But one of the most shocking gaps in the effort to prevent people prohibited by law from purchasing firearms continues to fly beneath the radar.
Records of at least two million dangerously mentally ill individuals whose names should already be in the nation’s criminal background check system
After a brief opening paragraph of reification asserting that the Loughner incident has brought the issue of gun control back to the forefront, a
fallacy of reification that has no merit, this article follows with the above quoted histrionic paragraph.
What evidence is there of this horrifying claim that at least two million dangerously mental ill individuals are not in any data base that would
prevent them from purchasing firearms?
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s largest, non-partisan gun control group, noted last month – the day before the Tucson
massacre -- that a report conducted by the National Center for State Courts and SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics
“estimated that more than 2 million disqualifying mental illness records” have yet to be entered into the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System, or NICS.
The Raw Story is echoing what The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
The National Center for State Courts
, along with what appears to be another
said about these "missing" 2 million records of "dangerously mentally ill" people.
SEARCH and NCSC have made an estimate of records that have not yet been entered into any data base, and this little fact should make clear that the
Raw Story's assertion that the records "remain missing" is at best disingenuous, and at worst willful deceit.
Further, the claim that the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is a "non-partisan" gun control group is oxymoronic. Partisan by
is a fervent even sometimes militant supporter of or proponent of a party, cause,
faction, person, or idea. The Brady Center certainly qualifies, under this definition, as being a fervent cause, and arguably sometimes militant, in
that it lobby's the legislative process to bring about stricter gun control legislation, expecting the state, or federal governments to use their
militant force to enforce this legislation.
Here is the mission statement for the NCSC:
The mission of the National Center for State Courts is to IMPROVE THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE through LEADERSHIP and SERVICE to state courts,
and courts around the world.
Following that with this:
The National Center continues to be the preeminent judicial reform organization in the United States.
There are many who believe that the rise of lawless judges in the United States has reached critical mass. Is this the reform the NCSC has
preeminently aimed towards?
The Board of Directors
of the NCSC reveals a virtual country club of the priest class
lawyer set, with numerous judges, lawyers, and other government officials. The Board of Directors for
hosts a bevy of law enforcement personnel, and government attorneys. These are two political action committees comprised of government
personnel whose primary objective is to influence through lobbying and other means the direction of government. As such, they should be as suspect as
any other political action committee. There is no such thing as a "non partisan" political action committee.
Returning back to the Raw Story article, it should be keenly noted that Brad Jacabson made reference to expert gun control advocates twice. Thrice if
you count the final sentence in which he declares Mayor Bloomberg an "other expert", presumably meaning an expert on gun control. Yet, what the
hell is an "expert on gun control"? Is there some sort of credential that goes along with this moniker, or are they merely paid pundits, who, at
least in part, get paid to lobby for stricter gun control?
So much of the Raw Story article is suspect, poorly written, and sloppily researched, with no attempt what-so-ever to offer a balanced view of the
issue, with no quotes from members of the NRA or other gun advocate groups, even if the article does quote the President of the Brady Center, and a
Congresswoman as defending the NRA regarding the funding of a bill. In terms of mental illness, particularly "dangerously mental illness", the
article makes no attempt at all to define what it is, or offers no "expert" quotes on how it is determined who is labeled a "dangerously mental
The Raw Story article is nothing more than a thinly veiled propaganda piece, hoping to stir up interest in a gun control debate that most Americans
have no interest in having.