Consider the Source

This Internet meme appeared January 17th on a facebook page called Tea Party Stand Up, which describes itself as a "NOPC Radio Free Speech Tea Party Republican movement".

Apparently one can listen to the group's program live on Blog Talk Radio Saturdays at 10 pm. EST.

The group's stated mission is "To save America one person at a time!"

Since January 17th, 444 people have 'liked'  this meme and it has been 'shared' 481 times. 

Although I was skeptical of the information presented, I was intimidated by the thought of trying to debunk it.  

The creator of the meme did not feel it necessary to provide an attribution or cite sources for the  statistics, but I would.  It seemed possible that I would invest several hours of research and not be able to offer a credible response, so I moved on.  

But the boldness of this assertion kept niggling at me and I wound up doing the work anyway.

I believe the statement comes from this article by John Fund  which appeared in the National Review Online on December 16, 2012, just two days after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

The National Review bills itself as offering "Conservative commentary on American politics, news and culture."  It was founded in 1955 by William F. Buckley, Jr.

Fund's article is entitled, "The Facts about Mass Shootings" with a tag line of "It's time to address mental health and gun-free zones." 

The main thrust of the article is summarized in this paragraph: 

"Almost all of the public-policy discussion about Newtown has focused on a debate over the need for more gun control. In reality, gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. We would be better off debating two taboo subjects — the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that “gun-free” zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, don’t work." 

In that article, Fund offers statistics collected from various sources to support his assertions. 

For instance, he cites a study by Mother Jones magazine, as having " . . . found that at least 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.”  Fund didn't provide a link to the study, or even provide the name the study, which meant I had to locate it myself, but I think he means this one, which offers an interesting interactive map, and does reports a statistic called "Prior Signs of Possible Mental Illness."  

To support his assertion that "gun-free zones" are counter-productive, Fund references a 1999 study by John Lott and William Landes as having found that " . . a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools."  

Apparently John Fund spoke with John Lott after the Newtown shooting.  He quotes Lott as saying, “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

It was a relief to find the source of the statement so quickly.  I was envisioning having to analyze every  word of this rather convoluted sentence to determine whether or not it was factual, beginning with an attempt to determine the definition of the word "public" and continuing on with an investigation into the gun laws of every state in which there was a public shooting where 3 or more people died -- since 1950, no less.

In one respect, then, the debunking of the meme was complete.  The quote should have been presented like this:  

"With just one single exception . . . every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns." -- John Lott 

but otherwise, the meme's message seems to reflect the viewpoints of both John Lott and John Fund -- and apparently also the viewpoint of the folks at Tea Party Stand Up. 

But I became curious about John Lott and this 1999 study -- are they credible sources?   So I kept reading.  

What I learned is that John Lott is a controversial figure who has published several books, articles and studies. He maintains a prominent social media presence, including this blog.  Just yesterday, he appeared on Glenn Beck's radio show. 

The survey John Fund referenced is available in PDF format and makes for interesting reading.  The abstract states that the results of the study find that ". . . the only policy factor to have a consistently significant influence on multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws." and "... explain(s) why public shootings are more sensitive than other violent crimes to concealed handguns, why the laws reduce the number of shootings and have an even greater effect on their severity."

Wikipedia's entry for John Lott is extensive and its neutrality has been questioned, but there were several legitimate references cited. A few hours' reading reveals that the credibility of Lott's work has often come into question.  It has been alleged that his work was funded by the NRA, that he created a fake persona to offer favorable reviews of his own work and that his statistical studies are "junk science".   

In John Fund's article (from which I believe this meme's quote was culled) he cited Mother Jones' statistical study relating to mass shootings, which I take to mean that he considers Mother Jones to be as reputable a source as John Lott.  Here's a Mother Jones article from 2003 which does a thorough job explaining the controversies surround Lott's credibility.  He's legitimacy as a scholar has long been in question.

Some might say, "where there's smoke there's fire."  Others might say that the reason Lott has so many detractors is that he speaks a truth which others seek to hide.

No wonder people like to form their opinions based on Internet memes and sound bites.  Choosing to investigate is a lot more work and a lot less cut-and-dried.

Let's All Talk About That

This Internet meme was found on the facebook page of  a group called, Being Liberal which describes itself as ". . . fighting to bring back the true meaning of the word into the mainstream language.  We are PROUD OF BEING LIBERAL!"  As we can easily see, the meme was created by Ola Betiku.

My daughter thought this meme would be a good candidate for debunking.

So let's see what's to be learned.

First, we need to decide who the "you" is in this meme.  Based on current events, I think it's safe to say that this question is primarily  directed at the National Rifle Association's, Wayne LaPierre, who testified recently on Capitol Hill.  There, among other things, he said:

"I think we can also agree that our mental health system is broken. We need to look at the full range of mental health issues, from early detection and treatment, to civil commitment laws, to privacy laws that needlessly prevent mental health records from being included in the National Instant [Criminal Background] Check System."

Although not cited, it seems likely that the $4.3 billion statistic used in the meme was collected from this article which appeared in The Huffington Post in September of 2012.

"Across the country, states facing severe financial shortfalls have cut at least $4.35 billion in public mental health spending from 2009 to 2012, according to the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD). It's the largest reduction in funding since de-institutionalization in the 1960s and '70s. In fiscal year 2012 alone, 31 states that gave their numbers to the association reported cutting more than $840 million."

I was unfamiliar with NASMHPD (pronounced NASH-bid), so I looked it up and learned that it is  a  nation-wide organization which has been around since 1959, representing members of the public mental health delivery system in all 50 states.  

Next I followed the link provided by The Huffington Post and read the NASMHPD report from which the statistics about the spending cuts were drawn.  The report is entitled,  "Proceedings on the State Budget Crisis and the Behavioral Health Treatment Gap: The Impact on Public Substance Abuse and Mental Health Treatment Systems" and was prepared in March of 2012,  summarizing a Congressional briefing.

So far, so good in terms of fact-checking.  If anything, the creator of the meme is guilty of reducing the spending cuts by half a billion dollars. 

Now for the most difficult task:  determining whether it is factual to credit the Republicans with those spending cuts.  

NASMHPD's report does not point figures at one political party or another, which is not surprising.  The organization operates under a cooperative agreement with the National Governor's Association, clearly a bipartisan group, and was briefing Congress.  Assigning blame would not have furthered its cause.

So where does the idea that Republicans are responsible for the cuts come from? 

I found this article in The Huffington Post earlier this week, which discusses the fact that some legislators are currently introducing or supporting programs aimed at addressing mental health issues, claiming these measures as being integral to the solution to our nation's problem with gun violence.  

The author of the article, Alana Horowitz, points out that some of these legislators have not been supportive of spending money on mental health programs in the past. She questions their motives for doing so now. 

Here is one example she offers:  

"Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R)  this week proposed nearly $29 million in state funding on mental health initiatives to combat gun violence.

"Just gun control alone may or may not address [violence]. If you've got someone with a severe mental illness that's causing them to take irrational actions like this, banning a certain type of firearms may just move them to some other weapon, some other explosive," he told CBS58 in December. "It really begs the question: what are we doing to address mental illness?"

But Wisconsin, under Walker, has slashed funding for mental health services in recent years. Between 2009 and 2011, Wisconsin cut $107.1 million in mental health funding. Walker did not respond to HuffPost's request for comment.

Like most of the lawmakers mentioned, Walker has received a high rating from the National Rifle Association."

Is it fair to assume that having a high rating from the NRA means that a legislator is influenced by the NRA?  

Is it fair to say that most of the legislators who have received endorsements from the NRA are Republicans?  

Here's an info-graphic from an article I found at ThinkProgress:

Not every state shown here is typically categorized as a "Red" state, but many are.  Does that mean Republicans are primarily responsible for the cuts?

On Capitol Hill there is a long on-going Mental Health Caucus.  Its stated purpose is to work ". . . in a bipartisan manner to inform, educate, and advocate to Members of Congress and the public on a variety of mental health issues . . ."  

Its membership is overwhelmingly Democratic.  Does that mean that most Republicans are indifferent to mental health issues and therefore might be more prone to cut funding for mental health programs?

And what Republicans wanting to repeal "Obamacare" and cuts to Medicaid funding for mental health programs?  If I attempt to try to make heads or tails of those debates in this forum, we'll be here til the cows come home.

So what's the verdict on this meme? 

It scores well in terms of the hard numbers it presents and it makes a persuasive case for the argument that the current flurry of enthusiastic support by Republicans might be disingenuous and might have a lot to do with the NRA.  

BUT. 

I wish this meme ended with something more than just an invitation to "all talk about" the cuts to mental health funding allegedly made by Republicans.  

What does mental illness have to do with gun violence?  Why are we all of a sudden talking about mental illness in relation to gun laws?

The NRA often tells us that most gun owners are law abiding citizens who do not commit acts of violence with their guns, and they are absolutely right to say so, because it is true.

 It is also true that most people who suffer from mental illness are not violent.

 In fact, according to the National Institute of Mental Health,  " . . . mental illness contributes very little to the overall rate of violence in the community. Most people with  SMI (severe mental illness) are not violent, and most violent acts are not committed by people with SMI. In fact, people with SMI are actually at higher risk of being victims of violence than perpetrators.. . .The most common form of violence associated with mental illness is not against others, but rather, against oneself."

Shootings such as the one which occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School throw a spotlight on a problem which plagues our society.  In sorrow and fear, people demand action.   As I've said here before, no one on any side of the argument believes that it is OK for innocent people to die in public places. 

I found this in a 2011 report from the National Alliance on Mental Illness:


"Unfortunately, the public often focuses on mental illness only when high visibility tragedies of the
magnitude of Tucson or Virginia Tech occur. However, less visible tragedies take place everyday
in our communities—suicides, homelessness, arrests, incarceration, school drop-out and more.
These personal tragedies also occur because of our failure to provide access to effective mental
health services and supports." 


I think we need to keep in mind that the 'less visible tragedies' are as important as those which splash across the national news media from time to time.

Discussion on this topic is too often reduced to polarizing, self-serving, vitriolic debate.  

Lots of pledges have been made in the aftermath of the tragedy at Newtown.  Many people are promising not to rest until changes are made.  Many say they will 'do anything' to keep such an event from happening again. 

What if everyone would start by acknowledging these two simple facts:  

1.  Because a person who commits a mass murderer is mentally ill, it does not naturally follow that all mentally ill people are mass murderers.

2.  Because a mass murder is committed with a gun, it does not naturally follow that all gun owners are mass murderers.

Or would that be too much to ask?

Too Many Children

This Internet meme comes courtesy of a facebook page charmingly entitled, "Hate Liberals? Bite Me." which describes itself as  "A page to vent about the GOP, the Teanderthals and other useless conservatives, racists, homophobes and women-haters."

This is an in-your-face meme, designed to provoke a strong reaction.  

It seems, tragically, to be factual in describing the circumstances surrounding the child's death.  

The gun's provenance does not seem as definitely proven as the meme proclaims.  According to the Akron Beacon Journal, in its reporting of the story on January 24th,  detectives were still working to track its history:

"Where the trail of Terrance Allen’s gun started, like the trail of the 1,200 other guns seized since 2011, is part of the ongoing course police are charting. Nice’s goal, he said, is to one day see harsher sentences for illegal gun possession.

“Terrance is the typical guy we see,” Nice said. “It’s not the hunters or the registered gun owners that we’re seeing. It’s criminals. That’s why we want to know how they got the gun, where the got the gun and why they’re not in jail.”

The meme's claim that "a background check could have saved a life", therefore, is speculation and not a matter of fact.

I don't enjoy visiting this group's facebook page and I don't like looking at this meme.  It is inflammatory, provocative and manipulative.

But yet, I can't bring myself to argue with it. Can you?

To quote Gabby Giffords, "Too many children are dying."

Things Liberals Hate

I don't like labels, and I don't join groups.  

I am not a Democrat, for example, even though for the past several elections I have voted mostly for Democratic candidates.  I am not a feminist, even though I recently donated money to Planned Parenthood.  I am not an atheist or an agnostic, even though I am not a member of any other organized religious group.  

And, honestly, I don't consider myself  "A Liberal", either, though after reading the preceding paragraph, I suppose most people would. 

I am a contributing member of a few select not-for-profit groups such as the botanic garden and an independent film house -- and I do have a AAA membership -- but by and large, the only labels I will embrace are inherent:  mother, daughter, sister, wife, American, etc.

What does this personal reflection have to do with the above Internet meme?  Nothing, really, except that I found it on the facebook page of  a group called "Things Liberals Hate", and since I do hate it quite a bit, I feel compelled to consider that I might be (whether I want to admit it or not), after all, "A Liberal".  

Let's see what we find out by deconstructing this meme.

The man pictured is Michael Bloomberg.  (Now there's a man with a LOT of labels!)  Currently he is Mayor of New York City.  

The text at the top of the meme refers to the ban on large size sugary drinks which Mayor Bloomberg has champions and the New York City Board of Health has approved.  This ban goes into effect next month. 

The text at the bottom of the meme refers to a program called CATCH (Connecting Adolescents To Comprehensive Healthcare) which was introduced into a small number of New York City schools last fall. 

At the risk of coming off as both a Liberal and a Feminist,  I will refrain from writing my opinions on the subjects of sugary drinks and contraception as they relate to public health and stick to the facts as they are misstated in this meme. 

The ban on drinks is actually, in a way, more aggressive than this meme suggests.  The measure will limit the sale of individual sized sugary drinks to 16 oz rather than 32 oz. Critics complain that it is not effective because there are so many beverages un-regulated.  Even Bloomberg acknowledges that the measure is primarily symbolic:

“All we’re doing here is educating. It forces you to see the difference.” Limiting the serving size forces people to consider how much they’re ingesting. 

The meme's description of the CATCH program  is wrong on all three counts.  Abortion pills are not being given to 12-year-olds in New York City schools without parental consent.  

First, CATCH is a program offered in a small number of high schools, where there are extremely few, if any at all, 12-year-olds. 

Secondly, the pill being made available by CATCH is Plan B One-Step which the Food and Drug Adminstration defines as:


" . . . effective in decreasing the chance of pregnancy if taken within 3 days after unprotected sexual intercourse.  The product contains higher levels of a hormone found in some types of daily use oral hormonal contraceptive pills and works in a similar way to birth control pills."

RU 486, the so-called 'abortion pill'  is not being offered.  The difference between the two is fairly obvious:  the first prevents pregnancy and the second terminates a pregnancy. 

Finally, parents are given a tool to opt out of having their children receive any or all of the various contraceptive measures available in New York City schools.   There is a simple "opt out" form that if returned by the parent or guardian of children under 18 would prevent the school nurse from distributing contraceptive measures to a particular child. 

This group, Things Liberals Hate, doesn't seem to be New-York-City-centric, so why focus attention on the Mayor?  

I  surmise that the group would like to discredit Michael Bloomberg because he founded the nation-wide coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns and his Super PAC openly opposes legislators who support the NRA's anti gun control measures.

After several hours spent reading and reflecting, I have determined that the reason I hate this meme is not that I am a Liberal. (Another label avoided, thank goodness.)

I hate it because it is provocative, misleading, manipulative and inaccurate. Like all such pieces of propaganda, it insults the intelligence of its audience by assuming that those targeted will be too lazy to check things out for themselves.

Disagreeing with Bloomberg's public health policies is one thing;  agreeing to have the wool pulled over our eyes is something else.

The Truth About Guns

I found this Internet meme on the facebook page of a group called Teabonics, which offers this explanation of its mission:  "Welcome to Teabonics where we call out the hypocrisy of the GOP."

Thanks to these folks, I've spent the better part of today reading about guns in America. As a result, my head and heart both ache. I feel agitated, frustrated and angry.  Anyone who believes this is a simple issue is misinformed and needs to get educated.


Sticking to the facts for a moment, my research reveals that the meme is essentially accurate.  I am deeply endebted to Adam Winkler for his excellent article, "The Secret History of Guns". 


The photo shows members of The Black Panther Party standing on the steps of California State Capitol building in May of 1967.  

They were assembled to protest the Mulford Act, which  Governor Ronald Reagan did in fact sign  into law. The law prohibited the carrying of a loaded weapon in any California city.  

I have not yet found a specific reference to the NRA's position on that particular California law, but in the 1960's the organization did support more restrictive gun laws, culminating with its support of the 1968 federal Gun Control Act.  Explaining that endorsement,  the NRA stated, "While certain features of the law . . . appear unduly restrictive and unjustified in their application to law-abiding citizens, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

The Black Panthers had grown impatient with the non-violent measures of Martin Luther King's civil rights movement.  They formed armed police patrols and learned to use the letter of the law to protect black citizens from police brutality.   In 1966, it was legal in California to carry a loaded weapon in the street, so long as it was registered, not concealed and not pointed in a threatening manner.  The Black Panthers followed the letter of the law and the white establishment felt threatened enough to propose legislation forbidding any citizen the right to carry a loaded weapon in public.  

OK.  So now that we know what it's all about, why would Teabonics consider this meme to be useful in furthering its goal of calling out the hypocrisy of the GOP?

Well, simply put, if it was good enough for Reagan, shouldn't it be good enough for today's Republicans?

Sadly, the issue is far more complex than this meme would have us believe.

Adam Winkler's article includes this particularly fascinating paragraph:

"The new NRA was not only responding to the wave of gun-control laws enacted to disarm black radicals; it also shared some of the Panthers’ views about firearms. Both groups valued guns primarily as a means of self-defense. Both thought people had a right to carry guns in public places, where a person was easily victimized, and not just in the privacy of the home. They also shared a profound mistrust of law enforcement. (For years, the NRA has demonized government agents, like those in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the federal agency that enforces gun laws, as “jack-booted government thugs.” Wayne LaPierre, the current executive vice president, warned members in 1995 that anyone who wears a badge has “the government’s go-ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens.”) For both the Panthers in 1967 and the new NRA after 1977, law-enforcement officers were too often representatives of an uncaring government bent on disarming ordinary citizens."

Doesn't it  seem that the Black Panthers were reacting  exactly as many of today's gun rights activists believe they should be allowed to react when government oversteps its bounds?  

The more I learn about gun violence and gun control, the more sickened and disheartened I become.  I would like to stick my head in the sand, letting others fight it out, hoping for the best. I don't want to know any more;  I just want it to go away.

The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school was a tipping point and I am glad to see the nation energized and engaged in meaningful dialog . BUT -- speaking of hypocrisy --  it should not be worse to see white elementary school children gunned down than it is to see black inner city teens gunned down, but somehow, to this nation, it is.   If I find this reality infuriating, I can only imagine what black people feel.

Despite our imperfections, hypocrisies and obsession with sound bites, can we make something good from something so evil?   Can we work together to make changes that protect all our citizens from gun violence?

I am afraid that the answer to those questions is No.  The dialog is not open and respectful.  People on all sides are fearful and there is too much propaganda and too many lies are told.

But this meme -- it's not a lie.  

It's one version of the truth. 

Guns Don't Kill People; People Do.

This impressively crafted Internet meme was found on the National Rifle Association's facebook page, where the stated mission is, "To protect your Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and protect our country's hunting and shooting traditions."

First, I have to give credit where credit is due:  this is a great looking meme. It manages to to appear simultaneously somber, patriotic and factual.  After all, what greater authority on crime could there be than the FBI ? 

The statistics as presented in this meme are accurate, insofar as The FBI's  "Expanded Homicide Data Table 11" from 2011 does indeed show the column heading and the numbers cited:

Knives:  1694

Personal Weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.): 726

Blunt objects:  (clubs, hammers, etc.) 496

Rifles:  323 

Note, however, that the FBI does not add the qualifier "of any type", so it is not perfectly clear as to its definition of a "rifle".  

There is, however, more to this extensive table than the NRA shows in its meme.  Take a look at these columns, for instance:

Total murder victims	Total firearms	Handguns	Rifles	Shotguns	Other guns or type not stated
12,664	8,583	6,220	323	356	1,684
1,816	1,271	1,007	32	50	182
15	1	1	0	0	0
734	553	474	12	12	55

What are the "other guns or type not stated"?

If not for the NRA, I doubt I would have ever spent time perusing the FBI's website.  There are lots and lots of data tables available for public review.  That table 11 is pretty large, with lots of columns, but there's a smaller, simpler one, too, called "Expanded Homicide Table 7", which has only four columns:

Murder, Types of Weapons Used
Percent Distribution by Region, 20111
Region	Total all weapons2	Firearms	Knives or cutting instruments	Unknown or other dangerous weapons	Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)3
Total	100.0	67.7	13.4	13.1	5.8
Northeast	100.0	66.0	16.0	13.9	4.1
Midwest	100.0	71.6	9.4	13.0	6.0
South	100.0	69.1	13.2	11.8	5.9
West	100.0	63.3	15.3	14.7	6.7
1 Virgin Islands totals are not included in this table.
2 Because of rounding, the percentages may not add to 100.0.
3 Pushed is included in personal weapons.

From this table, which lumps all firearms together under one heading, it is easy to see that when people do  kill people, the weapon most often used is a gun.

So what about the message of the meme, then, which suggests that the Obama administration is unfairly targeting semi-automatic rifles because the FBI statistics show that knives, hands, feet, clubs and hammers are the more dangerous weapons?  Is it truthful?  Is it a distortion of the truth?

Make of it what you will.