Chicago Columnist Offers Insight in Gun Crime in Chicago
In discussing how a legally purchased handgun was used in a grisly and tragic murder in the suburbs of Chicago, Daily Herald columnist Chuck Groudie offers a unique look at the gun debate. While he doesn’t exactly take sides, he does stress that this was also not a random case of violence. This was a case of pre-mediated murder, and one point Groudie doesn’t offer is that if the Kramer family had a gun they could have fought back.
Give his piece a read, and you decide whether a second legally purchased gun wouldn’t have meant a very different outcome.
Philly Inquirer Thinks Legal Guns Will Mean Illegal Gun Trafficking
The debate in the Supreme Court this week (McDonald v. Chicago) is one being editorialized in numerous papers, and we must take note of some of the weak arguments made by The Philadelphia Inquirer including:
“A gun-rights decision by the Supreme Court two years ago threatened to make it more dangerous to walk the streets of Washington.”
Is there even any evidence that the streets of Washington are any more dangerous? Worse still, somehow the editors of the Inquirer seem to think that allowing citizens to legally obtain firearms will lead to more illegal guns:
“That will lead to a greater proliferation of handguns – with the inevitable increase in illegal gun trafficking.”
We must ask why criminals will wait for legal handguns, and further ask if anyone really thinks someone would suddenly just buy guns legally, only to sell them illegally?
CSM Says Gun Rights Not the Same as Free Speech
The Christian Science Monitor is a typical liberal leaning example of the mainstream media that pulls no punches when it comes to bias against firearms. Case in point, in an editorial published this week, the outlet offers:
“The Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday that could result in striking down a handgun ban in Chicago and other places. But beyond that, the court must clarify how fundamental gun rights are. They shouldn’t be viewed as equal to free-speech rights.”
We ask the CSM and the author, why shouldn’t gun rights be viewed as equal to free-speech rights? The editorial offers this argument:
“Firearms must be treated differently from free speech. Slinging guns is not the same as slinging slurs. Guns can kill a person, while any child can quote that ’sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me’ (except for yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater, for which there is a restriction).”
The irony of all this is that the CSM is offering this editorial in response to McDonald v. Chicago, where a 70-something man in Chicago simply wants a gun to protect his home and his wife. So no slinging guns is not the same, but when the criminals aren’t following the law, why should law-abiding citizens be put at risk? Words can never hurt you, but criminals with far more than unkind words can ruin your life, and men such as Mr. McDonald should be able to have something to back up their strong words.
Times Herald Imagines Surreal Scenarios in Editorial
In an editorial loaded with the wildest scenarios ever, the editors of The Times Herald of Solana and Napa Valley write:
“It appears some Bay Area residents feel that simply having a right to bear arms is not enough. They also feel they must exercise that right in a public display that conjures visions of a modern-day Wild West.”
That’s pretty clear what they mean, but let’s examine this a bit more in detail. Here is another juicy passage:
“We can envision a circumstance where a teen comes into a coffee shop and runs out with the tip jar and the good citizen carrying a weapon decides to load up and pursue the youth. That has bad ending written all over it.
“Or, even more dramatically, an armed robber enters a store brandishing a loaded weapon and sees a patron with a gun on his belt. Either the perpetrator knows it is unloaded or he doesn’t, but either scenario is rife with disastrous prospects.”
We can imagine a circumstance where a gun owner chases the teen stealing the tip jar, knowing that if the little punk has a knife or gun that there is a chance to fight back. We also wonder if a robber entered the store and saw a patron with a gun on his belt, if he wouldn’t turn around and go elsewhere?
Part of the problem with any “scenario” is that too often the idea of the always violent Wild West is brought to mind. Yes, there were times of seeming lawlessness, but it wasn’t quite what Hollywood had in mind. Every year dozens of states have hunting season, and all sorts of firearms are on the roads and in the trunks of cars. We don’t hear about the Great Michigan Deer Hunting Shootout do we? We don’t, because most law-abiding gun owners are responsible. The real threat is from those breaking the law, such as those who would steal a tip jar or attempt an armed robbery. Shouldn’t law-abiding citizens have the right to fight back too?
ABC News Throws Bias in Gun Debate Story
When is a news story really an opinion piece? In our opinion – no pun intended – it is anytime an argument is made that supports one side of the issue. ABC News did a pretty good job in a story about the gun ban debate raging at Colorado State University. How else do you explain this bias that begins the story:
“Every campus shooting – including the one 11 days ago at the University of Alabama – reignites the debate over whether students and faculty should be allowed to carry concealed guns into college classrooms. Most colleges already ban the practice, but one of the last holdouts in the country, Colorado State, is just now finalizing plans to ban firearms on campus.”
In a news story there shouldn’t be this type of one-sided introduction. In fact, this type of intro is more suited to a straight up editorial. We’d like to ask whether every shooting in the country, campus or otherwise, really reignites the debate. First, does the debate every really cool down, and why is only in times of tragedy that this issue is brought up?
In fairness, the second paragraph is less biased:
“That is not sitting well with many students who argue that a full ban actually puts them in more danger.”
But the way this story is crafted, it brings up the shootings first, suggesting to the reader that Colorado State is wrong – the article does call the university a holdout after all. This is a simple writing tactic, where the author can shift opinion with just a few words – proving the pen (or keyboard) is mightier than the sword.
USA Today Article Presents Both Sides of Chicago Gun Debate
In a rather surprisingly unbiased piece, USA Today tackled the issue of the gun debate currently raging in Chicago, offering voices from both sides. There were however a few choice passages that show just how out of touch the anti-gun crowd has gotten:
The Chicago School Board, backing the city, counters: “We tolerate few restrictions on the right to free speech because of its salutary effects, and because ’sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me,’ as the children’s rhyme goes. Guns, on the other hand, will kill you.”
Yes, Chicago School Board, guns can kill you. That’s the point – and if you read the article 76-year-old Otis McDonald says he wants a handgun because he is fearful of the gangs and drug dealers in his neighborhood. Those young thugs likely are armed better than soldiers in some third-world national armies, but listen to the anti-firearm zealots and somehow keeping law-abiding citizens from owning what the Constitution guarantees will somehow make the streets less safe! We hope the Chicago ban on handguns is overturned so that Mr. McDonald can sleep a big better knowing that he can protect his wife and his home.
Gun Registration Debated in Las Vegas
The mainstream media likes to report that gun laws haven’t changed much under the rule of Obama, so why is it we’re actually seeing some new efforts to create restrictions on ownership and registration of firearms? Channel 8’s Las Vegas Now Web site noted that even in Las Vegas there is a growing push from law enforcement to profile gun owners:
“The blue card registration system requires people to register their guns in Nevada. Sheriff Gillespie says the system helps the department solve crimes, including a murder case.”
One resident summed up this system quite well:
“It profiles me as owning a gun and profiles me for confiscation, where other people don’t come under that,” gun owner Charles Musser said. “I think those (police officers) should be on the streets protecting people. They’re not protecting anyone with those blue cards. They are only investigating crime after it happens.”
Well said Charles.
Who Guards the Guards: Columbus Police Department Creates New Gun Unit
10TV in Columbus ran a story noting how Columbus Police are trying to get illegal guns off the streets, and while the numbers of confiscated weapons actually fell, the department is looking to create yet another unit. Here is what the Web story had to say:
“Police have already created a unit that does nothing but process guns seized from the streets, but a new plan to go after illegal weapons is expected to be unveiled soon, 10TV’s Kevin Landers reported on Thursday.”
We’ll be watching this new “plan” very carefully. Let’s hope it isn’t just a plan that would make all guns owned by citizens of Columbus to suddenly be illegal.
Who Guards the Guards: Prison Trusty Not so Trustworthy
The Baltimore Sun reported that a man was found guilty for stealing two handguns from a state police warehouse. First, we are shocked that it would be so easy for anyone to just “steal” two handguns from a police warehouse, but more upsetting is that Roderick L. Hayes was a prison trusty in a pre-release program!
Hayes was reportedly finishing a 17-year sentence for kidnapping, robbery and assault, and yet somehow had access to the Quartersmaster Warehouse, where he stole the guns. This is beyond unbelievable. As we’ve reported, law-abiding citizens are having their houses raided by the ATF, but a convicted criminal was able to steal two police guns?
The paper noted:
“One of the missing guns turned up after being used in a crime committed in Baltimore; the other weapon has not been recovered, police said.”
Not much more to say is there?
Who Guards the Guards: 500 Guns Missing in Texas Police Station
According to a story from The Associated Press, which was posted on The Houston Chronicle Web site, the police in Cleveland, Texas have a little explaining to do:
“Federal investigators are trying to determine whether 500 weapons missing from the evidence room of a southeast Texas police station are part of a firearms trafficking ring.”
The story adds:
“ATF agents recovered 112 missing guns during a search at a Humble gun shop, according to court documents. Of those weapons, 98 had been listed by Kelley as destroyed. The whereabouts of the other guns remains a mystery.”
Again, we ask… why should anyone believe in a world where only the police have guns would criminals not get their hands on them? This comes a week after it was reported that the Department of Homeland Security had lost hundreds of guns! Yet, time and time again it is law-abiding gun owners who are made to suffer by harsher laws.
