CSM Finally Responds to Fast and Furious
The Christian Science Monitor has long been a mainstream media outlet that has looked to pass the blame for Mexico’s woes on American gun owners. Finally this week CSM asked an interesting question, “After ouster of ATF head, where does Fast and Furious probe go now?”
That is a good question, and the story noted that there is still a lot of fingers left to point:
“The acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Kenneth Melson took the fall for the ill-conceived Fast and Furious gun tracing program on Tuesday. But his departure is far from a clean break between the Obama administration and an operation that allowed over 2,000 guns to “walk” from US gunshops into the hands of Mexican cartels.”
It is an interesting turnaround for an outlet that has tried to suggest the blame lies on gun shops and so-called “lax gun laws” in the United States. Could it be that the media is finally coming around?
Christian Science Monitor Continues to Play Fast and Loose With Numbers
While reporting “US to crack down on arms trafficking over Mexico border,” this week, the Christian Science Monitor continued its tradition of reporting some facts while leaving other crucial information out of the story.
First the story offers this thought on the ATF debacle known as Fast and Furious:
“While Senator Grassley and Representative Issa have expressed shock over this revelation, it’s impossible to know how frequently it occurred, and it is unclear how this differs from general ‘sting operation’ tactics carried out by law enforcement.”
This is different from most sting operations in that this one resulted in the death of U.S. agents, and additionally this operation also lost track of more than 1,000 guns.
But the CSM also adds this thought:
“Despite the storm of criticism facing the ATF, some in Congress have recognized the role that U.S. weapons play in fueling Mexico’s drug war. Last month, three U.S. senators released a report, citing ATF data, which found that of the 29,284 firearms recovered by officials in Mexico in 2009 and 2010, 20,504 (70 percent) came from the United States.”
What isn’t noted is that 70 percent number is just from the guns that were clearly from the United States. Once again the media is trying to play with the numbers. Nor does this include the guns that ATF may have allowed to walk to Mexico.
In other words, CSM continues its anti-gun biased agenda!
CSM Worried Fast and Furious May Undermine Efforts to Stop Flow of Guns South
It is clear that The Christian Science Monitor has an anti-gun agenda. With a piece titled, “How much damage did ATF’s ill-gated gun-running sting to war on drugs?” we assumed the article would note the debacle of ATF, but then the deck – the second headline – offered this thought, “Fast and Furious, the Mexico gun-running sting gone bad, may cost ATF’s acting chief his job. A larger concern is that it may undermine efforts to stop the flow of US guns south.”
Read that very last section again, “may undermine efforts to stop the flow of US guns south.” In other words, the biggest concern for the editors at CSM is that gun control efforts could be derailed!
The article adds these bullet points:
• The role US borderland gun shops play in feeding the region’s drug-related violence.
• How Mexico’s ruthless crime gangs use the weakly regulated US market to arm themselves.
• How the American gun lobby’s opposition to regulation has stifled government efforts to plug the flow of arms into Mexico.
But it gets worse. The CSM story offers this passage:
“According to the report, released last week by Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Charles Schumer of New York, and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, an ATF study of 2009 and 2010 crimes in Mexico involving firearms found that 70 percent of the traced weapons have a US source.”
How can we believe this number given that ATF has allowed guns to walk into Mexico? Worse, this story fails to note that this 70 percent number is just the guns that were believed to possibly be from the United States, and thus not all guns are sent for tracing.
The story also shows that CSM is confused on some issues. Consider this passage:
“More than 2,500 high-powered weapons were let loose through the program, but the agency lost track of hundreds of AK-47s and other arms that filtered across the border in Mexico – and into the hands of Mexico’s violent drug gangs, according even to some ATF officials.”
This implies that the AK-47s are “high-powered,” a point we bring up again and again. The AK-47 fires a 7.62x39mm cartridge, one widely accepted as intermediate. High-powered only works to serve as an adjective to imply that these are truly dangerous guns and somehow “more powerful” than a hunting rifle – which is incorrect.
All taken together CSM continues its clear anti-gun bias and pointing the fingers squarely at American gun shops for Mexico’s woes.
Christian Science Monitor on Reasonable Gun Laws
The Christian Science Monitor gave kudos to Jim and Sarah Brady, and while we feel for them, as we agree no one should have to have suffered as both Jim and Sarah have suffered these past 30 years, the paper offered some misguided – and misleading – thoughts on gun control.
The paper notes:
“Reasonable steps to reduce gun violence will never be taken if Democrats, Republicans, and the president don’t stand up to the NRA. They can steel themselves with this knowledge: Even though polls show the country split on the broad subject of gun control, when you ask Americans to consider individual restrictive measures, they support them.”
Once again this is a total misread of the NRA. It is again somehow essentially made out to be a nefarious organization that has sinister motives and power that comes out of the ether. Again, the NRA is powerful, because it is vocal and it is just merely stating what the people want and demand.
But CSM adds:
“87 percent approve of criminal background checks for all gun purchases, even those at gun shows – which are not currently covered by federal law, but which should be. This was the finding of a 2008 poll done for a bipartisan coalition of mayors who support more restrictions on guns. Another large majority, 82 percent, support limiting the sale of military-style assault weapons, according to a 2007 University of Chicago poll. A 2011 poll for the bipartisan mayors group shows that 58 percent approve of a ban on the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines (so does former Vice President Dick Cheney, by the way).”
What isn’t stated here, and usually is never said by gun control zealots, is that this “background check for all gun purchases” would make it impossible for a father to give a gun to a son, for a friend to sell a buddy a gun. It would create a national database of EVERY gun purchased.
Finally the paper notes:
“Every year, about 30,000 people in the United States are killed by gun violence. That’s too many. Reasonable steps can be taken to bring that number down; to prevent criminals and others who shouldn’t have guns from getting them; to keep military-style assault weapons off the streets.”
Again, this is misleading. How many of those people were criminals killing criminals? How many of those criminals would ever bother with the background checks? Instead, they’d still get guns from the black market and possibly put law-abiding citizens at risks.
How many of those 30,000 people were criminals shot by police? How many of those 30,000 people were criminals shot while trying to rob or harm someone? Notice those figures aren’t supplied.
And we wonder… why a “military-style” firearm is a problem. It is not a “military” gun, and just looks like one. What’s next, banning military style boots as they are intimidating?
CSM: Vast Majority Support Background Checks?
In an editorial this week titled “Obama’s small step to slow the flow of assault weapons to Mexico,” The Christian Science Monitor called for again closing the so-called “gun show loophole.” The paper offered this thought:
“And might not gun shows also finally be brought into the criminal background-check system, to close down that loophole – which gunrunners lope through? The vast majority of Americans support background checks on the sale of all guns, even those at gun shows.”
But what is “vast majority” that CSM – or anyone in the mainstream media – talks about? A “vast majority” would imply over 66 percent of Americans want the loophole – if there is any such thing in fact – closed. The truth is that more Americans are against more gun control according to a recent Gallup.com poll that came out just before the Thanksgiving holiday. Few in the MSM, including CSM, picked up on those findings.
So instead outlets such as CSM think they know what the majority really wants. They don’t.
CSM Asks Whether Guns Really Protect Us From Tyranny
In a surprisingly well-researched sidebar to the gun rights debate raging in the Supreme Court, Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor looked at whether firearm ownership actually keeps a nation free from tyranny. And while the paper is usually fairly biased against guns, this piece presented key facts that would suggest past tyrants succeeded because they first disarmed the population.
It is a shame more stories in the mainstream media aren’t so unbiased, and actually try to present facts for readers instead of opinion.
CSM Says Gun Rights Not the Same as Free Speech
The Christian Science Monitor is a typical liberal leaning example of the mainstream media that pulls no punches when it comes to bias against firearms. Case in point, in an editorial published this week, the outlet offers:
“The Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday that could result in striking down a handgun ban in Chicago and other places. But beyond that, the court must clarify how fundamental gun rights are. They shouldn’t be viewed as equal to free-speech rights.”
We ask the CSM and the author, why shouldn’t gun rights be viewed as equal to free-speech rights? The editorial offers this argument:
“Firearms must be treated differently from free speech. Slinging guns is not the same as slinging slurs. Guns can kill a person, while any child can quote that ‘sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me’ (except for yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater, for which there is a restriction).”
The irony of all this is that the CSM is offering this editorial in response to McDonald v. Chicago, where a 70-something man in Chicago simply wants a gun to protect his home and his wife. So no slinging guns is not the same, but when the criminals aren’t following the law, why should law-abiding citizens be put at risk? Words can never hurt you, but criminals with far more than unkind words can ruin your life, and men such as Mr. McDonald should be able to have something to back up their strong words.
CSM Reports FBI Says Gun Sales Up, Crime Down
The Christian Science Monitor has been a news organization we’ve watched closely this year, as it normally has an anti-firearms bias. But it is still a news organization so we’re pleased to see that it reported that crime is down, even if gun sales are up. Of course CSM couldn’t help but look to see if this was a fluke:
“FBI’s latest crime report, for the first half of 2009, shows America is a less violent place even though ownership of guns has surged. Deterrent effect may have a role, but others see no correlation.”
Now it will be interesting to see if the rest of the mainstream media picks up on this story.
CSM Offers Anti-Gun Bias in Story About Fort Hood Shooter
The Christian Science Monitor, a news organization that we watch regularly for their anti-gun bias, pulls no punches in an article titled: “Ft. Hood rampage raises questions about gun control.”
The article suggests that the shooter at Fort Hood earlier this month could have been stopped if the FBI had more time to do firearms background checks:
“Critics say it’s because pro-gun lawmakers, spring-loaded to oppose stronger gun control of any kind, have stymied efforts to give the FBI greater authority to look for gun purchasers who might potentially be terrorists or otherwise prone to attack innocent victims.”
What about the fact that he was regularly e-mailing known terrorist? What about the fact that soldiers on a military base don’t carry firearms? What about the fact that the shooter essentially spelled out what he was going to do? Solid reporting from the CSM yet again.
Politics Daily Also Weighs in on Gallup Poll
According to PoliticsDaily.com “Four in 10 Americans Fear Obama Will Ban Gun Sales,” which is still a far cry from the reporting by The Christian Science Monitor (see previous post). But it is interesting to see how differently the story is reported. Notice this passage:
” A majority — 52 percent — don’t believe Obama will try to ban gun sales.”
So who we do believe? It becomes more of an issue when we look at other reporting, such as that from ShortNews.com, which took the approach of the CSM:
“Most Gun Owners Think Obama Will Try to Ban Gun Sales”
Another example of how the media can put their own spin on a story, using just facts but paint a very distributing picture of gun owners. But hey, that’s why we’re here!
