Los Angeles Times Reports on Tucson Gun Show
On a normal week the promoters of the West Gun Show would probably have loved this amount of publicity. The Los Angeles Times was one of several outlets that reported on the show. However, there was some slight bias in the story, which included this passage:
“Gun-control advocates said holding a gun show so soon after a mass shooting was inappropriate and insensitive. They contend that stricter laws on purchases of guns and ammunition would help avoid similar shooting rampages.”
First, which gun-control advocates? This is really a generalization since none are actually quoted in the article. So who contends that it was inappropriate? As we noted in our response to the coverage from The New York Daily News, the gun show was planned for more than a year.
This show wasn’t put on in response to the shooting and this point is lacking in The Los Angeles Times reporting. Likewise, as we also previously noted, these shows cost money to put on – canceling it would be a major financial hardship for the promoters and the dealers.
Finally, we question whether stricter laws would help avoid similar shootings? There are already millions of rounds of ammunition in the general market, and similar magazines out there. Would owners have to hand in their guns? We question this because if the guns, ammo and accessories were banned – as many gun-control types would like to see – wouldn’t this create a climate where these items are simply sold on the black market anyway? The only ones without guns would be the unarmed law-abiding citizens.
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?
LA Times Offers Biased Feature on Guns
This is just the sort of anti-gun rhetoric we’ve come to expect from The Los Angeles Times, a piece that offers opinion masked as news. But from the introduction it is clear an agenda is meant to be presented – and of course it is an anti-firearms agenda:
“A federal law taking effect Monday may alter the standard checklist for many Americans as they pack to visit their national parks: insect repellent, snacks, hiking boots . . . double-barreled shotgun.”
We must ask why a shotgun would have to be on the checklist, and does the writer somehow think the idea of a “double-barreled” [sic] shotgun is something more ominous than just a “shotgun?” The article offers a few choice opinions throw in for good measure. Even the tease for the article shows that this isn’t going to be a “fair and balanced take” at all:
“As the controversial law takes effect Monday, critics argue it could increase wildlife poaching, violence between visitors and against rangers, and destruction of historic and cultural monuments.”
What is to stop “violence” from those who previously broke the law? We would ask that people could feel safer and not become victims from those who would otherwise break the law? Couldn’t it be argued that threats will go down as the bad guys can’t easily rob from those who they expect to be unarmed?
As for “destruction of historic and cultural monuments” why is this even an issue? Why would law-abiding gun owners suddenly break the law? Typical bias, cut and dry!
Gun Owner Turns in 58 Guns!
According to The Los Angeles Times some “58 guns are off the street,” in Los Angeles County, where a single individual turned in the firearms in exchange for supermarket gift certificates.
Once again, we must question whether any of these were actually “on the streets,” or whether this individual just robbed a gun store over the holiday weekend. Either way this is a great piece of propaganda for the police. And if these were really were guns the owner had managed to obtain legally, he likely traded in tens of thousands of firearms for small change.
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!
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
