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?
San Fran Chronicle Editorial Suggests Supreme Court Decision Could Increase Crime
Well, not every newspaper gets it. As we mentioned, The Detroit News (see below) offered a reasonable take on the issue of firearms being debated in the Supreme Court (McDonald v. Chicago). We shouldn’t (nor did) expect as much from The San Francisco Chronicle, which offered this opinion in an editorial:
“For the past generation, voters and elected officials in various states have adopted a wide array of gun-control measures. But the ability of state and local governments to respond to the proliferation of weapons on their streets could be severely curtailed if the court continues down this path.”
We’ll respond by asking, why would any law aimed at allowing law-abiding citizens to legally own a gun mean more weapons on the streets? Are the writers so naïve as to suggest that criminals are avoiding buying guns because the law says so?
Detroit News Offers Reasonable Editorial on Guns
Could it be that not everyone in the mainstream media hates guns? That’s the feeling we’re getting as we read more editorials supporting reasonable gun laws. The latest example is an editorial in The Detroit News, a city that has more than its fair share of crime. The piece ends with this very well put consideration:
“Guns should be subject to reasonable regulations, including requirements that their sale be subject to waiting periods and background checks.
“But personal gun ownership in America has a tradition pre-dating our existence as an independent country and the Second Amendment should be recognized throughout the nation.”
Well said.
Huff and Puff’s Sour Grapes
Writing for the Huffington Post, Josh Sugarmann (head of the anti-firearms Violence Policy Center), got all huffed and puffed by the fact that: “Tomorrow ‘Sport Shooting Ambassador Award’ winner Antonin Scalia will hear oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago. What’s the problem Josh? Don’t like it when a judge happens to like guns? That seems to be the point in his anti-gun zealot editorial:
“So while we in the United States accept that a Supreme Court Justice who’s an ‘Ambassador’ for the gun industry can ethically rule on cases that impact the very industry he represents, maybe in Old Europe, where the WFSA is located, they can still feel the sting of a little thing called shame.”
Maybe some of us in the United States feel proud to have a judge that cares about the Second Amendment.
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?
Huntsville Times Sports Reporter Should Stick to Sports
We at FirearmsTruth don’t report much on sports. We’re not sports reporters, so we suggest that Sports Columnist Mark McCarter of The Huntsville Times should stick to covering baseball and basketball, and stay away from guns. He wrote a highly unfavorable column about Alabama’s legislation that allows people to keep firearms in their cars, with the insulting title ” Senate gun vote makes it easier for nut cases.”
As a reporter he actually says:
“I’m a big fan of the U.S. Constitution, even if that ‘well-regulated militia’ part before we get to ‘right to bear arms’ is outdated. I don’t happen to believe that having sensible gun control laws equates to ‘you can never hunt deer again.’”
Not only is McCarter’s point not exactly clear, and find the sentence a little too conversational, but is a journalist really saying part of the Constitution is outdated? Maybe he wouldn’t feel that way if this were a discussion of the First Amendment, the one that guarantees freedom of the press. This guarantee includes print, but also radio, TV and the Internet – the latter three not around when this document was written!
On another note, McCarter tries to throw in several facts and brings up this point:
“There was another short story in our paper that ran last summer. A Mobile police officer named Brandon Sigler was shot and killed. Richard Hollingsworth shot him with a weapon that had been stolen from a deputy’s car.”
We regularly do our “Who Guards the Guards” pieces here, and we note that many police officer’s do have their weapons stolen from their cars. This is unfortunate and this needs to change. We agree that cars make impractical long-term storage for firearms, but the point of this new law wasn’t about transporting guns in vehicles, it was about whether individuals could keep their guns in their cars at work. This could include gated or guarded parking lots. The point here is that the cars are an individual’s property, even if the vehicles are on an employer’s property. But clearly only “nuts” want to transport guns anywhere according to McCarter.
Toledo Blade Offers Anti-Gun Editorial
In an editorial titled “Get a Handle on Guns,” The Toledo Blade offered an opinion that looser gun laws are bad and cites multiple examples:
“Nearly half a dozen gun rights bills are being considered by lawmakers in Arizona and Wyoming. The Indiana legislature passed bills last month that prohibit private companies from banning firearms in employee cars on company property.
“Other states are considering measures similar to laws adopted in Tennessee and Montana that exempt those states from federal regulation of firearms and ammunition.”
Yet the editorial lacks any actual reason for not agreeing with these laws, other than the fact that writer(s) is anti-gun. That is sort of like saying “I don’t like…” well, just about anything and then not offering your reasons why this is the case. This might be fine if there were a rhyme or reason, but this editorial does seem to suggest that guns are dangerous, yet it fails to cite any good arguments. In other words this is just a typical wishy-washy mainstream media approach to arguing. Make a statement without every making the point.
Who Guards the Guards: Police Still Losing Guns
We regularly report on how the police lose, sell or steal guns. But we surely can’t cover all of the fobbles by the boys in blue, so we were happy to see that our good friend David Codrea at Examiner.com offered a round-up of recent examples:
Guess who is putting lots of guns ‘on the street’?
While we still thank law enforcement for the hard work they do, and we’re really not “anti-police” at all, we do think the media gives the bad apples a pass too often. We’re happy to see that this isn’t always the case. And thanks to David for compiling the list.
Campaign Calls for Guns off Campuses
Everyone wants a safe educational environment, but we must call into question the idealism expresses by Campaign to keep Guns Off Campus. In a press release, group notes:
“The Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus is strongly opposed to legislation to force the carrying of hidden and loaded guns onto campuses. The college age years are among the most volatile periods in a person’s life with the risks of alcohol and drug abuse, suicide, mental health problems and extreme stress. If guns are readily available, it is more likely that these situations will result in serious injury or death.”
We must ask why these risks are so greatly increased? How do you stop a deranged person who lives off campus and owns a gun? By keeping guns out of the hands of everyone else, essentially means that the law-abiding public is open to danger?
Likewise, this group (among others) is sending a misleading message that the “gun lobby” is somehow encouraging people to actually “pack heat” everywhere! This is not the intent, but that is what these groups want the media and public to believe.
