Pantagraph Reporter Changes Opinion on Guns

This past weekend writer Edith Brady-Lunny offered personal experiences on the issue of firearms for Pantagraph. But consider how this piece starts out:

Personal bias is something journalists are trained avoid [sic] when they cover the news.

When I started working on a story about the controversial issue of concealed carry of weapons in Illinois, I was forced to face my own bias. I have never lived in a home with guns and considered myself the quintessential anti-gun nut.

First, we congratulate Brady-Lunny, not for the article that follows – where she describes her experience at the gun range – but rather that she admits she has her own bias. Too many journalists, for reasons that we don’t truly understand, have a natural bias against guns. At least Brady-Lunny admitted of such.

But let’s look at one other statement she makes:

My aversion to guns and my long-held belief that less is better when it comes to firearms in the hands of anyone other than peace officers or soldiers is rooted in my experience as a journalist. I have witnessed firsthand the harm and carnage that comes from people wielding guns. The images of a heart or a head riddled with bullets and stories of the aftermath of gun violence have always stayed with me.

And here is the root of the bias, which we don’t understand. Brady-Lunny is clearly an idealist, someone who believes cops are always the good guys, soldiers only protect the innocent and only bad people would want a gun otherwise. Clearly this journalist hasn’t watched the world news – where it took guns from Libyan rebels (and help from NATO in the way of air support) to take down a dictator, or where the military in Syria retains control despite attempts to start a revolution. Clearly this journalist doesn’t follow the news that SWAT team guns were stolen in Los Angeles, or read that a police chief in New Mexico helped arm criminals. And there was the soldier smuggling guns into the U.K.

Clearly those examples that we show that this idealistic view can be far from ideal in the real, cold, hard world. But she also notes the “images of a heart or a head riddled with bullets,” and yet does she not think of the 18-year old mother who defended her home and infant son on New Year’s Eve? Just something to think about.

But again, at least this journalist admitted to her bias. And as with addiction, the first step is admitting there is a problem.

Misinformation from Canadian Press

This week The Vancouver Sun offered a multi-part feature on guns, titled: “Part 1: Tighten controls on civilianized military-assault weapons.” That is a new one for us, “civilianized military-assault weapons,” which attempts t suggest that these military guns are still somehow “military.”

The article offers this interesting passage:

“Some Canadians are alarmed that registered firearms users such as (Dan) Styles have legal access to such weapons, which are considered ‘civilianized’ models of modern military-assault rifles. Although these high-powered rifles are seldom used in crimes in Canada, many gun-control advocates want them banned in the name of public safety.”

This sounds familiar doesn’t it? The guns are “seldom used in crimes” but in the “name of public safety” the anti-gun zealots want them banned! We also note that once again, the adjective “high-powered” is also used erroneously to suggest these weapons are even more sinister.

Free Lance-Star Reader Offers Disturbing Suggestion

We don’t normally report on “letters to the editors” because we don’t see this as an actual media bias. The media does, and should, print letters with opposing views. We believe this is part of a free press, and a way to keep the media “honest” as they say. But one letter was so strongly opinionated that we felt the need to reprint part of it.

In a letter to the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, Daniel B. McElwain Jr. writes:

“Let’s keep close tabs on every gun in America

“For the increased safety of all citizens, America should require registration and annual inspection of every gun, civilian and military, manufactured and sold within and imported into America, just as we do with vehicles. Autos kill. Guns kill.” Read more

Minnesota Public Radio Calls for “Sensible Gun Laws”

In an editorial for Minnesota Public Radio Chaska Police Chief Scott M. Knight responds by suggesting that the country needs “sensible gun laws.” While we respect his opinion, and thank him for his service to the community, we have to stress that some of his suggestions are clearly off the mark. Even his wording of what he feels is “sensible” is hardly that to us. He calls for cities “to enact strict firearms policies.”

So we must ask, is “strict” the same as “sensible?” While he talks about strict laws, he first suggests keeping guns away from “criminals, gang members, the mentally ill and others who would visit harm upon our citizens,” but later he calls for closing the “gun show loophole” and banning “military assault weapons.”

The problem we continue to have is what exactly is meant by these two terms? In the former, Chief Knight never defines the “gun show — no background check needed” loophole.” This is a typical argument by those who can’t back up their opinion. He doesn’t even define it, possibly because it doesn’t really exist. To the next point, on the matter of “military assault weapons,” we must ask again what he means? Is it the look of the gun? The fact that it can hold a bayonet? What exactly makes a gun a “military assault weapon?”

To the average reader it sounds like a very dangerous gun, but the truth is that you can’t actually buy a military assault weapon. You can’t go to the gun show – and through loophole or otherwise – purchase a fully automatic machinegun or assault rifle. This just doesn’t happen. What you can buy is a gun that might look like one, but it is semi-automatic and is generally no different from commercial sporting rifles. So we wonder if those would be the next items in the crosshairs of people like Chief Knight. That’s our concern.

NPR Report: Mexican Army May Be Colluding With Drug Mafia

While it sounds like something out of a movie or a TV, the truth is scarier than fiction. This story almost slipped under the radar, but when we heard about it this news made us stand up and take notice. 

“A four-month investigation by NPR News uncovered evidence that Mexico’s army takes a side in this bloody conflict, and backs one drug cartel over its rivals.”

 

If this is true, and we sadly believe that NPR is right on this one, it brings up an interesting point. Why was Mexican President Filipe Calderon blaming American guns for the crime south of the border when it is likely his own military that is supplying the guns to the Mexican cartels?

NPR: Mexican Army May Be Colluding With Drug Mafia

Philly Inquirer Writer Misunderstands “Right To Bear Arms”

In an op-ed piece for The Philadelphia Inquirer Patrick Walsh explains why he feels that the United States Constitution does not apply to individual gun ownership, and instead is about the military maintaining guns. In one passage he notes:

“The old gun lobby claim ‘guns don’t kill people’ is specious. No one rails against the manufacture of axes or baseball bats; there are no campaigns to ban Bowie knives.”

First, most of the gun lobby doesn’t offer this argument today. And there are limits that many things people can buy today. Guns for one are not as readily available for purchase as axes or bats in any state. Axes and bats are not banned in Chicago, New York City or Washington, D.C. He goes on to note various high-profile crimes, including:

“Columbine doesn’t happen if Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are wielding Louisville Sluggers.”

No, but Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold also made propane bombs, and they were determined to do as much damage as possible. Had they not gotten guns, they may have relied on crude gasoline bombs – such a the kind partisans used against trained soldiers in various wars. We cannot change the motivation of individuals simply by taking away their guns. Also, it should be noted that they bought their guns illegally. Does Walsh honestly believe that criminals will suddenly give up getting guns if they are banned?

Walsh offers this thought on the subject from the viewpoint of his past training:

“Take it from a former soldier: A gun’s power is arbitrary and wildly disproportionate to its price, size, and ease of use.”

 He is correct here, but a gun’s power works both ways. It can defend a home from invasion as well. He notes:

 ”With a bolt-action rifle and a telescopic sight, I could put a bullet through my neighbor from a hundred yards away as he crosses his living room.”

We live in a society with laws, and teach values. Anyone could also run over their neighbor with a car, or kidnap their child. Guns are just one way in many of doing harm.

But if we surrender our arms, then we surrender it to a police state. For someone who says, “I once carried a rifle in defense of the Constitution” should understand that, and yet Walsh doesn’t.

New York Times Offers Biased Take on Canadian Gun Laws

In an article from The New York Times this week it sounds like the old gray lady believes Canada to be more enlightened about firearms, and health care!

“OTTAWA — Like public health care, Canada’s tight gun-control laws help distinguish the country from its powerful neighbor to the south. But as Canadians commemorated the 20th anniversary of one of the country’s most notorious shooting sprees on Sunday, their Parliament was on course to eliminate one of its most significant gun-control measures.”

The question we’d like to ask is whether these laws actually distinguish Canada in a good way? Anyone? But let’s look at some other questionable points in the article. First up, note how the firearm is described in this passage:

“A decade before the Columbine high school shootings set off a national debate on gun violence in the United States, an angry, unemployed 25-year-old armed with a semiautomatic hunting rifle stormed the École Polytechnique, an engineering school in Montreal.”

Then the article goes a bit further, and note the use of the wording here:

“The current debate does not involve handguns, whose registration has been required since 1934. Nor does it involve a variety of military-style weapons like assault rifles and sawed-off shotguns, which are banned outright. And the law’s repeal would not alter the requirement that gun buyers take safety courses and obtain a license.”

A “military-style weapon” is not a “hunting rifle” nor is a “sawed-off shotgun” a military weapon or hunting weapon. This is just another case where lots of different scary sounding words are thrown around to confuse the reader. Not exactly solid reporting, now is it?