Washington Post Gives Hillary Three Pinocchios For Gun Sales Claims

“Forty percent of guns are sold at gun shows, online sales.” –Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, remarks on gun violence at Manchester Community College, N.H., Oct. 5, 2015

Clinton made her statement during a Town Hall meeting, using the recent shootings in Oregon and South Carolina to decry what she called the “gun show loophole” that permits “person-to-person” sales by people who are not engaged in the business of selling firearms.

The problem, as Kessler points out, is that the 40 percent figure is out of date and includes all gun transactions, not just sales:

So where does the 40 percent figure come from? It is derived from studies that were based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. In fact, the questions concerned purchases dating as far back as 1991, and the Brady Act went into effect in early 1994 — meaning that some, if not many, of the guns were bought in a pre-Brady environment.

The survey sample was relatively small — just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus six percentage points.

The analysis concluded that 35.7 percent of respondents indicated they did not receive the gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Rounding up gets you to 40 percent, although the survey sample is so small it could also be rounded down to 30 percent.

Moreover, when gifts, inheritances and prizes are added in, then the number shrinks to 26.4 percent. (The survey showed that nearly 23.8 percent of the people surveyed obtained their gun either as a gift or inherited it, and about half of them believed a licensed firearms dealer was the source.)

The original report carefully uses terms such as “acquisitions” and “transactions,” which included trades, gifts and the like. This subtlety is lost on many politicians such as Clinton, who referred to “sales.”

Why is it important to make a distinction between purchases and transactions? For one thing, the failed Senate compromise bill that would have required background checks for gun shows and Internet sales specifically made an exception for gifts (and even sales) among family members and neighbors. Including the data on such transactions can change the results.

That change in results would give Clinton far less ammunition to use against the NRA and other pro-gun groups, as it would show that non-background check sales at gun shows aren’t nearly as high as she has been claiming, which virtually destroys her plea for stricter gun control measures.

The Pinocchio Test

By any reasonable measure, Clinton’s claim that 40 percent of guns are sold at gun shows or over the Internet — and thus evade background checks through a loophole — does not stand up to scrutiny.

As we demonstrated, the 40-percent figure, even if confirmed in a new survey, refers to all gun transactions, not just gun sales. A large percentage of the gun transactions not covered by background checks are family and friend transactions – which would have been exempt from the universal background checks pushed by Democrats. Indeed, many gun-show sales are made by licensed firearm dealers — and 17 states even have that requirement, at least for handguns.

Clinton earns Three Pinocchios.

This is the third time in the last few months that Clinton has earned three Pinocchios from The Fact Checker, which only underscores her struggle to tell the truth.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Watch: Clinton Campaign Says, ‘Trust Doesn’t Matter’

Despite a new Siena College poll that found that Hillary Clinton’s favorability in her adopted home state of New York had dropped 10 points—from 56 percent to 46 percent—and her unfavorability shot up to 51 percent from 40 percent in July, the Clinton campaign is seemingly unconcerned about the Democratic front-runner’s low trustworthiness numbers, according to the National Journal’s Ron Fournier.

Fournier said that when he told senior Clinton campaign advisers in March, April and May that without credibility you can’t win—and if you do win you can’t lead—their response was to say that “trust doesn’t matter,” citing Bill Clinton’s low trust numbers as compared to George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole, both of whom he defeated.

That attitude, he said, combined with the lack of transparency on her emails, shows that the Clinton campaign is stuck in the 1990s and doesn’t “realize how times have changed.”

Fournier made his remarks on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Tuesday.

Clinton’s lack of transparency is certainly one reason that voters are skeptical about whether or not they can trust her. But it’s also her arrogance, and acting as though she is above the law and couldn’t possibly have done anything wrong, despite evidence to the contrary.

When she entered the race, Hillary thought she would just breeze to the Democratic nomination. But her inability to face serious issues head on has cost her dearly, and she now faces a more uncertain path to that nomination—a path that will get more complicated once Vice President Joe Biden enters the race, as he is widely expected to do in the near future.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Bloomberg Cohosts Mock Clinton Campaign Reset As ‘One Of The Stupidest Things They’ve Done’

Bloomberg’s With All Due Respect co-hosts John Heilemann and Mark Halperin mocked Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s campaign on Tuesday for announcing their “ham-handed” plan to show Hillary as caring, humorous and spontaneous—qualities she has clearly been lacking and something that Halperin and Heilemann, among others in the media, aren’t sure she can pull off:

Heilemann: … This approach is so ham-handed that even David Axelrod tweeted that it reads like something out of The Onion and threw in a hashtag that would make my boy Shia LaBeouf jealous: Just Do It!

Mark, how could the Clinton campaign possibly be going about this page-turning activity in this fashion?

Halperin: It’s inexplicable because she’s got a big problem with voters, but her problem with elites in the press and the Democratic Party is a lot worse. You do not tell people what your strategy is, you simply do your strategy. They’re now promising all these things about joy and spontaneity. She should just go out and be a better candidate. This talking about it, if she’s not the nominee, this day will go down in history as one of the stupidest things they’ve done.

Heilemann noted that this reminds him of her 2007 presidential campaign when she was made fun of for trying to appear to be more likable:

You’re likable or you’re not likable. If you announce you’re trying to be likable, you come across like a phony, and that’s what she seems like to a lot of people anyway.

That’s Hillary’s problem–she’s not very likable and nothing short of a personality transplant is going to change that. This is a reboot that’s destined to fail.

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

Watch: Even MSNBC Recognizes The Hypocricy Of The Clinton Email Scandal

In a rare moment of agreement, The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart sided with Morning Joe co-host Joe Scarborough when he said that if a Republican had been involved in the same type of scandals that Hillary Clinton has, it would be a “disqualifier” for that candidate:

SCARBOROUGH: I do think if Chris Christie had sent an email to somebody for hurricane relief after Hurricane Sandy and said, ‘Hey I’ve got a great idea. Let’s move this funding project in New Jersey through the Chris Christie Foundation.’ that would be a disqualifier.

BRZEZINSKI: Is that fair?

CAPEHART: I think that’s fair.

The ongoing Clinton email scandal has not only taken its toll on Hillary’s poll numbers, but it has been a constant source of pain and anguish for liberals like Capehart and his colleague Eugene Robinson. They have been forced to admit that Clinton has handled the situation poorly and that she should not have used a private email server for official State Department business.

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest Admits To ‘Merely Repeating’ Planned Parenthood Talking Points

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest admitted that the administration’s response to the damning Planned Parenthood videos that have been released over the last few weeks has come from the organization’s public comments, not from any investigation on the part of the White House.

Earnest was asked by Breitbart’s Charlie Spiering where he was getting his information that the videos were fraudulent and distorted:

I’m merely repeating what I’ve seen that they’ve [Planned Parenthood] said, and has been reported publicly about what they’ve said.

Earnest also said he suspected that someone in the White House had watched the Planned Parenthood videos, and that they were “grossly distorted” and “selectively edited,” even though he hasn’t seen them himself.

In this case, the truth apparently doesn’t matter, and Planned Parenthood’s word is good enough for them.

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth