Plaxico Burress Speaks at Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence Event
Former New York Giant football player Plaxico Burress, who was arrested for possession of an illegal gun, is now speaking out against guns in general reports CBS News. We find his statement that “If I can save one life, keep one kid from having a firearm, then I think the higher purpose was served,” to be disingenuous and nothing more than a PR stunt.
Clearly he is looking to rebuild his career, and while we wish him well with that his message is mixed. Yes, we agree that he broke the law and deserved to go to jail. No one should illegally carry guns in our opinion, but his stance that all guns are bad also sends the wrong message – in part because it does create that “gangsta chic appeal,” and also because it fails to note that guns are not the problem. The problem is the thug mentality, which Burress still doesn’t seem to get.
Fast and Furious Conspiracy: Facts or Fiction
There have been a number of editorials recently suggesting that Fast and Furious could be a conspiracy. The liberal media, and many liberal bloggers have dismissed this as nonsense. While we at FirearmsTruth.com are not endorsing or even supporting the theories, we wanted to offer a recap.
90 percent
Much of this ominous sounding number is fiction. The 90 percent number has been around for a while, and used by the media as in “90 percent of guns used in Mexican cartel related crimes can be traced back to the United States.” This number was widely circulated throughout 2009 and even throughout 2010. Occasionally the numbers are cited again, as low as 70 percent and more often 80 percent.
Fact: The truth is that only 17 percent of guns recovered at crime scenes were even sent to the United States, and of those 90 percent were traced back to being purchased north of the border. But 90 percent of 17 percent is a far cry from 90 percent. Read more
St. Petersburg Times Equates “Gun Culture” to Police Fatalities
We respect the work of our law enforcement, but we think that The St. Petersburg Times is out of line in trying to suggest that “gun control laws” would create safer streets. In fact, the paper suggests that police fatalities are a result of “gun culture.” The paper notes:
“America’s gun culture is taking its toll on the nation’s police departments. In its latest annual report, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence recorded a 24 percent jump in the number of police officers killed by gunfire between 2009 and 2010. And 2011 is on track to be even deadlier; already, at least 33 officers have been killed by gunfire this year — including three in St. Petersburg. Policing is a dangerous, difficult job. But it is made riskier by politicians who are cowed by the gun lobby from even discussing sensible gun controls.”
There is a point missed. The gun lobby doesn’t look to arm criminals, who wouldn’t follow “sensible gun controls.” Criminals would ignore the laws, while law-abiding citizens would be disarmed.
Anyone who thinks more laws are the answer should consider that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was followed by a rise in crime in the 1970s, one that saw many urban cities in the United States all but transformed in crime zones.
But worse, this editorial offers factually wrong information:
“America’s lax gun control laws have also escalated the security threat in communities on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. Nine of 10 firearms confiscated by Mexican authorities in recent years came from the United States.”
That nine of 10 is the same 90 percent number that has been widely debunked for the past two years, but continues to be used by editors trying to make a point.
WSAW Runs Anti-Gun Press Release as “News Story”
The story had a traditional press release stamp, stating it was from “Washington, D.C.” And it read much like a press release. But yet when the “story” titled “Wounded Police Officer Sue Crime Gun Dealer,” it said it was from the “WSAW Staff.” So which is it, a press release or a news story?
This is an example that often blurs the line with smaller outlets, but the problem is that by posting it as a story it makes it seems like credible news. The fact is that it offers no counterpoint, and includes only quotes from Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
This is a shameful example of the state of media today.
SodaHead Asks Questions, but Tries to Skew the Results
SodaHead, a social networking site that states that “Opinions… everybody’s got one,” asked the question “Should Guns Be Allowed on Trains?” This was apparently in response to the decision to allow firearms to be transported on Amtrak trains beginning later this month.
The site usually tries to keep a fair and level head, but with this story skewed it right from the beginning by offering this though as the lead to the piece:
“Start packing those AK-47s for the train ride, because starting Dec. 15, Amtrak will allow passengers to store legally owned and unloaded guns onboard.”
Not only is this biased in its statement, but it is somewhat inaccurate. Only at the end of the piece is it made clear that guns need to be stored with luggage in locked containers. But SodaHead further ups the ante to skew the results by providing a quote from Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence who says:
“Once this takes effect you would be able to check, for example, a dozen AK-47s onto an Amtrak train — and once they’re on there, the baggage car’s not secure like a cargo hold of an airplane.”
Clearly Mr. Vice has seen too many movies. Is it really that easy to simply stroll onto the baggage car on Amtrak? More importantly, what is to stop terrorists from simply walking onto any Amtrak or commuter train today with a dozen AK-47s? Painting the worst possible scenario is simply an easy way to make a case even if it is an unlikely one.
Guns Allowed on Amtrak
To hear some in the media talk about it, there will be gun slingers shooting out the windows of trains soon. But this is far from the truth. The reality is that travelers will soon be able to “transport” their firearms on Amtrak trains, but only after notifying the rail carrier at least 24 hours in advance.
Additionally, firearms must unloaded and be secured in a hard flat container and locked with the luggage. What is the big deal about this? It is essentially the same rules as taking a firearm on an airplane.
CBS News went out of its way to note that Daniel Vice of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “counter that the rule change makes it easier for terrorists to bring weapons on trains with intent to do harm.”
How exactly is that possible? Currently Amtrak doesn’t require riders to go through screenings, so couldn’t terrorists or other bad people just walk on with a gun? How is allowing passengers to legally transport firearms making it easier for terrorists to do anything?
This is just the latest example of how anti-gun zealots show their true colors. Vice and the Brady Center need not have been quoted or referenced for this piece, other than the fact that CBS News wanted to show something negative about this change, and Vice was happy to help them out.
Brady Center and Pittsburgh Challenge NRA Lawsuit
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence has announced that will represent Pittsburgh pro bono in a case that could go to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The City of Pittsburgh has “urged” the court to thow out the National Rifle Association’s lawsuit that challenged the city’s anti-trafficking laws.
We’ll be sure to follow this case very closely.
[Via Press Release: Pittsburgh Urges Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Throw Out NRA Lawsuit]
Is Illinois Governor Pat Quinn Looking to Ban Semi-Automatic and Assault Weapons?
Following his endorsement for re-election last week from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, there is now word that Illinois Governor Pat Quinn may have a proposed referendum to ban certain firearms in his state. According to ISRA Political Victory Fund, Quinn petition documents with the Illinois State Board of Elections. It had the ominous title “Petition to Ban the Sale on Semi-Automatic and Assault Weapons.” Read more
CNN’s Roland Martin Calls to “Whack the 2nd Amendment”
In an editorial Roland Martin, CNN political analyst, takes aim at the issue of the illegal aliens, and how this relates to the 14th Amendment. He tries to imply that those on the right are looking to repeal the 14th Amendment completely, and he goes on a tirade of sorts, in which he suggests that we “whack the 2nd Amendment.” But we don’t think he’s joking, or just trying to make a point. He seems to be one of those out there liberals that seriously believes that this amendment has to go. Read more
Dennis A. Henigan Huffs and Puffs About Obama Gun Policy
Last week the Brady Center fired back at President Obama with a press release noting that the POTUS should appoint a new director to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. This was followed by a post from Brady Center Vice President and author Dennis A. Henigan on the Huffington Post. Read more
