New York Times Editorial Suggests “gun lobby’s wrath”
The New York Times issued a farewell to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords last week, and we have to ask – why? We sort of know the answer, as it allows the Times’ editors a chance to climb on the soap box yet again, let’s keep in mind that Ms. Giffords didn’t represent the people of New York City or even New York State.
The editors of course tried to once again blame the guns and did some with the usual misreporting:
Ringing vows were made immediately after the Tucson rampage to ban the high-volume ammunition clips used by the gunman, to prod states to submit names of the mentally disturbed to the federal watch list for gun sales, and to plug the notorious gun-show loophole that allows anyone to buy high-powered military weapons without a background check. None of those have happened. Democrats, who once had the good sense to pass a ban on assault rifles, no longer fight for its renewal, wary of the gun lobby’s wrath. President Obama gave a stirring speech after the Tucson shootings, but the White House has said and done too little about gun control since then.
Our first point, yes this is an editorial and opinions are opinions. But facts don’t lie – and this editorial has one of the facts wrong. It isn’t an outright lie, but it is done to make a point. Namely the statement: “high-powered military weapons,” which isn’t fair. First, the shooter in Tucson had no such firearm. So what does it have to do with this piece?
But there is also the point of “high-powered military weapons” that suggests that the guns most can actually buy at gun-shows are “military weapons,” which they are not. The guns are civilian versions and there is a huge difference whether the editors at the Times like it or not!
Next, we note “wary of the gun lobby’s wrath.” What does this mean? It almost suggests as if the gun lobby would use said “military weapons” in a reprisal. But that’s not the case. What the gun lobby would do is stir up voters, who would send President Obama and other anti-gun types packing. But isn’t that how lobbyists are supposed to work? Isn’t that their job whether we like it or not? And at the end of the day it isn’t the majority of voters casting their ballot on the issue? Why is this point always lost in these arguments.
The paper adds:
Ms. Giffords, a supporter of gun rights, was sent off with good wishes from lawmakers who could have done something to stem the carnage. “I will recover and will return,” Ms. Gifford vowed in a her resignation letter, which was read by a colleague. Her departure offered a tragic display of how easily a brilliant career in public service was cut short because of the nation’s inadequate gun laws.
Couldn’t it be that the nation’s mental health system is what really failed here? This argument blames the guns, and whether the Times likes it or there are a lot of guns out there, so the laws seem to be fairly adequate when all is said and done. Tragedies happen, but we don’t try to ban everything.
Will cruise ships be banned because of the recent disaster in Italy? Were airplanes banned because of 9/11? Are cars or even alcohol banned because of drunk drivers? It is such an interesting argument to make, but banning the item involved is only done when it includes guns.
NRA News: Support Grows for Marine Who Brought Gun to Empire State Building
Cam Edwards talks to Dave Bruce, a Boston lawyer and Former Marine who is trying to help Ryan Jerome, a fellow Former Marine who was arrested in New York City for his concealed handgun
Illinois Gun Licenses Rose Six Percent in 2011
The media is reporting an interesting story this week. Illinois residents are buying guns, as licenses rose by six percent. Even those from the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence noted to local Chicago media, “that is a pretty big increase.”
So is there more to the story? What the media is only touching upon is that Chicago ended – by way of the Supreme Court – a ban on handgun ownership. And in the Windy City gun ownership, or at least the number of people with firearms cards, increased by 16 percent in 2011.
This is a story, a big story. Now some anti-gun types are no doubt going to say, “This is bad” and cite possible increase in violence. But the truth is that Chicago has had gun violence because the criminal element ignored the gun ban. So maybe we could actually see some decrease in crime as the innocent law-abiding citizens won’t have to automatically be victims.
Virginia Citizens Defense League Legislative Update & Action Items 1-26-12
Virginia Citizens Defense League:
Yesterday the Senate Courts of Justice Committee heard a bunch of gun bills and some important ones, like the repeal of One Handgun a Month and repeal of Fingerprinting for CHP applicants, passed out of committee. Read more
NRA News: Emily Miller from The Washington Times – I bought a gun, but…
Cam Edwards talks to Emily Miller from The Washington Times, who is writing a series on her efforts to get a gun in Washington, DC
Indian Magazine Shows Why Some People Shouldn’t Talk About Gun
Author Lionel Shriver talked to Tehelka, independent weekly news magazine from India, on a number of topics, and the author of “We Need To Talk About Kevin” was of course asked about gun control. While her novel maybe about a fictional school massacre, she shows ignorance on the issue of firearms.
The article offered this exchange:
[Question]We Need To Talk About Kevin was published in 2003, yet little change in gun control legislation has taken place. Last year saw the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Is this issue being addressed at all?
[Shriver]I’m greatly in despair. It should not be possible for people to walk on the street and casually be able to buy a semi-automatic. The constitutional amendment has to change. Until then, there are always lunatics in every society who will wreak havoc because of the easy availability of guns in America.
This is an argument that is used all too often, which blames the guns and not the shooter. Yes, unfortunately there will always be lunatics in every society but the havoc isn’t just because of “guns in America.”
We also don’t know what she means by “buy a semi-automatic.” Does she mean handguns, long guns, assault style weapons, etc.? This is vague, but with some anti-gun types it is vague because they likely don’t know the difference and it is vague because they really mean “all guns,” when they talk about bans.
It is also interesting that someone would say, “the constitutional amendment has to change,” and then tries to suggest that violence will continue until it is changed. We’re pretty sure there were wars, crime and violence before guns.
San Antonio Columnist: The Second Amendment’s Faustian bargain
There have been calls for “reasonable gun control,” and this week O. Richardo Pimentel, writing for The San Antonio Express-News offered an interesting twist in a column titled, “The Second Amendment’s Faustian bargain.”
He tells the story of how guns can be used to save as well as take lives. He makes a compelling argument, writing:
Everyone should be pleased by innocent lives saved as a side effect of gun ownership for the right people. But we can still recognize that the same laws that allow that also create a climate of too many guns in the wrong hands — and innocent lives taken.
This is true, and while we respect his opinion, the issue we have is that “reasonable gun control” would limit what the law-abiding can buy, while criminals would simply ignore the law.
As we long have tried to argue, the problem with this view is that the Second Amendment isn’t what gives criminals access to guns. There is no Amendment that makes murder legal, yet it still happens. There is no Amendment that grants the right for drug addiction, yet we still have drug addicts. So why would new gun laws stop criminals?
So no, we don’t think this is a Faustian bargain. Selling our souls for safety in the guise of gun control would be the real Faustian bargain.
New Civil Rights Movement Offers Shameful Headline; Misleading Facts
This week The New Civil Rights Movement ran a story titled, “GOP Now Pushing For Guns in Kindergarten Classes.” That sounds ominous, sinister and really scary. But is it factual?
Not by a long shot – pun intended. The story doesn’t even do actual reporting, but turns to left-leaning Think Progress, which reported:
Conservatives have twisted school massacres at Columbine and Virginia Tech to argue that there need to be more guns in schools to fight back against armed attacks. Last year more than a dozenstate legislatures took up bills that would allow guns on college campuses — and some even considered lifting their gun bans at K-12 public schools. Florida suspended discussion of their controversial bill after the emotional testimony of a father whose daughter was killed at Florida State University when another student accidentally discharged a rifle.
In other words, no this is misleading, twisting and actually the worst example of “journalism” that we’ve seen in a while.
The author also makes a bold statement:
Almost 10,000 people are killed by someone with a gun every year in America. Given the loosening of gun laws by the GOP, these numbers will escalate.
First, that number is actually a tad high. Likewise, the statement by the author that “these numbers will escalate,” is based on opinion not fact. There is no source to this, and the truth is that gun ownership is on the rise and the murder rates – along with crime overall – have fallen. The opposite is happening, but this doesn’t seem to mater.
And this story, which offers the guise of news, ends with a truly disgusting closing statement:
Oh, and a word to journalists: CAn [sic] we please stop calling it “gun rights”? Guns don’t have rights, people do. Let’s just be honest and call it “attempts to expand deadly weapons usage.”
Sorry, but we are journalists and we find this sort of statement to be obnoxious, inaccurate and distasteful. People do have rights, and according to the Second Amendment that includes the Right to Bear Arms!
WaPo Suggests Gun Lobby Stronger Than Obama
This week, just prior to the State of the Union, The Washington Post suggested (gasp!) that President Obama isn’t Superman – or if he is, the gun lobby is his kryptonite. In an editorial titled, “A prime-time call for gun control would honor Rep. Gabrielle Giffords,” the editors offered this thought:
Mr. Obama last year delivered his State of the Union just weeks after the Tucson massacre and in the presence of victims’ family members. Yet he, like so many politicians intimidated by the gun lobby’s muscle, could not muster a single word about the need for reasonable gun control measures to ward off such violence in the future.
We would love if President Obama called for gun control and made it his pinnacle platform! By all means, because it would surely lower his chances for re-election in November.
However, we do have to ask – how is it that the most powerful person on the planet is “intimidated” by a lobby group? Doesn’t this actually suggest that this is a hot button issue with voters? This is a point that the gun hating media never seems to grasp. If Obama is “intimidated” by the gun lobby, it is only because he knows making it an issue will cost him his job.
And since this is the case, doesn’t that mean MORE Americans are pro-gun. But to the gun-hating media that doesn’t seem to matter.
Anti-Gun Group Calls for Starbucks Boycott
This week the National Gun Victim’s Action Council called on a boycott of Starbucks. According to the press release:
A nationwide boycott of Starbucks stores and its products will be launched on Valentine’s Day 2012. Its goal is to eliminate the risk of guns in public places and ultimately to bring sane gun laws to the U.S.
Once again, this is only aimed at law-abiding citizens with so-called “sane gun laws,” while criminals will ignore the laws and do what they please!
Full press release: Starbucks’ “Pro-Gun” Policy Prompts Gun Victims’ Advocate Group to Launch Nationwide Boycott on Valentine’s Day 2012
