Reuters Lets Anti-Gun Zealot Get Last Word
Reporting on the “Virginia Senate votes to repeal limit on gun purchases,” Reuters seems to have taken the sour grapes approach to reporting. This included the final passages coming from the Virginia Center for Public Safety, including this quote from Lori Hass:
“The Senate today pandered to special interest groups and has just opened the door to begin illegal gun trafficking again in Virginia.”
Well it makes for a compelling kicker, is it accurate even? This isn’t the special interest if the vast majority of voters pushed for this. But apparently anytime an anti-gun type doesn’t like a ruling, they blame the “special interest” and unfortunately the media gives this added weight by supporting this line of thinking.
NPR Offers Biased Take on Virginia Gun Laws
How does National Public Radio see the new lifted restrictions on firearm sales in Virginia? Basically the way they report on it, it will only open the flood gates to criminals. The story offered this introduction to an interview between host Robert Siegel and newspaper reporter Bill Sizemore:
Twenty years ago, Virginia had a not-so-flattering reputation as a haven for illegal gun runners. Traffickers would buy batches of guns legally in the state, and sell them on the black market. With the Virginia guns turning up at crime scenes up and down the Eastern seaboard, the state legislature decided it was time to act — a law was passed to limit gun purchases to one a month. But gun rights activists have fought to overturn it, and on Monday, the Virginia Senate approved legislation to repeal it.
Is a “reputation” really what this is about? This type of reporting doesn’t offer all the facts, including that gun sales are up and crime is down. But that would get in the way of this reporting.
But the interview also included an interesting exchange:
SIEGEL: Now, Virginia is a state where there’s a great deal of gun ownership and I assume the Republican legislators and the governor figure the public opinion is on their side with these moves.
SIZEMORE: I think they do. Virginia certainly is a big gun-owning state, particularly in the more rural areas where hunting is a, you know, longstanding tradition. You know, in the more urban areas where crime has been a problem, I think you find more support for gun control, but at the moment, the gun enthusiasts certainly seem to have the upper hand.
Let’s review: Siegel makes it clear that it is “public opinion,” but Sizemore by responds by trying to suggest that there is support for gun control, yet “gun enthusiasts” have the “upper hand.” Isn’t this a naïve way to look at it this issue? Clearly the support for gun control isn’t strong enough, but once again the anti-gun types try to pass this off as if it is the voice of a few radicals.
At least the host notes there is “public opinion,” but too bad the media can’t see it that way.
NRA News: Arizona Lawmaker Proposes New Version of Bill to Allow Guns on College, University Campuses
Cam Edwards talks to State Sen. Ron Gould (R-AZ) - NRA News
Holder in the Hot Seat – Blames Lack of Gun Control
So let’s get this straight, ATF ran an operation that saw a border control agent killed, and thousands of guns were let to walk to Mexico. And how does the Attorney General see it? It is a fault of lack of gun control in the United States, reports The Washington Examiner:
“ATF’s ability to stem the flow of guns from the United States into Mexico suffers from a lack of effective enforcement tools,” Holder told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today. “Unfortunately, in 2011, a majority of House Members – including all members of the majority on this Committee – voted to keep law enforcement in the dark when individuals purchase multiple semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and long guns – like AK-47s – in gun shops in four southwest-border states.”
No one this guy won’t step down, he seems to actually believe the things that come out of his mouth!
New York Times Editorial Suggests “gun lobby’s wrath”
The New York Times issued a farewell to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords last week, and we have to ask – why? We sort of know the answer, as it allows the Times’ editors a chance to climb on the soap box yet again, let’s keep in mind that Ms. Giffords didn’t represent the people of New York City or even New York State.
The editors of course tried to once again blame the guns and did some with the usual misreporting:
Ringing vows were made immediately after the Tucson rampage to ban the high-volume ammunition clips used by the gunman, to prod states to submit names of the mentally disturbed to the federal watch list for gun sales, and to plug the notorious gun-show loophole that allows anyone to buy high-powered military weapons without a background check. None of those have happened. Democrats, who once had the good sense to pass a ban on assault rifles, no longer fight for its renewal, wary of the gun lobby’s wrath. President Obama gave a stirring speech after the Tucson shootings, but the White House has said and done too little about gun control since then.
Our first point, yes this is an editorial and opinions are opinions. But facts don’t lie – and this editorial has one of the facts wrong. It isn’t an outright lie, but it is done to make a point. Namely the statement: “high-powered military weapons,” which isn’t fair. First, the shooter in Tucson had no such firearm. So what does it have to do with this piece?
But there is also the point of “high-powered military weapons” that suggests that the guns most can actually buy at gun-shows are “military weapons,” which they are not. The guns are civilian versions and there is a huge difference whether the editors at the Times like it or not!
Next, we note “wary of the gun lobby’s wrath.” What does this mean? It almost suggests as if the gun lobby would use said “military weapons” in a reprisal. But that’s not the case. What the gun lobby would do is stir up voters, who would send President Obama and other anti-gun types packing. But isn’t that how lobbyists are supposed to work? Isn’t that their job whether we like it or not? And at the end of the day it isn’t the majority of voters casting their ballot on the issue? Why is this point always lost in these arguments.
The paper adds:
Ms. Giffords, a supporter of gun rights, was sent off with good wishes from lawmakers who could have done something to stem the carnage. “I will recover and will return,” Ms. Gifford vowed in a her resignation letter, which was read by a colleague. Her departure offered a tragic display of how easily a brilliant career in public service was cut short because of the nation’s inadequate gun laws.
Couldn’t it be that the nation’s mental health system is what really failed here? This argument blames the guns, and whether the Times likes it or there are a lot of guns out there, so the laws seem to be fairly adequate when all is said and done. Tragedies happen, but we don’t try to ban everything.
Will cruise ships be banned because of the recent disaster in Italy? Were airplanes banned because of 9/11? Are cars or even alcohol banned because of drunk drivers? It is such an interesting argument to make, but banning the item involved is only done when it includes guns.
NRA News: Support Grows for Marine Who Brought Gun to Empire State Building
Cam Edwards talks to Dave Bruce, a Boston lawyer and Former Marine who is trying to help Ryan Jerome, a fellow Former Marine who was arrested in New York City for his concealed handgun
Illinois Gun Licenses Rose Six Percent in 2011
The media is reporting an interesting story this week. Illinois residents are buying guns, as licenses rose by six percent. Even those from the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence noted to local Chicago media, “that is a pretty big increase.”
So is there more to the story? What the media is only touching upon is that Chicago ended – by way of the Supreme Court – a ban on handgun ownership. And in the Windy City gun ownership, or at least the number of people with firearms cards, increased by 16 percent in 2011.
This is a story, a big story. Now some anti-gun types are no doubt going to say, “This is bad” and cite possible increase in violence. But the truth is that Chicago has had gun violence because the criminal element ignored the gun ban. So maybe we could actually see some decrease in crime as the innocent law-abiding citizens won’t have to automatically be victims.
Indian Magazine Shows Why Some People Shouldn’t Talk About Gun
Author Lionel Shriver talked to Tehelka, independent weekly news magazine from India, on a number of topics, and the author of “We Need To Talk About Kevin” was of course asked about gun control. While her novel maybe about a fictional school massacre, she shows ignorance on the issue of firearms.
The article offered this exchange:
[Question]We Need To Talk About Kevin was published in 2003, yet little change in gun control legislation has taken place. Last year saw the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Is this issue being addressed at all?
[Shriver]I’m greatly in despair. It should not be possible for people to walk on the street and casually be able to buy a semi-automatic. The constitutional amendment has to change. Until then, there are always lunatics in every society who will wreak havoc because of the easy availability of guns in America.
This is an argument that is used all too often, which blames the guns and not the shooter. Yes, unfortunately there will always be lunatics in every society but the havoc isn’t just because of “guns in America.”
We also don’t know what she means by “buy a semi-automatic.” Does she mean handguns, long guns, assault style weapons, etc.? This is vague, but with some anti-gun types it is vague because they likely don’t know the difference and it is vague because they really mean “all guns,” when they talk about bans.
It is also interesting that someone would say, “the constitutional amendment has to change,” and then tries to suggest that violence will continue until it is changed. We’re pretty sure there were wars, crime and violence before guns.
San Antonio Columnist: The Second Amendment’s Faustian bargain
There have been calls for “reasonable gun control,” and this week O. Richardo Pimentel, writing for The San Antonio Express-News offered an interesting twist in a column titled, “The Second Amendment’s Faustian bargain.”
He tells the story of how guns can be used to save as well as take lives. He makes a compelling argument, writing:
Everyone should be pleased by innocent lives saved as a side effect of gun ownership for the right people. But we can still recognize that the same laws that allow that also create a climate of too many guns in the wrong hands — and innocent lives taken.
This is true, and while we respect his opinion, the issue we have is that “reasonable gun control” would limit what the law-abiding can buy, while criminals would simply ignore the law.
As we long have tried to argue, the problem with this view is that the Second Amendment isn’t what gives criminals access to guns. There is no Amendment that makes murder legal, yet it still happens. There is no Amendment that grants the right for drug addiction, yet we still have drug addicts. So why would new gun laws stop criminals?
So no, we don’t think this is a Faustian bargain. Selling our souls for safety in the guise of gun control would be the real Faustian bargain.
WaPo Suggests Gun Lobby Stronger Than Obama
This week, just prior to the State of the Union, The Washington Post suggested (gasp!) that President Obama isn’t Superman – or if he is, the gun lobby is his kryptonite. In an editorial titled, “A prime-time call for gun control would honor Rep. Gabrielle Giffords,” the editors offered this thought:
Mr. Obama last year delivered his State of the Union just weeks after the Tucson massacre and in the presence of victims’ family members. Yet he, like so many politicians intimidated by the gun lobby’s muscle, could not muster a single word about the need for reasonable gun control measures to ward off such violence in the future.
We would love if President Obama called for gun control and made it his pinnacle platform! By all means, because it would surely lower his chances for re-election in November.
However, we do have to ask – how is it that the most powerful person on the planet is “intimidated” by a lobby group? Doesn’t this actually suggest that this is a hot button issue with voters? This is a point that the gun hating media never seems to grasp. If Obama is “intimidated” by the gun lobby, it is only because he knows making it an issue will cost him his job.
And since this is the case, doesn’t that mean MORE Americans are pro-gun. But to the gun-hating media that doesn’t seem to matter.
