Gov. Kate Brown using deceptive gun death numbers

Dan Lucas_July 2012_BW

by Dan Lucas

Gov. Kate Brown announced today “‘Oregonians United to End Gun Violence,’ a plan to reduce gun violence in Oregon and across the country.” She is joining other anti-gun officials “to release new policies and legislation that protects Oregonians from gun-related acts of violence.”

According to OPB, “Brown is calling on the legislature to pass three new laws to improve gun safety in the 2017 session.” Her proposed legislation would 1) allow the Oregon State Police to further delay background checks for gun sales, 2) expand the types of relationships that qualify as domestic violence and 3) prohibit the purchase of expanded capacity magazines. KTVZ has additional detail on Gov. Brown’s three anti-gun legislative priorities.

In her announcement, Gov. Brown states “In Oregon, 2,280 Oregonians – an average of 456 people each year – died from firearms-related injuries between 2010 and 2014.”

Those are extremely deceptive and misleading numbers.

Gun deaths in Oregon - 2010-2014

(click to enlarge)

Of the average of 455 people who died each year between 2010-2014 from firearms-related injuries, 378 were suicides, 56 were homicides, 11 were the result of legal intervention (law enforcement), 6 were accidents and 4 were undetermined.

It is wrong and deceptive to be including the number of suicides where firearms were used. The Washington Post reported last October “studies have shown little connection between suicides and access to guns.”

The article goes on to note “A 2004 report published by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that ‘some gun control policies may reduce the number of gun suicides, but they have not yet been shown to reduce the overall risk of suicide in any population.’ Japan, for instance, has among the world’s most-restrictive gun-control regimes — and yet also has among the world’s highest suicide rates, almost double the U.S. suicide rate.”

Gov. Brown should make her case with honest and non-deceptive statistics – she should not be misleading the public to advance an agenda.

No Bloomberg campaign contributions to Gov. Brown yet

Gov. Brown is running for re-election against Republican Bud Pierce, a Salem physician. A recent poll by icitizen found that Brown leads Pierce by only 7 points – 4 points less than the state Democratic voter registration advantage. Brown’s campaign has raised about $1.7 million this year and shows a current balance of around $1.5 million. Pierce’s campaign has raised around $1.4 million this year and has $300,000 on hand. Unlike Brown, Pierce had a competitive primary race.

Brown’s fellow Democrat Val Hoyle got a huge $250,000 donation from New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg in her Secretary of State Primary race this year, which according to the Eugene Register-Guard was for “her leadership in passing Oregon’s [2015] background check bill.”

Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety also gave $250,000 to John Kitzhaber in his 2014 governor race.

It does not appear that Gov. Kate Brown has received any campaign donations from Bloomberg yet.

UPDATE 9/12/2016 Statesman Journal: Gov. Brown nets $250k donation from Michael Bloomberg
“Bloomberg’s donation, which is Brown’s largest single contribution ever, comes on the heels of the governor’s announcement in July that she plans to pursue a package of legislation combating gun violence in Oregon.”

NOTE: For a PDF version of the above chart, with functioning hyperlinks, please click here.

To read more from Dan, visit www.dan-lucas.com

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 11:57 | Posted in 2016 Election, 2nd Amendment, Gov. Kate Brown, Gun Control | 76 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • IMO

    Kate Brown should be drummed of town and given residency and keys to the city of Mena, Arkansas.

    • IMO

      drummed OUT of Oregon…

  • DavidAppell

    “It is wrong and deceptive to be including the number of suicides where firearms where used.”

    Ignoring your grammatical error…. No, it isn’t. Suicides are no less tragic than homicides — both are horrific events that hurt many people.

    Guns undoubtedly encourage suicides. They can be used on impulse — and frequently are, from one bad night of drinking too heavily, over in a 30-second impulsive moment — and are almost always fatal. Cuttings and and overdoses are simply not in the same class.

    Statistics show that guns are much more dangerous to the person and family that ones them, than to any intruder you think is trying to break into your house.

    You would know that, Dan, if you cared about your constituents as much as you care about guns.

    • thevillageidiot

      there is absolutely nothing in the gov’s plan that will do anything to curb guns from committing crimes. There are too many people like you who don’t have a gun by choice and want to impose that on everyone else. who made you president of the U.S..
      7000 blacks are murdered, According to the FBI, the police kill about 400 people a year; blacks are roughly one-third of that number.. do Black lives really matter. I guess not to the black neighbors.

      https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/07/walter-e-williams/challenge-black-people/

      Police don’t get to the crime scene until after the fact. you can’t defend yourself so why make me suffer for your lack of preparedness.

      .

      • DavidAppell

        I’m not against all guns. I’m against civilians owning any gun that was expressly designed to kill human beings as quickly as possible.

        It’s insane for any nonmilitary person to have such a gun.

        • threepercent

          So only government should have that ability? You clearly do not understand the 2nd Amendment. I don’t own an AR but I have no problem that tens of millions of law abiding civilians have purchased them. I feel much safer, especially since our government from Fed to State have allowed millions of people into this country with little or no vetting.

          • DavidAppell

            Yes, the government should regulate guns.

            The 2A clearly places gun ownership in the context of a militia.

            That’s completely obvious. Otherwise, why include that clause? Why?

          • guest

            You don’t have a full deck of cards to deal and your pit boss is a shill for what’s left of US.

          • DavidAppell

            Are insults really the best argument you can come up with?

          • David Clark

            DavidAppell “Are insults really the best argument you can come up with?”
            ME — Why not, you do it all the time.

          • Ron

            The 2nd Amendment was placed in the Constitution to insure that a tyranny government would not imprison the citizens as it has happened many times in the past. Don’t read into what is not really there. Way too progressive liberal rational.

          • DavidAppell

            The 2A contains a leading clause, that clearly indicates membership in a militia.

            That’s why it was included. If that founders didn’t mean that, they would never have included that clause.

            But they did.

          • David Appell’s Inner Dialogue

            Then why does it also say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”,? Oregon’s own constitution goes further, explicitly stating that it is for personal defense as well. All guns are military devices at their core so you are simply making arbitrary destinctions at this point.

          • Jason Brown

            They also said it means “the whole body of the people”. There was no national guard back then. The entire point was to enable The People to defend themselves, their families, their state, and their nation (from foreign attack or tyrannical gov). Think about it, the Founders had JUST risen up, with guns, to depose the government… And you think they turned around and went through the trouble to pass an amendment guaranteeing that the….government would be well armed? That makes no sense. They didn’t even want a standing army… And few cops were armed with guns back then either. The people were supposed to, by design, be the best armed group in the country.

            Every once in awhile you should look around at the people that are with you. In your case, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others love the idea of “only trusting the cops and military with guns”. That “plan”, just in the hands of those hand full of scum bags, killed well over 100 million people. But, what could go wrong…right?

          • DavidAppell

            The phrase “the whole body of the people” does not appear in the 2A. Sorry.

          • Jason Brown

            Neither does the definition of any of the other terms used in the 2A…does this mean that they have no definition or meaning? There are so many quotes by the Founders on this subject that their intent is obvious, unless you’re intentional ignoring the evidence. If you want to ban guns in a way that is actually legitimate, just amend the Constitution to repeal the 2A. It’s really that simple. Good luck.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Nice try again. Please provide evidence from the founders that your interpretation is the correct one. It is not.

          • DavidAppell

            “Please provide evidence from the founders that your interpretation is the correct one.”

            The evidence is obvious to anyone who can read.

          • Ron
          • Ron

            You’re on the wrong page, David.

          • David Clark

            David—“The 2A clearly places gun ownership in the context of a militia.”
            ME — Bull Skat as usual from Appell – it is an individual right.

          • DJ

            In 1776 all citizens where considered enlisted in the Militia at the age of 17 because the US didn’t have a standing army.

          • Dick Winningstad

            You keep saying that yet can provide no evidence that is what the founders intended. Reading the amendment correctly you would see the purpose was to guarantee the States access to a milita by keeping the national level government from disarming the people. The milita was composed of the people showing up with their own arms. One must note the BoR was aimed at the national level government not the states. So the not infinge part was aimed at the national government. Your interpretation does not line up with history. It is an inaccurate intrepretation dreamed up by gun grabbers in the 1950’s if memory serves.

        • Ron

          Think you would feel that way if a thug had a gun aimed at your crotch?

          • DavidAppell

            Paranoid?

            I’m against people owning guns that are intended for military use, to kill as many humans as quickly as possible.

            No civilian has a need for such a weapon.

          • Terrence Bearz

            What is the militia David? It’s “the people”, all of us. Read the Federalist Papers. The founders wanted the people to be on equal footing with any army the government could raise. If you don’t understand this very basic history, you have no business discussing this due to gross ignorance.

          • DavidAppell

            Do you need me to look up the definition of the word “militia?”

            Which militia are you a member of?

          • MrBill

            If I join a militia, can I then get as many guns as I want?

          • Jettisawn

            Kind of hard to have a milita without guns.

          • Role his moans overthar

            Jettison DavidAppell out where Osama bin Laden swims and ISIS takes aim at every infidel geek like it’s Shark Week 24/7 out in USS Cole Bay.

          • Eddierebel

            DavidAppell our founding fathers had just left a tyrannical govt and founded ours on the belief that this govt would be put in check by the people.
            The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
            If the need occurs then a militia would be formed out of the people. Preferably people that are adequately armed.

          • Julie

            you are so clearly uninformed it is scary. you might want to look up the meaning of words when these documents were written. both militia and ‘well regulated’ had completely different meanings then. i beg you to take both a constitution and history class.

          • Dick Winningstad

            You keep saying that yet can provide no evidence that is what the founders intended. Reading the amendment correctly you would see the purpose was to guarantee the States access to a milita by keeping the national level government from disarming the people. The milita was composed of the people showing up with their own arms. One must note the BoR was aimed at the national level government not the states. So the not infinge part was aimed at the national government. Your interpretation does not line up with history. It is an inaccurate intrepretation dreamed up by gun grabbers in the 1950’s if memory serves.
            But I repeat myself as you do.

          • DavidAppell

            The evidence is completely obvious — it’s contained in the 2A *ITSELF*.

            The evidence is available to anyone who can read.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Why not give this up? You are plain wrong here.

          • Never AppellPye NY More

            plain or plague? R/C DavidAppell to deal with Libya and Benghazi their comptrolling interests.

          • DavidAppell

            I’m not wrong. The 2A clearly places the right to bear arms in the context of a militia.

            It’s as plain as day.

          • DavidAppell

            “The founders wanted the people to be on equal footing with any army the government could raise.”

            You are perverting the Bill of Rights. The founders clearly set the 2A in the context of a militia. 2A rights clearly reside in membership in a militia.

            What militia are you a member of?

          • Terrence Bearz

            The people are the militia. Just like the rest of the Bill of Rights are for the people. The second amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia. If you think I’m “perverting it” read The Federalist papers where they discuss it, particularly Federalist 29. Because clearly your understanding of the context and purpose of the second amendment is deeply flawed.

          • DavidAppell

            The people aren’t the militia, else the founders would have used the word “people” instead of the word “militia.”

          • Dick Winningstad

            Your point is off. The 2nd tells the national governemnt to not disarm the people, who are the militia, so the states can have a militia.

          • DavidAppell

            You are completely avoiding the point I’ve made about the phrasing of the 2A. Completely.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Um, no I am not. I have explained to you several times already the reasoning for the phrasing. You refuse to acknowledge that and continue to repeat yourself.

          • DavidAppell

            You have given on possible interpretation of the 2A the includes its first clause.

          • Ron

            Why are you so insistent on your ignorance of the 2nd Amendment? Are you pro ISIS or a stupid progressive liberal idiot?

          • David from Mill City

            At the time of the righting of the Bill of Rights there were two different definitions for the term “militia”. When the word is capitalized (i.e. Militia) it refers to the organized Militia, that is organized units of armed civilians. However when it is not capitalized (i.e. militia) it referred to every free male between the age of 12 and 45. Subsequent Constitutional Amendments and Court Rulings have effectively modified this definition to include everyone over the age of 18 who is not otherwise precluded from owning a gun. To further add to this confusion despite the fact that in the copy of the Bill of Rights on display in the National Archives the word “militia” is not capitalized, there
            are many printed versions of the Second Amendment that incorrectly capitalize “militia”.

          • Dick Winningstad

            You keep saying that yet can provide no evidence that is what the founders intended. Reading the amendment correctly you would see the purpose was to guarantee the States access to a milita by keeping the national level government from disarming the people. The milita was composed of the people showing up with their own arms. One must note the BoR was aimed at the national level government not the states. So the not infinge part was aimed at the national government. Your interpretation does not line up with history. It is an inaccurate intrepretation dreamed up by gun grabbers in the 1950’s if memory serves.

          • DavidAppell

            Explain why you need a military weapon designed to kill as many human being as fast as possible.

          • Dick Winningstad

            It is not your job to decide what I want.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Yey you still repeat yourself without any documentation. Why?

          • DavidAppell

            The “documentation” is the 2A itself.

            Why include a clause about a militia unless it was a vital component of the 2A?

            They could have just written, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

            But they did not. Why?

          • Dick Winningstad

            I explained that already, but I will do it one more time. 1. The BoR was aimed at the national government until the 14th Amendment set up the mechanism to extend it to the states. 2. The militia was composed of the people who were expected to turn out with their own fire arms when called up. 3. The 2nd is telling the national government to not infringe on the peoples right to beat arms so that the State can have a militia.
            Your interpretation is a bogus view from the 1950’s if memory serves. If you do not think so, please supply me with the founders views confirming your view.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Uh, no it did not As I have pointed out numerous times elsewhere to you. And in the post Revolution times the people were better armed than the government. They had better rifles, could own cannon, and were more numerous than the standing army.

          • DavidAppell

            Newsflash: You aren’t a pioneer. The government is not out to conquer you. You won’t be standing at your mailbox shooting government soldiers, then going inside to eat lunch prepared by your poor wife.

            Stop being paranoid.

          • Dick Winningstad

            And you are free to petition the government to repeal the 2nd.

          • David Clark

            David Appell—“No civilian has a need for such a weapon.”
            YES they do – as the Oregon constitution says: “for the defence….the state”
            ( The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]) https://bluebook.state.or.us/state/constitution/constitution01.htm

          • Ron

            How many people have been murdered at gun shows, gun shops or anywhere you choose to pick who are legal gun owners or legal concealed carry permit holders?
            How many innocent people are murdered in Obama’s Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia and many other cities by illegal carry felons on a daily basis?

            The Second
            Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the
            people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as
            part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. The
            Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to
            individuals, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does
            not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. State
            and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal
            government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill
            of Rights.

          • Recuse yourself to Tehan

            You’re in a cole slaw of ISIS monsewer crabAppell

          • Dick Winningstad

            The need for what ever weapon I can have is not your call.

          • DavidAppell

            Yes, it is, since I am affected by your weapons, by their abuse and theft, and by your paranoia.

          • Dick Winningstad

            And you are free to petition the government to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

          • DavidAppell

            Better yet, Hillary will appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Heller, which was clearly a wrong decision.

          • Dick Winningstad

            It s disgusting that liberals insist on using the courts to make law. That was certainly not the original intent. And that is a good way move from a Democratic Republic to a country based on man not law.

        • David from Mill City

          First of all any firearm under the right conditions can be used to kill a human being, however that is not why they were designed. The selective fire (i.e. capable of fully automatic fire) Armalite AR-16 rifle, (which was later developed into the M-16 and still later M-4 rifles) was not designed to kill people, it was designed to compete for a United States Air Force procurement contract. Basically there are three reasons a gun is designed, first by a gunsmith looking for a new, different or better way to do something, Sam Colt’s work developing the percussion revolver is a good example of this. The second is to sell them to the public, to meet some need real or perceived thus making money for the company. Or thirdly as is the case with the Armalite AR-16 to compete for a government procurement contract. Further during the first part of the 20th century it was not unusual
          for a company to enter civilian designs in government contract completions or to sell in the civilian market place firearms originally sold to governments. Only since the end of WW II when most militaries decided that infantry rifles
          need to be capable of selective fire that the marketing of current military rifles to civilians stopped.

          This brings us to “assault weapons”. First this is a term created by the American press to refer to rifles that externally resemble military
          weapons and not a definable class of firearm.
          While some of these rifles are derived from a military rifle design, the relationship is similar to that of the family car and a NASCAR racer. There are some similarities but they are fundamentally different. Because they are only capable of semi-automatic fire “Assault weapons” are not military weapons. And lastly all of the characteristics used to identify “Assault weapons” are cosmetic and have little to do with the way the weapon works.

          • DavidAppell

            Military weapons designed only to kill as many people as quickly as possible have no valid use among nonmilitary people, and should be banned as quickly as possible.

            I hope Hillary pushes for this.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Good job.

    • Good catch on the where/were – that’s been corrected. Thanks!

      • Fleas gather around his inane

        Ways and weanswhile, Appell’s ciderhouse drools remains past due for a common sense mopping up.

    • David from Mill City

      David

      There is one significant difference between suicide by gun and
      other gun deaths that makes excluding them when discussing gun violence important. Unlike the other victims of gun
      violence an individual committing suicide by gun wants (at least at the time of the attempt) wants to be shot dead. Or to put it another way it is not possible to be a non-voluntary suicide victim,

      • DavidAppell

        Ever known anyone who has committed suicide.

        They are as tragic as any other death, and perhaps more so. And guns turn impulsive decisions into deaths.

        It is unfortunate you don’t care.

    • guest

      Paris France drains repressions down in toward your trench monsewer.

  • Dana J Armstrong

    I’m having a hard time understanding “Undetermined Manner”. Is this when a gun walks in a bar and shoots someone?

  • Ron

    A classic example of an out of touch misplaced wanna be politician that should be selling real estate in the Okefenokee swamp.

  • mgfarmer

    The gun control crowd is unable to maintain an honest campaign.

    They have to play statistical sleight of hand because honesty would require discussing uncomfortable facts that would erode their underlying premise that the guns themselves are the problem.

    Most gun related homicides are committed by Blacks in Democrat monopoly cities like Chicago. Until that uncomfortable fact is faced head on there will be no progress. The people that are currently calling themselves ‘progressive’ are merely children that do not want to grow up and face reality.

    National news outlets are ignoring these uncomfortable facts. Thankfully we have smaller outlets that are willing to tell the truth.
    https://freebeacon.com/issues/dc-chicago-baltimore-account-rise-murder-rate-last-year/

  • Mark

    She, like so many others, quit working for the people long ago. Immediate removal from that office is completely in order!

  • 拜读贵博,良心之作。

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)