New York Daily News Gun Poll

Take a look at the question and the poll results. The questions are skewed – what does culture and history have to do with this? If crime is one issue, shouldn’t self defense be the counterpoint? But the poll is even worded to suggest that no guns equals no crime, while guns are just “history,” as in worthy of a museum.

Doesn’t this speak volumes about why the city’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg is so out of touch with the rest of the country as well?

Unfortunately in the same piece Hill offers some misguided bias. He writes:

“National polls show a majority of Americans support bans on assault weapons and semiautomatics like the Glock.”

He doesn’t cite any specific poll, and the truth is that this is actually an outright lie. There are no poll numbers that show “majority of Americans support bans” on any firearms. Of course even after making the bold statement on single-issue swing voters, Hill tries to imply that NRA’s power is a result of flaws in our government system:

“The fact is that the NRA has power not because of the deep pockets of its political action committee, but because of the fundamental architecture of our antiquated political system.”

Wait, if people vote for this issue and it is enough that the NRA wields so much power, why is this an antiquated system? Could it be that once again a New Yorker, thinking all Americans are like New Yorkers, should think beyond one cause they care about and let the minority ban that one thing? Hill tries to explain this:

“…our presidential, statewide and key congressional elections elect officeholders in individual contests in which one side wins or loses everything. That gives overwhelming power to a tiny minority of people known as ‘swing voters.’”

What we see here is truly sour grapes. Hill doesn’t agree that guns should be an issue, and therefore those nasty swing voters ruin it for everyone. He confirms this:

“these pro-gun voters live disproportionately in 15 key battleground states and 40 battleground U.S. House districts.”

We’d love to know if his opinion was different if those same 15 key battleground states were anti-gun. But as we noted, here is another New York liberal who believes the real America ends – and does not begin – at the Hudson River.

While non-gun owners might have a hard time understanding this part, the truth is that it is also business. The promoters paid out a lot of money, tables reservations were sold and dealers probably made some travel plans. To cancel the show would mean a loss of business, and that’s one aspect that is missing from the report.

Likewise, another facet is often missing. While the media continues to report on violent shootings and so-called gun show loopholes, the truth is that most gun owners follow and respect the law. Therefore, to cancel the show would actually be directed at law-abiding citizens. Yet it won’t stop those who often break the law.

We’re making light of a real tragedy, but the fact is that the sensational headline is almost a throwback to the days of yellow journalism. The piece titled “Drugs and guns are killing New York – two thirds of murder victims are black, drugs involved,” tells the story of how those with a history of drug crimes and who hang out with friends who illegally pack heat are more likely to be murdered.

But isn’t that akin to saying those who drink a lot before getting into their car are more likely to be involved in a drunk driving related accident? There is something called “cause and effect.” Those with a history of drug crime will likely end up in a bad way, especially if they don’t change their habits.

The paper of course sees it another way, and offered insight from those in the community:

“Tony Fields, whose barbershop sits in the city’s most lethal precinct, never noticed much change around his East New York business. ‘It’s not that complicated,’ said Fields, 44. ‘Lots of guns and drugs equals a high murder rate. Get rid of the drugs. Get rid of the guns. Get rid of the murders.’

This is a naïve take on the problem, and with respect to Mr. Fields how does he suggest getting rid of the drugs and guns? The guns he is likely describing are illegal handguns. The city already have laws that make it difficult to legally own a handgun. His is thus an obvious solution… yes, the city should get rid of the drugs, should get rid of the illegal guns but the point remains that “drugs and guns” in themselves are not “killing New York.” What is killing New York are the criminals using the drugs and guns.

Maybe that’s the real problem. Don’t target the guns and drugs. Target the criminals instead.

Lupica first notes:

“If Bloomberg is going to be remembered for something, it ought to be that, for gun laws as tough as there are anywhere.”

But soon after writes:

“But it can still be the city of guns.”

The problem with this attitude is that it continues to praise the efforts of a mayor who would like to see the Second Amendment overturned, yet when guns are a problem; it blames the guns (and likely the Second Amendment). The truth is that Bloomberg’s efforts are really a complete failure. Law-abiding citizens can’t get guns, and clearly as the number of guns on the streets has not been dramatically reduced, the criminals don’t care.

But consider the attitude too of the New York media. The poll above shows proof of this. The questions don’t really address the issue of guns on the street, because the issue isn’t about the guns. It is about the gangs, the criminals and the fact that Bloomberg and his ilk could make all guns illegal and there would still be armed thugs in New York City.

“State law gives guns, badges and peace officer status to humane society cruelty investigators.”

We have to wonder what other dubious fake law enforcement, or similar groups are operating for similar reasons – while law-abiding citizens still have problems legally obtaining firearms.

“A legislator there wants to ban the type of undercover stings that Bloomberg has used to showcase illegal gun sales in other states – and throw the mayor’s investigators in jail if necessary.

“‘It’s for us to handle within our own borders,’ said state Sen. Jeffrey Kessler, who is running for governor in 2012. ‘We jealously guard our gun rights, and we’re vocal advocates for the Second Amendment.’”

Kudos to Jeffrey Kessler. It is about time someone stood up to Mikey.

 ”At 18, Kristine Arroyo already knows how to stand up to the powerful National Rifle Association – and tomorrow night, she’ll stand up and be honored at Borough President Marty Markowitz’s State of the Borough address.”

The story not only lacked any counterpoint, but it also showed that young Ms. Arroyo is a bit off base on what she is talking about: 

“But she’s pushing for restrictions like putting an expiration date on gun permits and cracking down on gun dealers who don’t do adequate background checks – and she’ll be back in Albany this spring to lobby legislators again.”

Many counties in New York State already have expiration dates on gun permits, and as Ms. Arroyo is a resident of New York City, she should know that permits expire (and must be renewed to legally keep position of firearms) after three years. Even the surrounding New York State counties of New York City have expiration dates of five years.

And if Ms. Arroyo, as a resident of the City of New York is calling on statewide expiration dates – for those counties upstate and beyond – she is really out of line.

“We’ll never know, but that’s potentially more than 5,000 lives saved,” Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said during a press conference at Police Headquarters.

Yes, Police Commissioner Kelly, we’ll never know. We’ll never know if one of these guns was even handed in by a criminal. We’ll never know how many criminals now look to steal guns to sell them for $200, with no questions asked. We’ll never know how many people sold guns that were worthless (or at least worth less than $200) to get a quick score from taxpayers. We’ll never know how many valuable firearms were handed in for a mere $200 as well. We’ll never know.

But what is now on radar is that the media has picked up on a few facets of the story. A recent story in The New York Daily News included this passage:

“An incident involving Washington Wizards guard Gilbert Arenas in which he allegedly drew a firearm on a teammate has set off a firestorm of opinion among current NBA players, who tell of a flourishing gun culture in the NBA. If true, it could spell trouble for NBA commissioner David Stern.”

The issue we see is not the “gun culture” but rather the “thug” or “gangsta” culture. Guns in themselves aren’t the issue, but rather that the player apparently – at least judged by the actions of Arenas – seem to believe that the guns are something that back up words in situations where no such back up is needed. In the case of Arenas the incident was sparked over gambling debts owed to another player!

While the article further suggests that many players carrying firearms for protection, with one player noting that there have been robberies involving players, we wonder whether these millionaires can’t hire some sort of bodyguards instead. Failing that we suggest some actual firearm training, and maybe learn some respect for their guns.

But this isn’t our only issue either. What is disturbing is this later passage in the Daily News coverage:

“The NBA’s collective bargaining agreement permits players to legally possess firearms, but not at league facilities.”

While we have no problem with the league banning firearms at its facilities, we have to ask why it is necessary that the NBA “permits players to legally possess firearms.” Isn’t that something that the Second Amendment should do? Could we see a future where giving up your guns is the only way you can get a job – even one that pays millions of dollars to play a sport?