New Civil Rights Movement Offers Shameful Headline; Misleading Facts
This week The New Civil Rights Movement ran a story titled, “GOP Now Pushing For Guns in Kindergarten Classes.” That sounds ominous, sinister and really scary. But is it factual?
Not by a long shot – pun intended. The story doesn’t even do actual reporting, but turns to left-leaning Think Progress, which reported:
Conservatives have twisted school massacres at Columbine and Virginia Tech to argue that there need to be more guns in schools to fight back against armed attacks. Last year more than a dozenstate legislatures took up bills that would allow guns on college campuses — and some even considered lifting their gun bans at K-12 public schools. Florida suspended discussion of their controversial bill after the emotional testimony of a father whose daughter was killed at Florida State University when another student accidentally discharged a rifle.
In other words, no this is misleading, twisting and actually the worst example of “journalism” that we’ve seen in a while.
The author also makes a bold statement:
Almost 10,000 people are killed by someone with a gun every year in America. Given the loosening of gun laws by the GOP, these numbers will escalate.
First, that number is actually a tad high. Likewise, the statement by the author that “these numbers will escalate,” is based on opinion not fact. There is no source to this, and the truth is that gun ownership is on the rise and the murder rates – along with crime overall – have fallen. The opposite is happening, but this doesn’t seem to mater.
And this story, which offers the guise of news, ends with a truly disgusting closing statement:
Oh, and a word to journalists: CAn [sic] we please stop calling it “gun rights”? Guns don’t have rights, people do. Let’s just be honest and call it “attempts to expand deadly weapons usage.”
Sorry, but we are journalists and we find this sort of statement to be obnoxious, inaccurate and distasteful. People do have rights, and according to the Second Amendment that includes the Right to Bear Arms!
Columnist Tries to Say Gun Control Works, But Misses Mark
Melissa Rooney, writing for The Durham News suggests that gun control works in Australia. She notes the difficulty in owning a gun down under:
“Australia also has real gun control, something America should have adopted long before Columbine. In April 1996, a 28-year-old Australian shot and killed 35 people and wounded 21 others at Port Arthur, a popular tourist spot. As a result, all Australian states and territories banned or heavily restricted the legal ownership of 60 percent of all firearms and heavily tightened controls on their use, requiring registration of all firearms and licensing of all gun owners. At a cost of $350 million, the government bought back 643,000 guns voluntarily surrendered to police.”
Does Rooney have any idea at all how much it would cost the U.S. Federal Government to buy back all the guns out there? But we also act why she evokes Columbine at all? And “long before,” does she realize that Columbine occurred in April of 1999 – how is April of 1996 LONG BEFORE?
She tries to offer “evidence” that this works:
“Consequently, it’s much easier to catch the bad guys before they hurt anyone. If you have a gun on your person and aren’t hunting or at a shooting range, then you are breaking the law and are arrested, no questions asked.”
The truth is in Chicago until recently it was illegal to have a gun on your person, and yet many people did anyway. And this point, “you are arrested, no questions asked,” is both wrong and outrageous. First, do we want to live in a society where “you are arrested, no questions asked,” and second, this is ONLY if the police are there doing their job. As Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Washington and other cities have shown, if the police aren’t there the criminals will find a way to have guns.
Rooney basically praises Australia, a land where she lived for many years before returning to America. Maybe she should have stayed there instead of changing the America that many of us want.
Gun Owners of America: Stop “McCarthyite” Gun Control
From Gun Owners of America:
Like vultures, anti-gun congressmen are always picking the bones of some national tragedy looking for political advantage.
And the horrific shooting in Tucson earlier this year is just another example, as a string of anti-gun bills have been introduced recently. You may have seen a television ad about one of them: H.R. 308, introduced by gun-hating Carolyn McCarthy less than two weeks after the shooting, would ban so-called “high-capacity” magazines.
“I think when you think about just common sense here, large capacity clips [sic] that can basically, in my opinion, be weapons of mass destruction, should not be available to the average citizen,” McCarthy said in an NPR interview.
- Remember when, in 1968, we were told that if felons and other undesirables were prohibited from having guns, gun crime would stop? Well, Loughner was not a felon. Likewise, he was not an illegal, military deserter, or a fugitive from justice.
- Remember when, in 1993, we were assured that if gun purchasers were “checked out” against an FBI database, gun crime would stop? Loughner was checked out by the FBI; he passed.
- Remember when, in 1999 after Columbine, we were told that if we cracked down on gun shows, gun crime would stop? That crackdown didn’t pass, but Loughner didn’t buy his gun at a gun show.
- Remember when, after Virginia Tech, we were told that if we sent more of Americans’ mental health records to the FBI’s secret list, gun crime would stop? Loughner’s name wasn’t on the FBI expanded list because he hadn’t been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution.” Read more
Stricter Gun Laws Even if the People Don’t Want It?
The Newark Star-Ledger is one of those papers that offers usual head scratcher arguments. In an editorial titled “Stricter gun laws are long overdue,” the editors somehow come to the conclusion that gun control would be good, even if the people don’t want it.
“Stricter gun controls would seem to be a no-brainer, but support among Americans has fallen from 78 percent 20 years ago to 44 percent last year, and some believe that’s because no one thinks the laws now are effective.”
The majority doesn’t want stricter gun control, but the paper thinks it is a “no-brainer,” which implies that the editors must assume they are smarter than the majority. Is that really what the editors are saying? That’s how we read it.
The editorial also offers some misleading information:
“Nearly 10 years after the 9/11 terrorist acts there’s nothing to stop a suspected member of al Qaeda or Hezbollah from purchasing a gun from licensed dealers, even after a background check reveals he’s on the FBI list.”
Talk about due process! If “suspected” people weren’t free to fly on an airplane in this country there would be outrage from the same liberal minded editors. And yet, not one plane on 9/11 was taken with a gun. But the other point is that many people end up on lists by mistake or accident. This would trample their rights in the process and it would be due to them. Read more
Toy Gun Considered “Class ‘A’ Weapons”
Samuel Burgos was expelled from school reports CNN.com. He was expelled for bringing a “Class ‘A’ Weapon” to school. From the surface it sounds like another Columbine was averted. But the case is far more complex as the CNN story notes.
First, in Florida, where the zero tolerance policy places any item that fires a projectile as a “Class ‘A’ Weapons, even toy guns can end up in this class instead of (rightfully) a class of their own. Samuel Burgos only brought a toy gun to school. Second, he’s 8 years old! He had placed a toy gun in his backpack over a weekend, forgot about it and brought it to school. This was discovered, reported to the school board and he’s been kicked out of school. The parents were offered the chance to send Samuel to an alternative school for at risk kids.
This is the level of absurdity that we’ve reached in this country. Yes, it could be considered inappropriate to bring a toy gun to school. But to suspend a child, and potentially destroy his entire education and in turn his life over an honest mistake is outrageous.
John Lott Recalls Tragic Shooting to Set Record Straight
The American mainstream media likes to point out the waves of shootings that have occurred in the United States over recent decades, noting that most other countries don’t have this problem. But John Lott, writing for FoxNews, sets the record straight, writing that of the top five worst school shootings in the world, only one actually occurred in the United States:
“The very worst one occurred in a high school in Erfurt, Germany in 2002, where 18 were killed. The second worst took place in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996, where 16 kindergarteners and their teacher were shot. The third worst high school attack, with 15 murdered, happened in Winnenden, Germany. The fourth worst shooting was in the U.S. – Columbine High School in 1999, leaving 13 killed. The fifth worst school related murder spree, with 11 murdered, occurred in Emsdetten, Germany.”
Now any event of this type is a true tragedy, but Lott makes his point. Germany had three of the vive worst shootings – and yet has extremely strict gun laws compared to the United States. Thus tighter gun laws, which take away our Second Amendment rights, aren’t going to keep anyone safer.
Philly Inquirer Writer Misunderstands “Right To Bear Arms”
In an op-ed piece for The Philadelphia Inquirer Patrick Walsh explains why he feels that the United States Constitution does not apply to individual gun ownership, and instead is about the military maintaining guns. In one passage he notes:
“The old gun lobby claim ‘guns don’t kill people’ is specious. No one rails against the manufacture of axes or baseball bats; there are no campaigns to ban Bowie knives.”
First, most of the gun lobby doesn’t offer this argument today. And there are limits that many things people can buy today. Guns for one are not as readily available for purchase as axes or bats in any state. Axes and bats are not banned in Chicago, New York City or Washington, D.C. He goes on to note various high-profile crimes, including:
“Columbine doesn’t happen if Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are wielding Louisville Sluggers.”
No, but Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold also made propane bombs, and they were determined to do as much damage as possible. Had they not gotten guns, they may have relied on crude gasoline bombs – such a the kind partisans used against trained soldiers in various wars. We cannot change the motivation of individuals simply by taking away their guns. Also, it should be noted that they bought their guns illegally. Does Walsh honestly believe that criminals will suddenly give up getting guns if they are banned?
Walsh offers this thought on the subject from the viewpoint of his past training:
“Take it from a former soldier: A gun’s power is arbitrary and wildly disproportionate to its price, size, and ease of use.”
He is correct here, but a gun’s power works both ways. It can defend a home from invasion as well. He notes:
”With a bolt-action rifle and a telescopic sight, I could put a bullet through my neighbor from a hundred yards away as he crosses his living room.”
We live in a society with laws, and teach values. Anyone could also run over their neighbor with a car, or kidnap their child. Guns are just one way in many of doing harm.
But if we surrender our arms, then we surrender it to a police state. For someone who says, “I once carried a rifle in defense of the Constitution” should understand that, and yet Walsh doesn’t.
Bloomberg Continues to Use Columbine Imagery
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has reached a new low, and in an ad for his group of anti-gun mayors group used footage from the Columbine massacre reports The New York Daily News.
The paper quotes Bloomberg as saying “if you want to buy a gun at a shop show, you have to go through a background check.” What Bloomberg doesn’t say, and hasn’t really noted with his group, is that in New York City it costs several hundred dollars just to apply to buy a gun, and yet as is being reported illegal guns are easy enough to get. No loophole – gun show or otherwise – seems to matter on the mean streets of New York City for those who want to illegally buy a gun.
Firing Back: Bloomberg Out to End Gun Shows
This week marks a sad anniversary: notably it has been 11 years since the Columbine High School massacre. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” are trying to launch a full-scale assault on gun shows, including closing the “gun show loophole.”
There are a few problems with this, and for a matter of full disclosure this reporter had a cousin who was shot and wounded on that April day 11 years ago. But to tie Columbine to gun shows is unfair. First, there is little evidence that the shooters in this tragic event ever attended gun shows.
Columbine has been used far too often. It has been targeted by those who oppose video games – because the shooters allegedly played games such as Doom; it has been targeted by those who oppose certain types of music – because the shooters allegedly listened to that type of music; and of course movies and TVs were called into question – because the shooters watched video movies and TV shows. The two shooters also quoted from Shakespeare and spoke German – but even with potential “Nazi” obsessions no one is questioning teaching German in America, and there is no question that Shakespeare could be considered dangerous speech.
And yet gun shows, which the shooters may not have attended is what Bloomberg goes after while evoking a tragic event in American history.
Bloomberg’s Group Exploits Columbine Massacre and Lies
New York mayor Bloomberg’s group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, has begun to shamelessly run ads exploiting the Columbine massacre. Video from surveillance cameras at the site of the crime is used to convince viewers to call their senators to close the so called gun show loophole. Exploiting the massacre for political purposes is disgusting enough. On top of Bloomberg’s pornographic exploitation of people’s emotions, the ad’s basic premise is a lie. Read more
