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.
Chicago Police: We want to know who has weapons
The Chicago Sun Times reported this week that “75 people visited Chicago Police headquarters” to get applications to register their handguns. The paper more importantly offered this quote from Police Superintendent Jody Weis regarding the new registration process:
“We want to know who has weapons so that first responders can be award of that information before they enter a home.”
This “first responder” argument has been made before, but we must question whether this is really an issue in an emergency? Is there a more ominous reason as to why the Chicago PD might want to know who has a gun?
Penn Live Story Offers Anti-Gun Bias in Reporting
The key word missing today from a lot of the media: attribution. It seems that thanks to blogs, website posts and quasi-news organizations that attributing a statement or belief to someone isn’t so important. This is certainly true of a recent PennLive.com news story. The site, which is associated with the Central Pennsylvania The Patriot News offered a story this week titled “Gun ‘culture’ stirs frustration and grief.” Already that has a zinger of a headline that shows a lean that is anti-guns in general.
The story does discuss the growing problem of urban gangs and a fascination of youths to use a gun as a fashion statement, and to show how tough one can be. We don’t agree that this is how guns should be used, nor would most law-abiding gun owners. That’s the key, law-abiding. These men are not law-abiding, so the story could be as much about “gang culture” as it is about “gun culture.” But the feature also offers a snappy kicker:
“Some believe the gun laws in Pennsylvania don’t go far enough.”
We’re sure “some” people don’t believe this gun laws go far enough, but some probably think they go too far. This is a weak argument, and weaker still because it lacks any attribution. Who is this some? Was it so hard to find an anti-gun group out there? But the point by the author, who is likely among the “some,” is still made.
Daley Says Gun Owners Not Jumping Through Hoops
Some choice quotes from Chicago Mayor Richard Daley this week, as reported by The Chicago Sun Times:
“We’re not jumping through hoops. We have to have accountability. … This is protection of the city from lawsuits from a lot of people. You have to ask for reasonable gun laws. Until the federal government seizes more illegal guns, that is the issue.”
This is just one of several choice quotes from Daley, and it makes us seriously think he doesn’t understand the greater issue. How again does allowing law-abiding citizens to have greater access to firearms cause more crime? And how exactly would a crackdown on illegal guns reduce lawsuits against the city?
To us it appears that Daley is scrapping the bottle of the barrel and grasping at straws to make his argument. The problem is that law-abiding citizens are still caught in the ensuing cross fire.
Amnesty in Omaha Called a Success – We Question Why?
The streets in Omaha are safe again, guns are off the street and people need not fear. That’s the all around take coming from the media, which didn’t seem to offer any counter-point to the official line. While we expected the usual one-sided take, with the usual “guns off the streets,” there were some notable spins in this story. Read more after the jump. Read more
Police Go Where the Guns Are
Time and time again we question buybacks, new laws that restrict guns to law-abiding citizens and ask why don’t the police instead put more efforts to getting to the real problem, namely going after the bad guys directly. But now ABC 13 in Toledo, Ohio is reporting that local police are doing just that:
“Police are currently doing round-ups where violent criminals who carry guns hang out. It’s a problem plaguing the streets of Toledo.”
Finally, this sounds like a real solution to the problem. If you know where the criminals hang out, do sweeps instead of buybacks that won’t likely get guns off the streets!
Who Guards the Guards: Canadian Edition
It seems that law enforcement problems aren’t limited to the United States. The Vancouver Sun is reporting this week that a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has been charged with possession of stolen property including guns from his unit’s depot. The report notes:
“Gary Faulconbridge, 63, has been charged with one count of theft under $5,000, one count of possession of stolen property and two counts of possession of a prohibited weapon.”
We don’t like reporting these types of incidents, but as always we do so because it is just further proof of how “legal” guns can easily become “illegal” guns.
Gun Buyback in Tuscaloosa
Another weekend and yet another gun buyback, this one to be held in Tuscaloosa reports The Tuscaloosa News. The idea as usual is to get guns off the street, and once again we question the motives.
Police are even noting “people who turn in guns will not have to give their names or personal information and will be granted amnesty from any criminal charges that might apply from having the gun in their possession.”
Couldn’t this make it difficult to solve past crimes if the guns are handed in? Wouldn’t the efforts be better spent at trying to solve the crimes than attempting to get people to turn in a few guns? However, the paper even quotes TPD spokesman Officer Brent Blankley on the issue:
“This event is a ‘no question asked’ event. The goal of the event is to get guns off the street, not to arrest the person turning in the gun.”
What we see is that this is a pass for those who may have committed past crimes. It would be very hard to convict an individual if the police offered an amnesty for having the gun. And on top of it money will be paid to potential criminals. However, we still also question whether any criminal will hand in a handgun for $50, or an assault rifle for $100. We just don’t see it happening.
Minnesota Public Radio Calls for “Sensible Gun Laws”
In an editorial for Minnesota Public Radio Chaska Police Chief Scott M. Knight responds by suggesting that the country needs “sensible gun laws.” While we respect his opinion, and thank him for his service to the community, we have to stress that some of his suggestions are clearly off the mark. Even his wording of what he feels is “sensible” is hardly that to us. He calls for cities “to enact strict firearms policies.”
So we must ask, is “strict” the same as “sensible?” While he talks about strict laws, he first suggests keeping guns away from “criminals, gang members, the mentally ill and others who would visit harm upon our citizens,” but later he calls for closing the “gun show loophole” and banning “military assault weapons.”
The problem we continue to have is what exactly is meant by these two terms? In the former, Chief Knight never defines the “gun show — no background check needed” loophole.” This is a typical argument by those who can’t back up their opinion. He doesn’t even define it, possibly because it doesn’t really exist. To the next point, on the matter of “military assault weapons,” we must ask again what he means? Is it the look of the gun? The fact that it can hold a bayonet? What exactly makes a gun a “military assault weapon?”
To the average reader it sounds like a very dangerous gun, but the truth is that you can’t actually buy a military assault weapon. You can’t go to the gun show – and through loophole or otherwise – purchase a fully automatic machinegun or assault rifle. This just doesn’t happen. What you can buy is a gun that might look like one, but it is semi-automatic and is generally no different from commercial sporting rifles. So we wonder if those would be the next items in the crosshairs of people like Chief Knight. That’s our concern.
Colorado Springs Gazette Calls Gun Bans Racially Biased
This isn’t exactly a new twist in the debate over gun bans, but more and more we’re hearing an interesting take – namely that gun bans were a way of keeping guns out of the hands of minorities, notably those who were black. The Colorodo Springs Gazette noted this in an editorial entitled “Gun bans kill black people.”
This wasn’t some spoof headline via The Onion or other satirical faux news site either. The article isn’t meant to be a joke, and there is nothing to laugh about the facts – which note the “Chicago homicides in 2010 equal the death toll of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.” But more importantly the article hits home with this simple fact:
“Murderers like gun bans. They ignore them; their victims usually don’t.”
That remains a point too few in the mainstream miss, time and time again.
