In an address from the White House Thursday evening, President Biden again called for a ban on so-called “assault weapons.” In his remarks, Biden wrongly blamed the expiration of the 1994 law for a rise in so-called “mass shootings” (a term perverted by the Gun Violence Archive). And in their analysis following the speech, ABC World News Tonight anchor David Muir and chief justice correspondent Pierre Thomas backed him up with a false “fact-check,” calling the comments “not in debate.”
After touting Biden’s call to take peoples’ guns away, Muir gave a quick overview of his argument for an assault weapons ban (whatever those are):
We know that lasted ten years, it was allowed to expire when Republicans were in control. He talked about the stats after it expired. He said, “mass shootings went down while the assault weapons ban was in effect. When they expired in 2004,” he said, “those weapons were allowed to be sold again, mass shootings have tripled.”
“Has our team had time to fact-check that?” Muir teed him up.
Thomas said their team thinks “he's citing a New York University study showing a slight decrease in mass shootings when the assault weapons ban was in place and a surge in the decade right after it was allowed to lapse.”
Claiming to speak as a matter of “fact,” Thomas added: “We know we've seen a dramatic rise in mass shootings recently. So, that is not in debate, David.”
That is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Thomas essentially put pieces near each other and just supposed they fit together.
In reality, we know for a fact that the most common type of weapon used in mass shootings is handguns. That’s including when using the Gun Violence Archive’s catchall definition for mass shooting (which again, NewsBusters has debunked). So, claiming the expiration of the assault weapons ban led to more mass shootings is grossly negligent, journalistically speaking.
In addition, since the lifting of the ban on “assault weapons,” they have become the most popular type of firearm purchased in America. This means there are just more of them out there that could be used by a criminal (we know that less than 1% of firearms are used to commit crimes).
So, using ABC’s logic, since the Ford F-150 is the most popular vehicle in America, that means they’re responsible for all vehicle fatalities, vehicle-related crimes, and accidents.
Earlier in their analysis, Muir didn’t bat an eye at Biden’s contradiction of himself when he claimed he wasn’t going to take away guns just before calling for the ban:
He also added, “I want to make it very clear,” and these were the president's words, he said, “I'm not about taking away anyone's guns, in fact, we believe we should be treating responsible gun owners as an example of how every gun owner should behave in this country.”
And at a different point, congressional correspondent Rachel Scott seemed to accidentally admit Biden’s proposals wouldn’t have stopped the Uvalde shooter:
MUIR: Would anything you're hearing being discussed right now effect a purchase like that?
RACHEL SCOTT: You know, David, it may not have been enough to stop the suspect in Texas.
She went on to tout how “Democrats do want to go further” than Biden.
The transcript is below, click "expand" to read:
ABC Presidential Speech on Guns
June 2, 2022
7:48:33 p.m. EasternDAVID MUIR: President Biden at the White House tonight with his request for Congress and his thoughts for the American people and in particular, for the communities that have suffered unspeakable loss in these last few weeks.
He spoke of his visits with the First Lady to Buffalo and Uvalde and he said the families that they spoke with, they had one message for us all – “do something. Just do something.” He spoke of columbine, Sandy Hook, Orlando, Las Vegas, and the shootings we have faced in this country in just the last couple of weeks. And he said, “we have done nothing.”
He also added, “I want to make it very clear,” and these were the president's words, he said, “I'm not about taking away anyone's guns, in fact, we believe we should be treating responsible gun owners as an example of how every gun owner should behave in this country.”
And then he laid it out. Here's what the President wants to happen in this country. He said, “we need to ban assault weapons in this country and if we can't do that,” he said, “we must raise the age from 18 to 21” to buy those assault-style rifles that have been used in these mass shootings, particularly in these last couple of weeks.
(…)
7:52:55 p.m. Eastern
MUIR: But you heard the President there talk about banning assault weapons in this country. Take Texas for example, where we know the suspect, authorities say, turned 18, the next day, he bought that AR-15-style rifle. Would anything you're hearing being discussed right now effect a purchase like that?
RACHEL SCOTT: You know, David, it may not have been enough to stop the suspect in Texas. But the President pointed out that it may have been enough to stop other suspects in other mass shootings that have happened in this country.
Democrats do want to go further. They want to ban assault weapons outright.
(…)
7:54:18 p.m. Eastern
MUIR: Pierre, we heard the President say this again, he has said this in the recent weeks after previous mass shootings and now after Tulsa has been added to the list here. He said, once again, that we should reinstate the assault weapons ban that passed in '94, with bipartisan support.
We know that lasted ten years, it was allowed to expire when Republicans were in control. He talked about the stats after it expired. He said, “mass shootings went down while the assault weapons ban was in effect. When they expired in 2004,” he said, “those weapons were allowed to be sold again, mass shootings have tripled.” Has our team had time to fact-check that?
PIERRE THOMAS: David, we think he's citing a New York University study showing a slight decrease in mass shootings when the assault weapons ban was in place and a surge in the decade right after it was allowed to lapse. And in fact, we know we've seen a dramatic rise in mass shootings recently. So, that is not in debate, David.
(…)
