San Fran Chronicle Editorial Suggests Supreme Court Decision Could Increase Crime

Well, not every newspaper gets it. As we mentioned, The Detroit News (see below) offered a reasonable take on the issue of firearms being debated in the Supreme Court (McDonald v. Chicago). We shouldn’t (nor did) expect as much from The San Francisco Chronicle, which offered this opinion in an editorial:

“For the past generation, voters and elected officials in various states have adopted a wide array of gun-control measures. But the ability of state and local governments to respond to the proliferation of weapons on their streets could be severely curtailed if the court continues down this path.”

We’ll respond by asking, why would any law aimed at allowing law-abiding citizens to legally own a gun mean more weapons on the streets? Are the writers so naïve as to suggest that criminals are avoiding buying guns because the law says so?

Detroit News Offers Reasonable Editorial on Guns

Could it be that not everyone in the mainstream media hates guns? That’s the feeling we’re getting as we read more editorials supporting reasonable gun laws. The latest example is an editorial in The Detroit News, a city that has more than its fair share of crime. The piece ends with this very well put consideration:

“Guns should be subject to reasonable regulations, including requirements that their sale be subject to waiting periods and background checks.

“But personal gun ownership in America has a tradition pre-dating our existence as an independent country and the Second Amendment should be recognized throughout the nation.”

Well said.

Detroit Latest City to Hold Firearms Buyback

The state of Michigan has probably been hit as hard as anywhere by the global economic crisis, a.k.a. the recession, and the city of Detroit is the latest to hold a gun buyback. The problem we see is that the buyback offers a mere $20 for each firearm. How many rare and valuable items will be essentially sold for $20 when these items could have fetched far more money for the owner?

The Detroit News ran this piece that offered this insight:

“‘Getting unwanted and unused guns out of homes can help prevent unnecessary or accidental shootings that can occur when these firearms are left unsecured,’ Police Chief Warren Evans said.”

With all due respect, is there any proof that getting “unused guns” out of a home will prevent accidental shootings? If the firearm is unused, as in not regularly taken out, doesn’t that mean that it could just as easily remain there? And wouldn’t trigger locks, and safe storage also provide accidental shootings?

The Detroit Free Press ran its own story that further offered some interesting information:

“Participants can get $20 for each gun that is turned in. There is no limit to how many guns each person can turn in; however, funds will cover only the first 75 that are turned in, police said.”

So let’s get this straight. The city only has $1500 for this program. That’s sort of a why bother? That means the most the city can hope for then is that residents show up, find out there isn’t even the $20 and will decide to simply hand over their guns for free. Incredible. Talk about the worst type of bait and switch this holiday season.

Even The Chicago Tribune weighed in on this one:

“Police Chief Warren Evans says by ‘getting unwanted and unused guns out of homes,’ accidental and unnecessary shootings can be prevented. Removing guns from city streets also is part of ongoing police enforcement efforts.”

Was it such a slow news day that The Chicago Tribune had to weigh in on a happening in Detroit? And more importantly, where did the Chicago paper get the added insight that removing guns from the streets was part of the effort by the Detroit PD? If this was the case wouldn’t the hometown papers pick up on this? Maybe the Chicago paper wanted to suggest that these buybacks are about “getting guns off the street,” something that we’ve never seen solid proof regarding, and given that Chicago has its own gun buybacks, maybe this is just a reminder to the residents. But from the words spoken by the Chief, it sounds like this is more getting guns out of the home instead.