Anti-gun Senator Shoots Home Intruder

[Corlissimo]

File this under: "You can't keep your gun, but I can keep mine because I'm entitled to."

http://www.fieldandstream.com/forums/backlash-and-blowback/anti-gun-senator-shoots-intruder

[bdcheung]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/soles.asp

However, commentaries on the shooting (like the one reproduced above) which portrayed Senator Soles as a hypocritical, virulently anti-gun legislator "who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public" are not supported by the evidence. According to Project VoteSmart, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF (http://www.nrapvf.org/about-pvf.aspx)), the NRA political action committee that ranks political candidates based on voting records, public statements and their responses to NRA-PVF questionnaires, had assigned the following grades to Senator Soles over the previous decade:

1998 - B
2000 - B+
2002 - B+
2004 - A
2006 - A
2008 - A

[Corlissimo]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/soles.asp

However, commentaries on the shooting (like the one reproduced above) which portrayed Senator Soles as a hypocritical, virulently anti-gun legislator "who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public" are not supported by the evidence. According to Project VoteSmart, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF (http://www.nrapvf.org/about-pvf.aspx)), the NRA political action committee that ranks political candidates based on voting records, public statements and their responses to NRA-PVF questionnaires, had assigned the following grades to Senator Soles over the previous decade:

1998 - B
2000 - B+
2002 - B+
2004 - A
2006 - A
2008 - A


In that case, I retract my posting due to lack of due diligence on my part. #facepalm

[Al T.]

Snopes (anti gun web site) is using the NRA ratings to "dis-prove" the assertion. The NRA rated one of our state Senators (who was extremely anti) an "A".

The NRA rating means nothing. The folks at Grass Roots NC verified that the Senator was anti.

[ford.304]

What does the NRA base their ratings on, then, that they got this wrong?

Also, the snopes article links Grass Roots NC as a source for him being "at worst, mediocre" on gun rights.

[peterb]

http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/5930

Doesn't look strongly pro- or anti-gun.

Did vote in favor of castle doctrine and for easier concealed carry permit renewals in 2009
http://www.civitasaction.org/senate/R.C.+Soles/2009/

Voted in favor of easing a NICS restriction in 2008
http://www.civitasaction.org/senate/R.C.+Soles/2008/

Voted in favor of non-violent felons being allowed to petition for gun ownership in 2010
http://www.civitasaction.org/senate/R.C.+Soles/2010/

[Odin Bravo One]

What does the NRA base their ratings on, then, that they got this wrong?

The NRA is not exactly the most "on the ball" organization. They suffer the same inadequacies as any large organization, most of which is lack of organization, lackl of and/or poor communication inside itself, and who is actually in charge.

But they are as good as this country has for a pro-2A lobby. For as bad as they suck sometimes, it's the best we got.

[bdcheung]

The folks at Grass Roots NC verified that the Senator was anti.

GRNC said he's "mediocre at worst and has voted with us on most major issues"

[Al T.]

Here's an example of what was going around at the time. The link to GRNC's rating is long gone.

http://johnjacobh.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/breaking-nc-gun-control-democrat-rc-soles-shoots-intruder/

[peterb]

I don't really want to research this guy's whole voting record -- I really don't care -- but I did find this in another forum:

"As a CA Republican, I researched NC State Sen. RC Soles, Jr, voting record 1999 to present and found NO ANTI-GUN votes. I believe in all fairness that the writer of this blog should either present some definite information of anti-gun bias or admit they wrote without facts. Soles voted for “Reciprocal Concealed Handgun w/other states” (2003), “Lawful Firearms Activity Protected” (2001), & “Firearms Regulation Amendments” (2002). All these laws provided protection of NC firearm owners. Compared to the Democrats (Demons) out here, NC Pols seem reasonable."

I suspect that it's a another case of there being no middle ground on the internet. If you're not 100% for something, you're against it.

It's no different than labeling someone "anti-woman" because they think that some form of religious exemption from providing free contraception might be reasonable.

[Byron]

Premise #1
Senator is anti-gun

Support
A Wordpress blog post

Premise #2
Senator is neutral or pro-gun

Support
10 years worth of NRA ratings
Actual voting record
GRNC quote that Senator has "voted with us on most major issues."


For Premise #1 to be true, it means that the NRA has somehow dropped the ball for 10 years in a row (not just once or twice), that the Senator has some other secret voting record that we don't know about and can't find online, and that the GRNC was somehow duped into offering a false quote in defense of the Senator.

For Premise #2 to be true, it means that a WordPress blog wasn't 100% factually accurate.



If Premise #1 is true, it makes a convenient narrative of "Democrats are bad. Anti-gun politicians are bad. Anti-gun politicians are hypocrites who shoot people."

If Premise #2 is true, it means that a citizen used a firearm to defend himself (something that we usually applaud around here).


This one looks pretty open and shut to me. It would appear that verifiable facts are being pushed to the side so that a shaky narrative can hold, further fueling the collective outrage of the gun-owning community.

By the way, why does our community love to generate so much outrage that we find it in places like this? Do we get paid per unit of outrage? If so, someone needs to let me in on the details, because I've obviously been missing my checks in the mail.

[cclaxton]

Field & Stream Article seriously biased.
Please see this link and you will find he gets an 'A' rating from the NRA in 2006 and 2008, and a B+ rating in 2000. It appears to be an anti-Democratic smear campaign that Field & Stream is repeating.

http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/5930

You can't be a Senator in a State like NC for very long and not be friendly to gun rights.

CC

[Corlissimo]

You can't be a Senator in a State like NC for very long and not be friendly to gun rights.

CC

THIS is very true!

To everyone else: My apologies for any fueling of unhealthy debate* caused by my posting. This was not my intention.

*Not that any of this seems to be "unhealthy".

[Mjolnir]

Snopes (anti gun web site) is using the NRA ratings to "dis-prove" the assertion. The NRA rated one of our state Senators (who was extremely anti) an "A".

The NRA rating means nothing. The folks at Grass Roots NC verified that the Senator was anti.

Thanks for conforming what I've been quietly observing for a while.