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.

WaPo Predicts Wild West in Virginia

How would more gun-sales increase crime? That’s the question we put to The Washington Post, which in an editorial noted this week that “If Virginia lifts gun-buying limit, get ready for mayhem.”

This is true anti-gun bias front and center! Why should law-abiding gun owners suffer, especially when no criminal is going to honor the law?

Philly Inquirer Editorial Calls for Gun Control

Any editorial that offers the opinion: “Another good sign is the 159 cities and towns that have joined the state’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns group,” isn’t going to be one we agree with at all!

This isn’t a good sign, this is a horrible sign for law-abiding gun owners nation-wide, and while The Philadelphia Inquirer in an editorial this past weekend attempted to draw attention to illegal guns, this notion of “getting guns off the street” through legislation is in our opinion completely misguided. It is criminals, those who don’t legally own guns who are responsible for the bulk of crime. Does anyone at the Inquirer really think more laws will get the criminals to fall in line?

Biased Gun Show Report Passed Off as News

Is William Ecenbarger’s piece in The Philadelphia Inquirer news or an editorial? It appears in the commentary section, but yet is written in a way that could suggest to the average reader that it is actually a new story. Either way, it is biased and offers a terribly tilted anti-firearm stance:

“There was enough fire power [sic] here to arm a division.”

Really, a division. Does Ecenbarger know that a military division typically consists of between 10,000 and 30,000 soldiers? So was there really enough firepower for a division?

And here is some quality editorial copy from this “freelance writer,” suggesting that maybe he take a refresher course in writing:

“Just across the aisle there was a $999 price tag on an FN Herstal Five-seveN tactical pistol. This weapon, also known as “the Cop Killer,” is believed to have been used is last year’s massacre at Fort Hood, Texas.”

When he says “this weapon” does he mean this type of weapon, as in a FN Herstal Five-seven, or this particular Five-seven was actually known to be used in the massacre? It would seem odd to us that the actual shooters gun would be in evidence in Texas!

 Ecenbarger further pointed out a Bren light machine gun was for sale, never mentioning that a special Class III license is required to actually own the thing, but that would probably be too much reporting this future prize winning freelance writer!

Los Angeles Times Offers Surprising Lack of Insight in Editorial

The Los Angeles Times must think every NRA member wants the streets to look like something out of a gangster movie or western? Why else would they post this as the sub-head for an editorial this week:

 ”A poll finds surprising support among NRA members for some aspects of gun control.”

 Of course even NRA members believe in SOME aspects of gun control! We don’t believe that children should bring guns to school, we do believe that guns should be kept away from criminals and stored safely! The silly editorial goes on to offer:

 ”Why are the NRA’s leaders more absolutist than its members?”

 Where is this coming from? This is just absurd, but that’s the state of the mainstream media folks!

Canadian Press as Misguided as American Mainstream Media

Responding to Canada’s recent over turning of long run registry The Toronto Star ran an editorial this week, and as we often find with American editorials, the facts don’t seem to matter when making an opinionated statement:

“And we remember the outrage when we learned that military-style weapons were being sold to civilians and that there were 6 million guns in Canada and no one knew who had them.”

What exactly are “military-style weapons? Handguns are used by the military, rifles with scopes are used by the military as well, and of course fully automatic electric powered machine guns with multiple barrels are used by the military. So what defines a small arm that is “military” vs. “civilian.” In Canada fully automatic weapons are nearly impossible for the private citizen to own.

So this is clearly another biased article that suggests just because a firearm looks like an M-16 that it must be an M-16! That’s of course nonsense. An AR-15 is a semi-automatic, civilian version. But if it was a more dangerous weapon why wasn’t it used for hunting? The reason is that it is better at close range, while a hunting rifle is better at a distance. But most militaries around the world still rely on traditional bolt-action rifles. In fact a civilian bolt-action rifle today is probably also more accurate than a true World War II military rifle. And as far as close range, a double barrel shotgun looks nothing like a military weapon, but it can be extremely devastating in close range situations – which is why it is preferred by criminals.

So what we’re saying is why all this nonsense about “military style.” If the anti-gun lobby can tell us what they mean, instead of trying to scare the public with this notion that anyone can buy an AK-47 at a gun show, we’d have a lot more respect for those opposed to our firearms.

More Vocal Bias From Canadian Mainstream Media

At Firearmstruth.com we thought it was only the American press that was so staunchly biased against guns, but the Canadian mainstream media seems just as bad. The Vancouver Sun didn’t pull any punches with this editorial headline:

“Scrapping long-gun registry is pandering to vocal minority” Read more

L.A. Times Editorial Misses Mark on “Gun Show Loophole”

Whilst it is an editorial, and thus not subject to the same level or unbiased reporting, the commentary in a recent Los Angeles Times editorial shows more than just lack of two sides. It slants facts in order to make an opinion. First with this statement:

“Gun shows are thought to be a key supplier of guns used in crimes, though how big a role they play is the subject of heated debate.” Read more

Opinion Piece Offers Really Absurd Opinion

There is an old saying that some things can be “short and sweet,” but maybe when it comes to how the mainstream media covers firearms, that should be “short and absurd.” Case in point, The Dayton Daily News offered this take on firearms and President Obama:

“It’s ironic that President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 since, here in the United States, his presidency has caused soaring sales in guns, ammunition and concealed-carry schools.” Read more