Last week we told you about Project Unloaded, an anti-gun organization that targets teens and young adults through social media propaganda. Their core message is that guns make society less safe. They communicate that message through selected influencers who urge their followers to be “SNUG,” or Safer Not Using Guns.
One section of the Project Unloaded website claims to give readers the “Facts.” We addressed those “facts” in Part 1. The site then goes after “myths” regarding firearms ownership.
“Let’s Bust Some Myths”
That’s what the Project Unloaded website says. Yes, let’s do that. Here’s a list of “myths” that they supposedly bust:
- Guns make us safer
- Having a gun makes victims of abuse safer
- Owning guns makes homes safer
- I can store my guns in a way that eliminates risk
- Guns are important to have for self-defense
- People who want to die by suicide are going to—having access to a gun does not make a difference
- The threat of mass shootings means that we’re safer armed in public places
- People are safer when they carry guns
Space prohibits a detailed examination of each supposed “myth,” though we are certainly equipped to do so. But let’s look briefly at a few.
“Myth:” Guns Make Us Safer
Project Unloaded says that “Fact: Most people buy guns because they believe that a gun will make them safer, but the facts don’t back that up.” They note that homes with guns experience more gun homicides and suicides. Those homes also pose a greater risk of children being killed or injured by a gunshot wound.
We addressed this logical fallacy in Part 1. A gun increases risk just like going swimming increases the risk of drowning. The gun by itself, however, does not injure or kill anyone. Project Unloaded fails to mention risk assessment, mitigation strategies, or human action when making this statement.
They also claim that “There is little evidence that having a gun at home deters crime.” They cite a 32-year-old study as proof. But the study only looked at three metropolitan counties and qualified its findings with the statement that the presence of illicit drugs and frequent fights was the primary risk indicator for their conclusions.
The presence of guns in that environment made homicide more likely than successful defense. Even so, successful defense may well have qualified as a homicide under those circumstances. That is hardly a comprehensive study applying to responsible gun owners.
Yet Florida State University researcher Gary Kleck conducted a true national survey that found guns are used defensively as many as 2.2 million times per year. Other studies have reached similar conclusions.
Finally, Project Unloaded says that “communities with more guns have more violence.” The link provided for that supposed evidence does not work. In the absence of that research, we suspect they do not distinguish between criminal and gang activity and the actions of responsible gun owners.
But, once again, University of Chicago researcher John Lott, who now runs the Crime Prevention Research Center, has clearly demonstrated that higher rates of responsible gun ownership reduce crime. The distinction between criminals and responsible people is important, considering Project Unloaded is not speaking to criminals or gang members. But they are happy to include those statistics in their “facts.”
“Myth:” Having a Gun Makes Victims of Abuse Safer
This one will be short. Project Unloaded correctly states that abused women are 5 times more likely to be killed if a gun is present. They also say that guns are unlikely to protect victims of abuse and that the abuser is more likely to use the gun against the victim, even if the victim possesses the gun. This is true as well.
I verified these facts with a friend. She is a professional who deals with intimate partner abuse. But she also commented that the gun is not the only risk factor and that Project Unloaded leaves out key information regarding abusive relationship dynamics. Their points are correct but incomplete and they lack important context. My friend also noted that “guns don’t kill people. People do.” I don’t mind giving Project Unloaded a point here. Domestic violence is awful, but they should provide proper context.
“Myth:” Guns Are Important To Have for Self-Defense
Project Unloaded states that “Having a gun during a crime does not make it less likely that you’ll be hurt. In fact, victims of crime are less likely to be injured before they use a gun, meaning that a gun used in self-defense may actually lead to worse outcomes for the crime victim. And guns are rarely used for self-defense in comparison to criminal gun use.” They cite a study in the journal Preventive Medicine for these statements.
I looked at the study and found that Project Unloaded left out a few things. For instance, this nugget: “Victims were significantly less likely to be injured BEFORE they took self-protective action when their self-protective action involved using a gun (emphasis in the original).”
That aligns with Kleck’s research showing that in most of the 2.2 million defensive gun uses every year, the gun’s presence stopped the crime without it having to be fired.
The study also notes that “In terms of the likelihood of receiving an injury AT ANY TIME during the incident, using a gun in self-defense was associated with a lower likelihood of injury compared to other self-protective actions (emphasis in original).” That means that using a firearm is the most effective way of defending yourself.
Finally, the study cautions that “the sample of those injured after using a gun (5/127) is really too small to warrant strong conclusions. The large majority of crime victims who are injured are injured before they take action.” And we have already established that using a gun greatly decreases your chances of being injured as part of that “large majority.”
In other words, this is not the study to use when measuring defensive gun uses. Gary Kleck’s is far more comprehensive, as is the work of John Lott.
Let’s do just one more.
“Myth:” The Threat of Mass Shootings Means That We’re Safer Armed in Public Places
Project Unloaded tells us that “According to an FBI analysis of 160 active shooter events, these tragedies rarely end with a ‘good guy with a gun’ returning fire. In fact, the FBI found that it is much more likely that unarmed civilians will stop the event by restraining the shooter.”
This is all kinds of misleading. First, John Lott has demonstrated that upwards of 90% of mass shootings occur in areas where law-abiding people are prohibited from carrying firearms. That’s no accident. Numerous shooters have left written statements or told police that they chose their targets at least partially for that reason. So, there’s one reason an armed civilian “rarely” stops an active shooter. More on that in a moment.
Second, note that Project Unloaded apparently prefers you go after an active shooter with just your hands or whatever expedient weapon you can devise on the spot. I’ll just throw this out there: if you had a choice, would you rather defend against an active shooter with a firearm or would you rather try to close with him and take him down without a firearm? You decide, but we know what Project Unloaded wants you to do. At least they didn’t say to wait for the cops.
Finally, John Lott and FBI whistleblowers have shown that the FBI has consistently underreported cases where armed civilians stopped active shooters. Here are the real numbers compared to what the FBI reported.
Again, Project Unloaded uses bad data to push false and dangerous conclusions regarding active shooters. Propaganda.
Project Unloaded: Deliberately Misleading People into Surrendering Their Rights
Project Unloaded claims to provide “accurate information” regarding gun ownership to supposedly allow teens and young adults to decide for themselves whether or not to own guns. In reality, they provide curated, cherry-picked information, coupled with an anti-gun spin, to guide those teens and young adults toward the decision Project Unloaded wants them to make.
There’s nothing independent about it at all. Project Unloaded doesn’t want people to own guns, and they’re pouring millions of dollars into convincing ill-informed people that they should not own guns.
Those millions of dollars are managed by a firm called Arabella Advisors, the largest left-leaning dark money network in the country. Arabella Advisors directs that money through a nonprofit called the New Venture Fund that fiscally sponsors dozens of groups across the country. That means Project Unloaded is a tax-exempt organization that attacks American citizens’ Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Project Unloaded’s founder and executive director is Nina Vinik, who previously directed the Joyce Foundations gun violence prevention and justice reform program. The Joyce Foundation is a major funding source for anti-gun groups across the country. Vinik’s involvement clearly demonstrates that Project Unloaded has a clear agenda far beyond merely providing information to teens and young adults.
Project Unloaded is the newest facet on the face of gun control. Instead of passing laws, they use propaganda and misinformation to influence opinions. That doesn’t mean groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Brady will stop. It just means that the gun controllers are seeking every possible inroad to erode and destroy our Second Amendment rights.
Project Unloaded is an attempt to change opinions down the road, hoping that citizens will eventually stop resisting disarmament. It might work. Stay vigilant.
