Sham anti-gun stat used in dishonest editorial

The anti-gun folks are at it again with a remarkably dishonest editorial in The Seattle Times.

It’s an editorial prompted by a Friday court hearing against the Seattle gun and ammo tax. The tax would place an extra $25 on the sale of a firearm and up to 5 cents per round of ammo.

The Seattle City Council supported the move because, according to Councilmember Tim Burgess: “We tax cigarettes, we tax alcohol, even wood burning stoves to mitigate the impacts of those products on our public health. We should certainly do it for guns and ammunition as well.”

But a gun can clearly be used for good, not just bad. And some folks don’t want to have that conversation or acknowledge that fact because it muddies up their argument.

So on Friday a judge will consider pro-gun groups that are asking for an injunction against enforcement.

The argument is that the tax is illegal because Washington law prohibits regulation of firearms by local governments.

The Times’ editorial board says the judge should ignore the law because the tax revenue “would fund research through the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, in addition to prevention and education programs.”

They don’t address the legal argument in any meaningful way &#8212 at all. They don’t even attempt to because they’re unqualified and apparently didn’t do their research &#8212 if they did, they forgot to include it in the editorial.

They simply say they like where the tax revenue is going.

The Seattle Times also argues: “Washington’s law prohibits the regulation of firearms by local governments, but Seattle is within its authority to impose fees to pay for a public-health crisis caused by gun violence.”

That’s a grade-A legal argument &#8212 thanks Seattle Times.

But they think the research is necessary. The research Harborview Medical Center has already done is apparently “groundbreaking” to them.

They write: “A groundbreaking 2014 study funded by the city showed that patients admitted to hospitals statewide for gunshot wounds are 30 times more likely to return with another firearm injury compared to people hospitalized for other reasons.”

Only, because they’re ideologues on this particular issue, they don’t tell you the context of that number because it weakens their argument.

Some direct quotes from the Harborview study (please, read it):

• “…50 percent of those admitted for firearm injuries and 47 percent of those admitted for injuries from assault had an arrest in the prior 5 years.”

• “One quarter of individuals hospitalized with a gunshot wound were arrested within the next 5 years for a violent or gun-related crime.”

• “More than 45 percent of individuals hospitalized with gunshot wounds or injuries due to an assault were subsequently arrested for non-violent crimes…”

In other words, these are criminals.

Does it shock you that criminals who use guns are more likely to suffer multiple gunshot injuries?

The Times leaves out the context.

Wonder what that is, don’t you? Then they have the gall to write, “Absurdly, the NRA has fought since 1996 to ban federal funding for gun-violence research — as if arming ourselves with factual information is a bad thing.”

When you put out scary stats without context to push a political perspective, I wonder why the NRA might want to stop tax dollars being spent to try to erode a constitutionally protected right.

How about this: why don’t we put money into going after criminals? More cops on the streets, perhaps? Maybe going after poverty? No, you won’t, because you’re so blinded by an inanimate object that scares the ever-loving hell out of you.