Mr. Diehl writes:

“…in Mexico’s war, the United States also plays the role of supplier to the enemy — and it does that far more efficiently. At a discussion sponsored by the think tank Third Way in Washington last week, Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhán pointed out that the vast majority of guns and money flowing to the cartels come from the United States, including from 7,000 federally licensed gun stores along the border in Texas and Arizona. Eighty percent of the 75,000 guns seized by the Calderón government over three years came from the United States.”

OK, so he’s quoting figures that came from an independent group, and quotes Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhán, but the simple truth is that this number is erroneous. It is simply not true that 80 percent of the guns seized came from the United States, and if Mr. Diehl had bothered to read the rival paper in Washington he’d know this. The Washington Times set the record straight this past May:

“(The) claim that 80 percent of guns used in Mexican crimes come from the United States is completely false. Most weapons seized in Mexico have traceable serial numbers that show they come from countries other than the United States. The 80 percent number reflects how many guns sent to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for tracing end up being from America. Most weapons seized in Mexico aren’t transferred to U.S. authorities, so that figure is meaningless for calculating overall totals.”

But beyond this not so simple mistake, it is frustrating to see that Mr. Diehl basically is calling for America do more to help the Mexican government, when Mexico has done little to stop the flow of illegal immigrants to America, or stop the flow of drugs to our country. Maybe when Mexico steps up and stops blaming the United States for its problems the time will come for us to actually step up and help.

“Could a bill banning the open carrying of firearms actually result in more guns on California streets?”

 The state already has an extremely difficult process for obtaining concealed permits, so is the author implying that citizens would simply break the law? This certainly seems to seem what he suggests.

For example, he once again tackles the so-called “loophole” and writes:

“The loophole allows ‘private sellers’ of firearms to bypass Brady background checks, a loophole that is exploited, most often, at gun shows. Such sales are an easy way for convicted felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and other prohibited purchasers to arm themselves.”

There are a couple of problems with this statement. First, how does he, how would he know that the “loophole” is actually “exploited” at gun shows? Because private sales are “private,” we simply can’t know how many guns trade hands at other times.

Second, as we’ve stated, it is already a crime for any of the above to buy a gun in the first place. In the case of the mentally ill it is often hard to know if they are in fact “mentally ill,” and thus they wouldn’t be prohibited if a background check were done. If they were actually deemed “dangerously mentally ill,” we’d want to ask why they were off on their own in the first place?

We would add that the United Sates is also a nation that has a real respect for our guns as well, but the piece, titled “A little more clarity on gun rights,” is worth giving a read as this is an example of how the media should report on the guns – give the facts and background, and let the reader come to the conclusion. Too often the authors of these pieces have an agenda to push it seems.

“As Chicago prepares to implement its new firearms ordinance Monday, gun advocates have begun a legal assault.”

Is this nitpicking, or do we continue to see a trend with the Tribune, which often uses these strong words such as “assault” when writing about the gun debate. Don’t believe this is bias, how about this follow-up:

“Chicago officials said the ordinance, adopted after the court gutted the city’s 28-year-old handgun ban .”

Was the law deemed unconstitutional or in fact “gutted?” The choice of words used indicts something quite unpleasant to us, but maybe we’re just touchy on the subject.

WOWT.com (the NBC affiliate) offered an interesting take on the Russian designed SKS:

Sgt. Eric Nordby said they are making an impact. “What I’m most excited about is we did receive a SKS, which is an assault rifle, shoots a 762 by 39-caliber round or mm round. It can be a very dangerous round. It goes through houses, goes through walls and in a community it’s used out here on the streets, both that make of gun and that caliber.”  

Well, actually the SKS is actually chambered for 7.62×39mm. We think this was a slip by Officer Nordby, rather than him not knowing the difference between caliber and millimeter of a round. At least we hope so. And while we know that calibers of guns are not traditionally listed in the AP style guide we question why the web producers who posted this story didn’t take the time to correct identify this as 7.62×39mm – we assume that most news organizations would do this fact checking for electronics, technical specifications and model numbers of planes and cars, so why wasn’t this checked? Lazy journalism to us.

As for the point of the round going through walls, there are plenty of other bullets that could do more damage. The SKS is also not exactly a small rifle so we don’t see it as the primary choice of gangbangers and criminals.

It wasn’t much better at KETV 7 ABC, which also interviewed Norby:

“He showed off one that he said was a variant of an AK-47 and said he was thrilled to get it off the streets.”

He was quoted as saying:

“It’s a high-powered rifle, (fires) multiple shots and it’s commonly used in crimes around Omaha, in shootings and drive-bys and stuff.”

We can’t confirm this was the SKS, but there was no mention of any other AK-47 variant. Given the lack of information we’ll go out on a limb and conclude that this is the same gun. The problem if this is the case is that the SKS is not a variant of the AK-47. The SKS was introduced in 1944 and was designed by Sergei Gavrilovich Sionov, while the AK-47 came later being designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov. Again, where is the fact checking? We know these were quickly posted stories written for TV and later posted to the websites, but would this level of fact checking be so sloppy were it about cars? In this case it is akin to saying that the Ford Model A was a variant of the Model T. So it isn’t just nitpicking.

As for high-powered rifle, that’s also debatable. The fact is that the 7.62×39mm round is extremely common as well. That fact isn’t stated, but if you read this story you’d think it was some ultra super bullet from the quotes.

The CBS affiliate wasn’t left out of the action either, as Action3news.com offered another spin:

“Gun Amnesty Day was a big success according to police. In four hours, 38 revolvers, pistols, rifles, even shotguns, some of them considered illegal were dropped off to police. It all happened in an effort to fight the war on crime.”

We’re not sure how these events are judged on success? We’ve actually never seen a news story that says “this buyback or amnesty was a total bust,” but trust us, we’ll be quick to report on it when it happens. The question still is whether this is really a “fight on the war on crime.” We also question the point “some of them considered illegal.”

Only Fox 42 KPTM.com actually noted the illegal guns:

“Two illegal short–shotguns were also dropped off, however, no one that drops off a firearm faces any possession type charges.”

While that clears up the question, we still think (unfortunately) that the media too often would like all guns to be illegal. It does show in their reporting.

First, for our national holiday. Americans of all creeds and color, or all backgrounds, should be happy to live in a nation that offers such freedom for all its legal residents. And secondly, we should celebrate for this week’s Supreme Court ruling.

But the fight isn’t over, and FirearmsTruth will continue to push forward. We’re not going anywhere, we’re just getting started!

Happy Fourth of July!

“The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and the four liberals, opposed.”

 So this clearly remains a political issue, and while not split on strictly party lines, it is based on – as the AP noted – familiar ideological lines.

No, gun shows attract hunters, sport shooters and collectors. And while some sales are made by private individuals “not engaged in the business” of dealing firearms, this is hardly a loophole. In fact, the term “gun show loophole” has only been used since 1996 when it was coined by the Violence Policy Center in a published study.

One point that is routinely missed is that individuals are free to sell guns at a gun show, a flea market, their place of business (that isn’t a gun shop) or their home. If the gun show loophole were closed these private sales by those “not engaged in the business” of dealing firearms would go on. The mainstream media often fails to note this, but we also fear where this will lead.

If the loophole – if there were really such a loophole – were closed, it would mean that anti-gun zealots would go after gun sales everywhere else. They would seek out to close the “private gun sale loophole,” meaning that all gun sales need to be through those with a Federal Firearms License. For those who only buy or sell a gun once in a blue moon this could greatly increase the cost. Is this really fair to those occasional sellers, especially when it hasn’t been proven that criminals are even getting their guns from gun shows, loophole or otherwise?