It is generally excepted that the standard methods of lying are:
- Contradicting the truth.
- Omitting parts of the truth.
- Telling the truth
The first is by far the easiest. Even a child (or judge) can do it. “Jill, did you eat the blueberries?” “No daddy!” she responds with her face covered in blueberry juices.
Omitting part of the truth happens in things like
the Second Amendment is [not] a regulatory straightjacket —New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. V. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022) This citation is used in almost all infringement cases, but read it in full, in context.
The fuller quote shows that this is a balanced statement. The state can try to get close, it is up to the court to determine if they are close enough. The courts are limited because this is not a “blank check”.
The third method is the hardest yet the most successful method. When you tell the absolute truth in such away that you are not believed or such that people jump to conclusions that are not the truth.
The other day, I was driving home with my wife. She started to open a protein bar. I asked her to put it away because it would spoil her lunch. She happily did so because we were approaching the city and some of her favorite restaurants are there. I asked her, “You like Five Guys, don’t you?” she replied in the positive. “Five Guys is much better than a protein bar.” “Yeah…”
We were pulling into one of her favorite restaurants before she realized that we were not going to Five Guys.
She accused me of lying to her. I made her replay the conversation, at which point she realized that I had never said we were going to Five Guys. I had asked her questions that let her easily assume that was where we were going.
A Master Class in Lying and Misleading, from NJ.com
This is an example of lying by omission. There is a true statement, “Bruen severely limited a state’s power to control guns” While the state does have rights in regard to the federal government, they have powers over their citizens. They never had the right to control guns, they had the power to control guns.
The second part is the omission, it is true that gun-rights advocates have tried to erase the restrictions New Jersey placed on where you can carry a firearm. They fail to mention that those restrictions were put in place after the Bruen decision. It makes a difference.
This is an absolutely true statement. And it is a lie. They are attempting to expand the areas where guns are permitted because, in their post Bruen tantrum, New Jersey made most places “sensitive”.
Omissions again. There is no indication that the “Gun Violence Research Center” is a gun-control group. There is no discussion of how come a gang issue is a leading contributor to death by gun. And there is nothing to indicate what types of deaths these are. Justifiable? Suicide? Or actual murder?
Notice the word homicides. A homicide is any death by other than natural causes. To the average reader, this word is synonymous with “murder.” Yet, the word homicide includes all sorts of other deaths. They might be telling the truth, but they are expressing it in such a way that people just assume “murders”.
It is also important to note that their results come from a sample of 11 states out of 50. Of those 11 states, they only track the numbers in some counties. Why did they pick 2010? Is it the same reason that they start counting the number of victims of terrorists in the US from 2002? The excuse sounds reasonable, but what are the hidden implications?
—Richard Stansfield et al., The Relationship between Concealed Carry Licenses and Firearm Homicide in the US: A Reciprocal County-Level Analysis, 100 Journal of Urban Health 657–65 (Aug. 2023)
The text of their paper is behind a $40.00 paywall. I put this abstract here to contrast it with a different abstract:
The first thing that I noticed is that they are using methods that I actually understand. That’s not important, I don’t do statistical studies, so most of the jargon is beyond me. What is significant is that even in the abstract, they are giving hard numbers.
This means that you can assess what their words actually represent.
To wrap this up:
A. It was a more comprehensive way to look at the link between concealed carry and homicides over time. People often talk about how correlation is not causation, which is true, and scientists are very cautious when saying anything causes something. But because of the modeling we used, we could ask, “Do concealed carries increase homicides the following year?” Or on the flip side: “Are people just getting more permits and guns because there are more homicides?” We saw some indication that permits increase when homicides are up.
But the majority of what we found was that the more concealed carry permits went up, homicides went up in the following year. Again, this is backed by research from others outside our team. Another recent study from Johns Hopkins found that states saw jumps of about 10% in firearm assaults following adoption of shall-issue carry laws. So in addition to the fact that we didn’t really see any defensive gun-use effect, we concluded that broadening concealed-carry – which might include allowing more concealed-carry in more places – would have a more harmful effect on public safety than doing anything to reduce the risk of shootings through defensive use.