Huff and Puff Calls for Background Checks on All Gun Sales
In writing for the Huffington Post, Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence offers another editorial responding to calls from law enforcement to require background checks for gun sales. We know where Mr. Helmke stands, and we respect his opinion, but some of the statements he makes in his argument see more like opinion rather than based on actual facts. Read more
My Fox Illinois Shows Anti-Gun Bias
In reporting on the new law signed by Illinois Governor Pat Quinn that essentially makes it illegal to own even a long gun without a permit, My Fox Illinois’ Benjamin Yount shows a clear anti-gun bias right out of the blocks with the headline “Quinn Inks Welcomed Gun Law.”
Is this a fair title? And is it a welcome gun law? Given that Otis McDonald brought his case all the way to the Supreme Court, and now several individuals are suing Chicago over its restrictive gun laws, we must question whether this is actually “welcomed” by anyone? Yount further tries to imply how the state’s line is drawn on the issue:
“Illinois attempts to regulate, or deregulate, guns face the same regional challenges every year. Lawmaker in Chicago want to get tough on guns, but downstaters want to allow people more freedoms.”
Clearly again, given those suing the city of Chicago, as well as Mr. McDonald, this isn’t merely about “downstaters.” Equally clear is that the author has an agenda and does very little to hide his anti-gun bias in a “news” story.
Illinois Enacts New Gun Laws
Is Chicago trying to scare law-abiding citizens from ever thinking about buying guns? That almost seems to be the logic, but it isn’t limited merely to the Windy City. WQAD is reporting that Illinois Governor Pat Quinn has signed new gun legislation:
“The new law, signed Monday, will increase penalties for unlawful firearm possession including a one to three year long prison sentence for aggravated use of a gun without a registration card. The bill also includes offenders merely in possession of an illegal gun. Quinn called it a right step to keeping the streets of Illinois safe.”
We have long stressed that law-abiding citizens should have the right to legally own firearms, but what we continually see is that some politicians continually move the bar, making it all the more difficult to in fact “legally” own a gun. FirearmsTruth also questions why this law is only now being introduced?
So we’d like to ask Govenor Quinn how exactly will this keep the streets safe? Why would those who already had illegal guns suddenly give them up?
Clearly there have been many criminals with guns prior to the SCOTUS ruling, but this law just seems aimed at all gun owners. Of course it won’t affect criminals as they likely would own illegal guns anyway.
Minnesota Public Radio Calls for “Common Ground”
We’d like to ask the folks at Minnesota Public Radio if they really think about what they are saying sometimes. The radio station offered a debate on gun ownership, but it was biased just from the tone of words. Here is what they had to say:
“Last month, the Supreme Court ruled against the city of Chicago’s longtime ban on handgun ownership. Advocates on both sides of the gun-control debate are using this decision to reevaluate the way guns are regulated in cities across the country.”
We do question the words “gun-control debate,” as this implies that everyone believes in some form of “gun-control.” While we do think there are reasonable limits of what someone can own – fully automatic firearms – we really don’t think of this as “control.” We notice that liberals tend to use the word “control” a lot when they don’t like the issue.
Listen to the “debate” at Minnesota Public Radio.
Will Chicago Soon See Gun Shops?
We said that there would be more lawsuits following the recent Supreme Court ruling and it looks like Joe Franzese is the latest to line up. Mr. Franzese is suing the City of Chicago, after it set new ordinances that continue to ban gun stores in the city limits. The Libertyville Review quotes Mr. Franzese:
“I filed the lawsuit because I want to sell a legal product and you can’t outlaw a legal product.”
Mr. Franzese is absolutely correct and we wish him well! Good luck, keep up the good fight.
WaPo Looks at “Gun Show Loophole”
Yet another round of noise was heard this week from the mainstream media, including The Washington Post on the topic of the infamous “gun show loophole,” and the paper notes that the latest call its closure include survivors from Virginia Tech.
We do feel for these victims, and truthfully any victim of violent crime – whether a gun was used or not. The point however, remains a vast understanding of the issue of guns, gun shows and private sales. The paper noted how Colin Goddard, a former Virginia Tech student told about his work with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which documented “the ease with which he could buy arms at gun shows.”
The blog post from WaPo offers little in the way of counterpoint, so it is a typical anti-gun story. That isn’t really all the surprising.
Nor is the tone of the story all that surprisging. After all, shouldn’t it be easy to buy guns at a gun show? Just as it should be easy to buy a boat at a boat show, or furniture at a furntiure store. The purpose of a gun show is to sell guns. And yes, many states allow guns to be sold by private individuals without a background check.
What is seldom reported is that the criminal is already breaking the law for being at said gun show, is breaking the law for touching the guns and is breaking the law for buying the guns. Criminals will always find a way to get guns, and banning private sales would truly hurt the sport shooters, hunters and collectors. Of course we don’t expect the anti-gun crowd to care. But we’ll make the point again, if you want to solve drunk driving problems, ban all alcohol. That is essentially what the anti-gun is trying to do.
Banning private sales would increase costs to those who obey the law but wouldn’t make it that much harder for criminals to get guns.
Brian Boston Offers Take on Gun Control for Helium
In writing for Helium, author Brian Boston takes an interesting look at gun control, and for once here is an editorial that isn’t filled with liberal hot air. Boston offers this thought:
“While I can’t deny that guns play a role in violence, it doesn’t explain why crime rates in most countries goes up when they begin clamping down on gun control.”
This is a fact that many in the mainstream media simply ignore or down play. The truth is that crime and guns are related, but recent evidence has shown that guns can actually make crime go down.
Criminals do not give up their guns when there are gun bans, and criminals may second guess taking part in some criminal activities. For example, it will be interesting to see if home invasions and break ins go down in Chicago in the months to come? Something tells us they just might.
Yet Another Biased NY Times Piece on Guns
Even when trying to present unbiased reporting on the issue of firearms, The New York Times seemingly can’t be completely unbiased. In an economic feature titled “Gun Control as Economic Stimulus,” the Old Gray Lady (Hag to gun owners) can’t miss a beat to take a swipe at guns, offering this take:
“…people were simply buying more guns and ammunition, apparently because they feared Barack Obama would curb their access to deadly weapons upon taking office.”
Was using the term “deadly weapons” really necessary?
Interestingly the article also offers insight on how excise take has also increased, suggesting that the 45 percent increase in gun sales (source: ATF) is good for the bottom line. Maybe this fact will finally get the liberal media to stop taking aim at guns, but that is probably too much to ask.
NY Times Article Looks at Elderly and Guns
It seems that the Old Gray Lady is just gunning for guns any way it can. How else do you explain an article that looks at guns and the elderly? The paper adds, quite deep in the article however, that there are “few reports of elderly gun owners shooting relatives or caregivers,” the article addresses the possible concerns.
Yes, this is an issue, just as much as how elderly individuals with dementia and other mental problems shouldn’t be driving or possibly living alone, but this seems to be yet another case where the media can take fire at gun owners. So should we be surprised that The New York Times chose this time, as the gun debate is hotly in the news, to come out with this one sided article?
We say one-sided because one aspect that seems to be missing is a counter point. While the article does address dementia and other issues, it fails to note that some elderly individuals do indeed need guns to protect themselves, such as Mr. Otis McDonald of Chicago. The paper also ignores the fact that many of today’s elderly men fought in World War II and as such certainly know to handle a gun with respect and confidence.
Times Daily Article Offers Fair Insight to Second Amendment
Monitor bulk sales and so-called straw purchases – that’s the suggestion from the Times Daily of the Tennessee Valley. In a rather insight commentary on the issue, the article questions what exactly the Founding Fathers meant went drafting the Second Amendment, but it also offers insight on why the United States today remains a populace that is well armed.
We would add that the United Sates is also a nation that has a real respect for our guns as well, but the piece, titled “A little more clarity on gun rights,” is worth giving a read as this is an example of how the media should report on the guns – give the facts and background, and let the reader come to the conclusion. Too often the authors of these pieces have an agenda to push it seems.
