New Jersey Star Ledger Editorial Offers Misleading Information in Editorial
To make its point, Daniel Vice in a guest opinion column uses extreme examples to make a point on gun violence for The New Jersey Star Ledger. This is not only inaccurate but a downright disgusting way to do so. While calling for “common-sense laws” he writes:
“If today is an average day in America, eight children and teens will be shot to death before the rest are tucked into bed. Each day, our nation’s weak gun laws fail to protect our children, whether it’s a 9-year-old born on 9/11 and killed while visiting her congresswoman in Tucson, or a college freshman, eager to learn, yet gunned down with 31 others in classrooms at Virginia Tech.”
By citing those examples he implies that these are daily occurrences. That is akin to suggesting that heading to work in New York City could result in your office tower being the target of a terrorist attack, or that Japan is hit by earthquakes and tsunamis every week.
Of course Vice, who happens to be a lawyer for the Brady Campaign also makes another foolish statement on how states with what he calls “strong” gun laws suffer because of states with “weak” laws:
“But our country’s weak gun laws allow traffickers and killers to stockpile guns in states with weaker laws and smuggle them into our communities. In New Jersey, strong laws make it so much harder for criminals to get firearms that guns flood in from states with weak gun laws at a rate seven times higher than the number of crime guns trafficked out of the state.”
The problem with this argument is that it doesn’t explain examples such as Chicago, or Washington, D.C. These are dangerous cities now because criminals obtain firearms illegally and leave the residents undefended. His argument is also flawed, surprising because as a lawyer he essentially argues for a living. Read this again:
“In New Jersey, strong laws make it so much harder for criminals to get firearms that guns flood in from states with weak gun laws.”
In other words, the so-called strong gun laws only mean criminals look elsewhere, and thus break the law to do so. Wouldn’t this imply that criminals would turn to smuggling in guns from other countries as well if there were national “strong” gun laws? Those strong gun laws thus are NOT working to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. And instead of going after the criminals, this lawyer is blaming the system instead of the criminals. And some how this is “common sense.”
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.
Coverage of Machine Guns in the Bay State
Journalists should be able to write both sides of a story, and do some in an unbiased way, so it is interesting to see some recent coverage of legal machine gun ownership in Massachusetts. The Boston Herald ran two features on the subject, with O’Ryan Johnson contributing to both. The first story, titled “Pls slow to target machine guns,” offers a look at both sides of the issue – noting that an eight-year-old boy was killed at a machine gun shoot.
The Herald’s take on the issue of fully automatic gun ownership including information from about new bill from Governor Deval Patrick, “An Act to Reduce Firearm Violence.” The paper noted:
“a controversial overhaul of the states gun laws that would limit firearm purchases to one per month and ban anyone who is not a cop or the licensed owner from holding a machine gun.”
The paper did not note how difficult it is to buy or collect machine guns, and included some sources quoted that would suggest otherwise, including this passage from Public Safety Secretary Mary Elizabeth Heffernan:
“In Massachusetts, it should not be easy for people to get a machine gun license.”
The paper also included this highly biased quote from Daniel Vice of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence:
“I think people would be surprised to know that several thousand fully automatic weapons are in civilian hands.”
Yes, this might surprise people, but so would it surprise people that obtaining a machine gun isn’t as easy as going into a gun store like in the movie The Terminator. Worse, the papered injected some bias when describing Vice, with the authors noting that Vice “said illegally trafficked semi-automatic handguns pose a greater public threat.”
What does this have to do with the main story, and doesn’t this actually suggest that machine guns aren’t a problem? On the flip side, O’Ryan Johnson also wrote a piece about collectors of machine guns titled “Many collect for fun – and value.” So not all bad news from The Herald.
Oshkosh Paper Late to Story, Twists Facts
Did you hear that gun sales are up and ammo is in short supply? Because Northwestern.com from Oshkosh, Wisconsin is reporting this fact like it is new news as opposed to the old news that it is actually is, and worse this piece shows just enough bias as well.
The story quotes Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, with this passage:
“Vice, who works for a group that works to strengthen gun laws, said the NRA spent substantial resources last year ‘trying to convince the public that President Obama would take their guns away.’”
First, has the NRA really done anything wrong? There is a legitimate concern here, and few in the mainstream media will admit that the NRA’s efforts may have convinced Obama and the liberals in power to keep their hands off our guns. But then the piece adds this passage:
“Vice said no one is arguing that guns should be taken away.”
Then how do you explain that Vice works for a group that would strengthen gun laws? Strengthen them by how exactly? Aren’t these means to “strengthen” the laws eventually going to make it harder for people to buy and sell guns? That seems like the first step to taking them away to us.
