NY Times Editorial Calls for Stronger Gun Bans
The Old Gray Lady shows all the understanding of gun control as a real old lady who has never held a gun. The New York Times responded to the SCOTUS ruling with yet another editorial, calling for more gun laws, and this time wrapping it up with the ending:
“Cities and states should counter with tough but sensible laws designed to resist legal challenges and keep gun possession to a minimum.”
What exactly does keeping gun possession to a minimum accomplish we counter? Does it actually keep guns off the street? This is the rallying cry time and time again, but the truth is that criminals don’t find ways to come up legal challenges, criminals don’t bother applying for permits, criminals buy illegal guns and they ignore the laws. Meanwhile law-abiding citizens, including hunters, collectors and those who need guns for personal safety in the crime-ridden neighborhoods, are left unable to legally own these items.
So why is a ban, or a limit sensible? Should people be limited to the number of cars they can own? What’s next, limiting the amount of soda you drink or the amount of salt on your fries – but wait, New York City is actually trying to pass those limits. So we shouldn’t be surprised that the ultimate nanny state thinks guns should be kept out of everyone’s hands too. If only this included the criminals.
Chicago Tribune Editor Fires Back
Not everyone in the mainstream media is apparently upset by the SCOTUS ruling it seems. Steve Chapman from The Chicago Tribune actually wrote an editorial that we can get behind. He sums the situation regarding the ruling better than most:
“Whose judgment about the value of guns to law-abiding citizens do you trust? Ordinary people defending their homes against criminals? Or a public official who is shepherded to work each day by police officers?”
Very well said Steve, very well said.
LA Times: Open Carry Not For California
We expect bias in editorials, and that’s par for the course. However, typically when editorials are written that are anti-gun the point is never clear. Case in point, in a Los Angeles Times editorial titled “Open carry: It’s not for California,” the editors offer this point:
“Carrying an unloaded gun isn’t as harmless as open carry advocates like to claim. It only takes a second to slap a clip into an unloaded semiautomatic, and an armed society is not a friendly society; angry disputes can turn deadly when the antagonists are packing heat, and untrained shooters can miss their targets and hit bystanders.”
Couldn’t it be argued that some people won’t pick a fight with another carrying a gun openly? What if you pick a fight with a person who is packing a concealed weapon (legally or illegally)? Couldn’t that end tragically as well?
Destroy Confiscated Guns Says The Register Citizen
In an op-ed piece The Register Citizen in Connecticut suggests that police departments should not sell confiscated guns, and instead these items should be destroyed least they fall into the hands of bad people. The editorial cites two unfortunate events, but fails to note that hundreds (or thousands) of guns are sold by police departments every year without event. Likewise, the editors even note:
“Even in a year when the state needs every cent it can raise, the legislation that would have left seized guns in circulation was ill-conceived”
Many states, not to mention local governments, are pinching pennies. It costs money to destroy guns, and as we at FirearmsTruth have pointed out history can be lost when guns are causally destroyed. These are as important to the history of the nation as any car, baseball card or other collectible. But more importantly, these items have value, and as we’ve noted criminals and those intending to do harm will always find a way to find a gun or other weapon. The police should auction the confiscated weapons when these have value, and sell them to law-abiding and responsible citizens. It is good for the bottom line and it might just save some history.
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.
