you recall, is the true lobby for gun manufacturers and retailers (not the NRA, as the anti's like to erroneously claim). And since part of Measure C directly affects one of Sunnyvale's firearms retailers—U.S. Firearms—both organizations have jointly filed suit against the city.

 

The suit primarily claims that Measure C is illegal due to State pre-emption, meaning that the State of California has a law that says cities and counties cannot pass their own gun control laws, so Measure C violates this law. The suit also argues that the requirement to collect personal information about lawful activities and report that information to the police is a violation of an individual's right to privacy.

The Run-up to the Newtown Anniversary

In the run-up to the Newtown anniversary, the gun-banners are reveling in the opportunity to display their assumed moral superiority in their struggle to stay relevant. Expect to see sympathetic stories like the following across the major media outlets:

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_24690216/oakland-after-his-sons-fatal-accident-man-fights

 

It's a tragedy that Mr. Dix's son was shot and killed by a friend who was playing with a pistol he thought was unloaded. But, it's also a logical fallacy to think that a loaded chamber indicator would have changed the killer's behavior. If the killer wasn't taught the NRA's gun safety rules, or didn't apply them, then it's extremely doubtful that a small flip-up or chamber cut-out would have changed the outcome of this tragic event.

 

Even without the requirement for loaded chamber indicators, magazine disconnects, and all the other "common sense safety features" the gun banners would like to impose on free America, accidental gun deaths are at historic lows. According to the very source the article quotes to justify Mr. Dix's quest, the Centers for Disease Control, unintentional firearm deaths are at all-time lows:

 

 

Also, interestingly, I can't get the "1,900 children […] accidentally killed with a firearm" from their claimed source. Even if I generously define a child as anyone from birth to 19 years old, I only get 1,515:

 

 

If you apply a more typical age range for what we consider "children," from birth to 14 years old, the number falls to 619 over the eight-year period. Each and every one of them tragic, but a small fraction in comparison with car accidents (21,085) or drowning (7,425). (I'm still waiting for the sympathetic stories calling for the bans on allowing children to travel by car, or live in houses with swimming pools.)

 

The gun-banners lie all the time—never trust a number from the gun-banners! I thought that major media was supposed to be better than simple bloggers because of the "layers and layers" of editorial oversight, but apparently they can't even be bothered to fact-check some simple data that's freely available via the Internet.