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?
Brady Bunch Calls Out Nebraska
The Sioux City Journal ran an AP story this past Friday that noted that Nebraska gun laws are “weak” according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The group claims that two other states have the “best” laws:
“The report rates California and New Jersey laws best.”
We ask what makes the gun laws of California and New Jersey best? Does this imply that these are the safest locations in the country?
Then riddle us Brady “Bunch,” why is it that California and New Jersey have gang and crime problems? Shouldn’t these be lands where you are safe to walk the streets of the inner cities? We challenge anyone from the Brady Center to take a 1am stroll through Newark, NJ with us. We’re up to the challenge… are you?
Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office Seizes Guns
In a weapons check operation last week Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Detectives along with Agents for the California Department of Justice (Bureau of Firearms) seized several guns from owners. These included those legally barred from owning guns within Santa Barbara County, such as those who have been convicted of a felony, a specified misdemeanor or was otherwise found by a court or mental facilities to be prohibited from owning a firearm. This was reported by several outlets including Santa Barbara Edhat and KVEC TV.
While we don’t question that felons shouldn’t have guns (in most cases), we must question how effective this “raid” was, and whether it was really necessary? More importantly, how exactly did law enforcement determine whether an individual had a gun, or was it a random sweep? Wouldn’t civil liberties groups be up in arms if a sweep was done for drugs instead of guns?
L.A. Times Offered Biased Editorial
Why cite facts if you’re going to just use the ones that support your argument and ignore everything else? Case in point, The Los Angeles Times editorial titled “Crazy about guns.” Seriously, this editorial actually has “crazy” in the title.
It uses gun crime, including the recently shooting of four police officers as to why guns are bad? What about all the times when bad men break into homes and the homeowners defend themselves? Not mentioned. The article even pulls no punches and calls out the “gun show loophole.” Of course, because the liberal media doesn’t really care about facts, at least when guns are at issue. That would just be… well, crazy.
Los Angeles Daily News Weighs in on Ammo Cap
An important debate is unfolding in California, and fortunately not all in the mainstream media are blindly praising the latest major setback for law abiding citizens. The Los Angeles Daily News is asking readers to weigh in on the issue of the recently signed into law legislation that would limit the amount of ammo one can buy per month. Not that criminals would ever abide by such a law. Please join the debate.
Firing Back: California Off the Mark in Ammo Limit
This week California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law that would limit the amount of ammunition sold. When – or rather if – this law goes into effect in 2011 (we expect lawsuits any second now), it would mean that handgun owners would be unable to buy more than 50 rounds per month, while gun shops would have to record identifying information about the buyer. While this is aimed at reducing crime, it is another step that won’t have the intended effect. Instead, it will make it harder for target shooter to go target shooting, while criminals will simply find gray markets or buy from illegal sources.
In the meantime, 2011 is a long time away. We expect just about every gun owner in the state to stock up. So that rush for ammo might just further heat up. Of course we’re also expecting praises from the mainstream media over the next 15 months. Let’s just not hold our breath thinking that gun related crime will disappear at the stroke of midnight.
Prohibition didn’t reduce drinking in the 1920s and it just created new black markets, while normally honest people broke the law casually. Why would anything think that the same wouldn’t happen with bullets as well. But maybe that is the intention; if people break the law they can’t legally own guns. And that sadly might be the ultimate gun control plan.
Oakland Gun Buy-Backs to prevent 1000 Future Murders?
It’s an amazing headline but that’s exactly the kind of deceptive, inaccurate message organizers of Oakland’s recent gun buy-back program are trying to spin to legitimize spending $250,000.
