Collin Goddard: Audio-Fisk

So I found a podcast interviewing Brady Campaign Spokesman Collin Goddard. You can download it by right-clicking here. I listened to it on my ride into work this morning and decided that this evening I should discuss it here.

My first question was “How did Collin know he’d get such softball questions, and this interviewer would be so unsympathetic to the pro-rights side of the 2nd Amendment. Then I had a look at some of the editorials he wrote. Call me judgmental, but I think I see why Collin (or his handlers) agreed to do the interview. OK so let’s dive into this. Here’s what I did, I downloaded the podcast and gave it a solid listening and I took notes of the timestamps for my various points. Please note I’m not going to great lengths to supply exact quotes here, just doing my best to keep us all on the same page. Ready? GO!

2:30: We start right off with Colin talking about getting shot at Virginia Tech. He mentions that “I can’t believe this is really happening!” was just going over-and-over in his head. Now we’ll agree, and talk about it a bit later, that most of the violent crime is criminal-on-criminal, so if you don’t associate with known criminals, and aren’t one yourself, you’re already in a better spot. That being said, one can’t say that everybody who is attacked or killed “had it coming”, that’s crude and rude. This CAN happen to you, that’s step one in making yourself safer. Collin also mentions that Cho spent around 10 mins causing havoc in the classroom before moving on. This is what pissed me off most about this massacre, and what keeps me from ever having a moment of respect for Mr. Goddard and what he does. Cho was not a good shot, and was not particularly well armed. He had a .22 training pistol of dubious quality, and a compact Glock with mostly restricted 10-round magazines. Yet he met zero almost zero resistance and simply continued to shoot people until the cops finally breached the locked doors where he shot himself. Now first Collin is fighting to make sure that psychos like Cho are forever the only gun in town before the cops can respond, but also never seems to discuss the poor tactics taken on that day by himself and others. All one needs to do is look at the Gabriell Giffords shooting in Tuscon Arizona. The shooter met resistance, from people who were unarmed, and they did manage to stop him not only long before the police arrived, but also before a lawful citizen with a gun who was nearby could arrive. FIGHT BACK! If somebody starts shooting people you may be the next target, FIGHT BACK. This would be the best time to have a gun, but if you don’t use what weapons you have, be it a gun or a knife, or hands and feet, or items you have at hand. Goddard followed the liberal teaching that I heard when I was a school child: Just play dead and hope they don’t go after you. That’s not a way to improve your chances!

5:00 They talk about Goddard’s involvement in “Gun Fight” and what a “Balanced” documentary it was. I’ll just say the director is a pretty open leftist, and worked directly with Goddard who is a Brady Campaign employee. Surprise Surprise that lots of people think its a very biased piece.

6:40: Collin talks about Sung Cho and the killer of an Oregon Police Officer were “Known to be mentally ill by mental health workers, but not gun dealers”, and he claims that some better record keeping would have kept them from buying guns.

Well first the elephant in the room is how does one define mental illness that would preclude one from owning a gun, and what other rights should that also restrict. We talked about that here. I don’t know the Oregon case well enough, but from quick glances the person was never committed by a court of law. That’s a good standard (so long as the person can later be declared sane by a doctor and/or a court at a later date and have the restrictions lifted) if you are so sick the legal system demands you get mandatory treatment in a psychiatric facility, that sounds sick enough to me. Problem is neither of these people WERE committed. Cho was declared dangerously mentally ill….and then the judge turned him lose. This was a legal system problem, not a gun law problem. Of course Collin doesn’t care about that, they just want to EXPAND the definition so guns are legal, just OWNING them isn’t.

8:00: This appears to be the new anti-rights rallying cry. The claim to want a debate (and claim it in such a way that a debate can’t occur) Goddard complains that he can’t have a dialog with the NRA on gun laws. He does this as somebody who blogs on a website that refuses to allow comments (also blocks comments or ratings from their Youtube Videos) and is talking on what is likely a heavily vetted podcast with no 3rd party questions. Also note that my comments section is open, as well as countless pro-gun bloggers. If you want to talk there are lots of places to do it. The fact that you don’t see anti-rights activists reaching out for debate says volumes about their claims.

Same thing happened in Pittsburgh they shouted “We Wanna Talk” over and over again into megaphones. They don’t want to have a dialog, they want to talk…and be obeyed without question.

8:30: Here’s a whopper! “If the government comes to take away all the guns, I’ll be fighting beside the gun owners.” First up: BULLSHIT, second, note he says “All the Guns”, this is a man from the same group that points out that England doesn’t have a gun ban because you can still get a shotgun or a .22 rifle with a great degree of difficulty. Talk is cheap Collin.

9:00: Collin claims the NRA is unsupportive of “Simple Background Checks for Gun Sales”, “Banning Cop Killer Bullets”, and “Giving Law Enforcement the tools they need”, and “Undermining enforcement of existing laws”.

First “Simple Background Checks” is code for banning private sales. The only reason why this talking point has ANY traction is its hidden under the guise of the term “Gun Show Loophole”, but the proposals aren’t about gun shows, nor is it about a loophole, its about banning private sales. It simply means if you have a gun you can’t sell it or give it to a family member or a friend, you need to pay a gunshop to transfer ownership.

“Cop Killer Bullets” is just another stupid and made-up term. There really isn’t a definition of what exactly they are, and certainly there aren’t any dead cops from any sort of special bullets. Odd that he mentions this as its more-or-less a dead issue right now.

“The Tools They Need” is talking about the Tiahrt Amendment which simply demands police give probable cause before searching the ATF gun database. People on the Brady Campaign hate ALL the human rights, they don’t want to discuss stuff with us, they don’t want you owning guns, and they don’t much care for the 4th Amendment when it comes to people who don’t agree with them. The list goes on.

The last point leads into the Mexican Gun Canard! Colin says “The Vast Majority of guns in Mexico are coming from the US, and nobody disagrees with that!” well unless “nobody” means just about anybody not being paid by the gun lobby, including the ATF. There are not a ton of guns getting into Mexico via the US private market (guns sold to the Mexican Military by the US government is a different story), and of those, the vast majority of those guns were “Walked” across the boarder with the ATF’s blessing. So he’s starting right out on a dishonest foot right there. And of course with all this information one wonders why anybody would cooperate with such a deceptive little worm. He babels a bit more about the proposed reporting to the ATF about multiple long-gun sales. I could write a whole post about this, but I’ll simply leave it at this. We have multiple handgun sales reporting on the books, and handguns are still the most common guns to turn up at crime scenes. WHAT CRIMES HAS THIS LAW PREVENTED?

Simple question, I just want to have a reasonable debate, Collin.

11:00: This is just amusing, Collin says “These laws won’t stop people from hunting, shooting, or protecting themselves”. I’m just amused that the Brady Campaign is losing ground, back when the Assault Weapons ban was passed the rallying cry was “You can’t use these guns for hunting” (wrong you can), but “Self Defense” was never a valid reason for gun ownership back in those days.

11:30 Whopper #2. “Only Three Federal Gun Control Laws on the Books”. First that’s bullshit, second he lists them as The NFA, the Brady Bill which he improperly describes as the Gun Control Act, and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban which isn’t a law anymore. So BS, and anybody who wants to say otherwise they just need to see the big fat phonebooks of federal laws the ATF used to send to FFLs, now they just send a CD of a monster PDF. I’d take a picture of my old books, but they got destroyed in a flood. If any FFLs who read have their old lawbooks laying around email me a picture of them with something beside for scale just to show the idiots. You’d think a spokesperson for a lobby would know what he’s talking about. I guess you can never expect too little from these people….

12:50 He gets asked how he started his involvement with the Brady Campaign. He doesn’t actually answer this question, but what he does mention is his misconceptions of gun laws. He feels overall the gun laws are too loose….I think they’re too strict. One of us has facts…I’m just sayin’. He also mentions that several states don’t even require live fire to get a concealed weapons permit. That does indeed sound scary, and I too was one of those people who just assumed that more mandatory training was better. Only there is ZERO data that the permit holders in those states are any less safe or accident prone than the states that demand extensive training. Lotta scare tactics about nothing…and now with four states not requiring permits at all, its showing the permit doesn’t do jack or shit either. Sorry Collin you need a problem first before we get riled up over it! He also talks about “How easy it is to buy a gun” and talks about his little gunshow Sting where he filmed himself and others breaking federal law. Have you ever wondered why Colin was so concerned about this behavior, but you never heard of these videos being used as evidence to prosecute the serious crimes committed? Its almost as if the whole thing was little more than a political stunt…nah, I’m too Cynical!

13:50: He segways into mentioning that Oregon has closed the “gunshow loophole”. He fails to show any prosperity or advantage to this. I mean Massachusetts has 100% government oversight over private sales, and yet we have the most violence in New England, as well as a thriving gun black market. If you want to take away our freedoms you have to give us something in return besides smug satisfaction.

14:40: He claims the Brady Campaign’s goals isn’t about “Removing the 2nd Amendment” or “Banning Guns” (well except that they spoke out against both the McDonald and the Heller cases that ruled that gun bans violated the 2nd Amendment….oops!) and saying they just want to “Make it more difficult for dangerous people to own guns” which dangerous people? All I see are restrictions on lawful people in the name of dangerous people who can’t buy guns in the first place.

18:11: He’s asked what the biggest Challenge is to achieving his goal. He says the NRA is the biggest threat and claims the NRA is simply an extension of the “Big Gun Industry”. Hmmm, at the convention there were 71,000 paying NRA members going to the convention, there are millions more who couldn’t make it. Seems the NRA represents me, and others like me, not the Gun makers themselves. He also takes some time to vilify Eric Thompson who runs a shop that shipped a gun to Sung Cho’s local FFL…he also sold “an accessory” to another school shooter. Really Collin how far are you willing to go here? Can we blame Nike if a violent criminal wears their sneakers? Really this is just SOP for these people, its the tool’s fault, the violent criminal was just along for the ride.

20:00 OK here’s a good spot, he’s asked about the NRA’s talking points. He does a decent job at giving NRA points, and expose the weakness of his point:

-“Gun control laws don’t work”, Collin quips back that we should ban the laws on murder too, or traffic offenses. False Dichotomy, Collin. You see criminals carrying guns, and committing violent acts are already illegal. Brady Campaign laws make LEGAL use of guns ILLEGAL. So a proper comparison might be “Our Murder Rate is too high so the Brady Campaign to Prevent Murder is proposing a law to make self defense illegal!” or “Running Red Lights is a big problem so the Brady Center to prevent traffic crime wants to make it illegal to drive through a GREEN light!” That’s more like it!

-“States with high gun control still have high crime and ‘Gun death'” well first, Colin, did you clear that one with your Boss? Seems the Brady Center claims that New York and California have the lowest “gun Deaths”. That’s a huge problem with being full of shit, you always run into awkward situations like this! Of course Collin’s proposed solution is to make everyplace like California. Of course Colin also claimed that Mexican drug dealers are getting guns from California, so we need to make the whole country like Mexico, right? Where do we stop?

21:55: The host first references “Bowling for Columbine” (don’t start laughing just yet) and claiming Canada has the same gun laws as the US. Collin corrects his mistake and gives praise to Canada’s gun registration. Of course Canada’s Registry is an abject failure at massive tax payer expense, and with luck it will soon be repealed, not to mention the registries that are totally worthless here. So again, laws that don’t work but take away freedom and cost lots of money. See a pattern here?

He then goes on to talk about the United State’s violent crime problem. He claims Americans are more prone to violence. Not so sure how true that is, but it does appear that he’s seamlessly transitioned from talking about lawful gun owners, to criminal gun owners. We’re not the same, but they’d like us all to be. He talks about the work of Ceasefire Chicago, first I must note the irony of a gun control group in a city that until recently had banned guns. Still I link the page just because they talk almost exclusively about gang interventions rather than laws that target the law abiding. Good on them. Of course they’re a Joyce Foundation group, so that’s just that chapter’s angle. Still gang members don’t get their guns at gunshows, they don’t have carry permits, they don’t obey bans or “gun free zones”. Don’t confuse them with us, we aren’t the same.

24:40: OK I’m very amused by this. He’s asked if he feels obligated to pursue gun control because of his involvement in the VT shooting, he mentions that he doesn’t feel an obligation, and he respects his classmates who got their degrees and went on with their lives. He mentions that he “Didn’t have much of a path in his life”, so he’s glad to have the Brady Campaign. He graduated with a Liberal Arts degree into a down economy. Your damn right he’s lucky to have a job with the Brady Campaign, they’re probably the only ones who’d pay him a living wage.

25:20: He mentions that if he could have ever avoided going to class that day he would. I feel for him on this. I heard a great story of a man strapping his gun on before going out with a girlfriend to a holiday party. She asked him: “Do you really think you’ll need that gun at the party?” He responded: “If I thought I’d need a gun I’d just stay home.”

That’s the truth nobody wants to encounter violence, and if we can avoid it, but we can’t so its a fruitless question.

The big question is if violence finds you, will you play dead like Collin Goddard and let the attacker shoot you, or will you fight back? And will you fight to be disarmed for that fight, or will you campaign to have the best tools at hand?

Hopefully you enjoyed my fisking, it was a bit of work, but worthwhile I think!

This entry was posted in Guns, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Collin Goddard: Audio-Fisk

  1. Braden Lynch says:

    Nice job with the dissection. Now I don’t have to listen to this misguided individual.

  2. BornLib says:

    Oh man, I remember the “cop killer” Teflon coated bullet media frenzy from when I was a kid. Handgun Control, Inc was telling everyone who would listen that a 9mm round with Teflon on it would slip through a bulletproof vest like a hot knife through butter. And of course the Black Talons were extra evil because if you shot somebody the sharp bits might hurt them.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Yep. This shit got a little play a few years back when somebody slipped Fat Teddy Kennedy some anti-rights talking points that got him squawking about how center-fire rifle rounds will defeat type IIa ballistic armor.

      More recently than that the antis had a neat little scheme. There were lots of talk about EPA banning the use of lead ammo for sport and target shooting because of contamination of soil and ground water. (They never actually did demonstrate that the lead was doing anything of the sort) And the antis were pushing for “Armor piercing” bans that defined AP as any bullet without a lead core. This of course was based on the military AP ammo that uses a hardened steel core to punch through heavy plate armor, or the depleated uranium rounds that also offer much better penetration against hardened targets….also those brass monoliths used by big game hunters to penetrate large animals with tough hide…..but also solid-copper bullets that penetrate less than FMJ bullets, but offer more consistent expansion and weight retention.

      They didn’t care about “Cop killers” they just knew the shooting sports couldn’t survive if 99% of all the ammo used for sporting, target shooting, practice, and plinking, was banned if all lead ammo is too toxic to use, and all non-lead ammo is “Cop Killer” fare.

      But yeah the Black Talon nonsense was the high-water mark of the anti-rights lies. Winchester chose to rebrand the talons as the Ranger series, and go back to a regular copper jacket rather than the cool looking black nickle.

      BTW Winchester ranger makes some VERY VERY nice defensive loads. They’re one of the few companies that make a .45 ACP +P 230gr JHP. I just happened to have found my HST ammo on super sale before I went to the Ranger stuff. My HST supply may dry up as Federal only sells HST to Police distributors now, so when I run out of this stuff in a few years I may have to T&E the Ranger because I don’t want to choose heavy OR Fast, when a +P 230 does it both!

  3. What he says about the VA Tech killer’s records is horseshit. The VA State Police said that the shooter was NOT a prohibited person. The reason was that he was not involuntarily committed. He was ruled a danger, but he was given outpatient treatment by a sympathetic judge. Whenever the Brady Campaign blames the State instead of the Judge, they are lying.

  4. Pingback: Weerd Beard is at it again | Pithy Title Goes Here

  5. Tango says:

    He says the NRA won’t talk. Ever. My question for Goddard is “why should they?” What’s in it for the NRA and the people they represent (us)? To that affect, I can only quote LawDog:

    I hear a lot about “compromise” from your camp … except, it’s not compromise.

    Let’s say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with “GUN RIGHTS” written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, “Give me that cake.”

    I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

    You say, “Let’s compromise. Give me half.” I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

    Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

    There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, “Give me that cake.”

    I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

    You say, “Let’s compromise.” What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what’s left of the cake I already own.

    So, we have your compromise — let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 — and I’m left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

    And I’m sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

    This time you take several bites — we’ll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders — and I’m left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you’ve got nine-tenths of it.

    Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

    I’m left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you’re standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being “reasonable”, and wondering “why we won’t compromise”.

    I’m done with being reasonable, and I’m done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been “reasonable” nor a genuine “compromise”.


    • Weerd Beard says:

      Yep, I hear some people talk about “moderate” positions in the 2nd Amendment issue, but frankly that essentially means supporting SOME of the bullshit laws that don’t work.

      A non-US example is Canada’s Firearm registry. It hasn’t stopped any crime, and it costs millions. The “Moderate” position is to abolish the long-gun portion of the registry. This means it still won’t stop crime, just won’t cost as much. What sense does that make?

  6. Pingback: Goddard Fisk Pt II | Weer'd World

  7. Pingback: Gun Control good Intentions | Weer'd World

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *