Huff and Puff Looks at “More Guns = Less Crime” Argument With Shaky Logic
In writing for the Huffington Post, Dennis A. Henigan, Brady Center Vice President and author of Lethal Logic attempts to question the concept of “more guns = less crime.” Maybe he missed the fact that gun ownership continues to climb, yet crime is down? Instead he offers some interesting, but flawed points. Read more
My Fox Illinois Shows Anti-Gun Bias
In reporting on the new law signed by Illinois Governor Pat Quinn that essentially makes it illegal to own even a long gun without a permit, My Fox Illinois’ Benjamin Yount shows a clear anti-gun bias right out of the blocks with the headline “Quinn Inks Welcomed Gun Law.”
Is this a fair title? And is it a welcome gun law? Given that Otis McDonald brought his case all the way to the Supreme Court, and now several individuals are suing Chicago over its restrictive gun laws, we must question whether this is actually “welcomed” by anyone? Yount further tries to imply how the state’s line is drawn on the issue:
“Illinois attempts to regulate, or deregulate, guns face the same regional challenges every year. Lawmaker in Chicago want to get tough on guns, but downstaters want to allow people more freedoms.”
Clearly again, given those suing the city of Chicago, as well as Mr. McDonald, this isn’t merely about “downstaters.” Equally clear is that the author has an agenda and does very little to hide his anti-gun bias in a “news” story.
NY Times Article Looks at Elderly and Guns
It seems that the Old Gray Lady is just gunning for guns any way it can. How else do you explain an article that looks at guns and the elderly? The paper adds, quite deep in the article however, that there are “few reports of elderly gun owners shooting relatives or caregivers,” the article addresses the possible concerns.
Yes, this is an issue, just as much as how elderly individuals with dementia and other mental problems shouldn’t be driving or possibly living alone, but this seems to be yet another case where the media can take fire at gun owners. So should we be surprised that The New York Times chose this time, as the gun debate is hotly in the news, to come out with this one sided article?
We say one-sided because one aspect that seems to be missing is a counter point. While the article does address dementia and other issues, it fails to note that some elderly individuals do indeed need guns to protect themselves, such as Mr. Otis McDonald of Chicago. The paper also ignores the fact that many of today’s elderly men fought in World War II and as such certainly know to handle a gun with respect and confidence.
Huff and Puff About “Danger” of Guns
Yet one more editorial that calls out the dangers of “guns in the home” following the Supreme Court Ruling. In writing for the Huffington Post Ellen S. Alberding, president of the Joyce Foundation, sings the same tune yet again, writing:
“The gun lobby is quick to contend that homeowners need guns for self-defense and that where there are more guns there is less crime. Lost in the legal debate, self-defense arguments and widely-held assumptions, however, are the facts about the risks of keeping guns in the home.”
What is lost in Alberding’s argument regarding the SCOTUS ruling is one Otis McDonald. This is just the latest example that “forgets” or at least fails to mention Mr. McDonald. His reason for the lawsuit was so he could defend his home.
But we question this whole nanny state mentality. Alberding doesn’t believe guns can coexist in a home with children, yet children have lived and grown for hundreds of years in America – in homes with guns. Imagine where this argument could head? Can children be safe in a house with alcohol? They could drink it and become alcoholics. What about sweets and junk food? Children could become fat?
We’re just trying to make a point here, and we’re asking questions that Alberding isn’t asking. The last question we’ll ask, what would happen if armed criminals broke into Mr. McDonald’s home again and he wasn’t armed?
Rev. Sharp Sees Chicago Problem But Can’t Understand SCOTUS Ruling
In writing for The Chicago Tribune the Rev. Douglas Sharp sees the nature of the problem with Chicago’s crime problem, but yet he still questions the ruling of the Supreme Court. It makes us think that Rev. Sharp is a bit too much of an idealist. He writes:
“The problem of gun violence in Chicago – and it is a huge problem – is about the proliferation of guns and whether those who use them on our streets know what they are doing.”
This sounds like he sees that the criminal element is the issue, but he then goes on to question why the Supreme Court would overturn the ban? So does Sharp really “get it?” But he shows his true colors as a misguided liberal when he writes:
“What I don’t understand is why that unassailable right to ‘keep and bear arms’ trumps the right to public safety.”
Here once again we have a man who writes about public safety not mentioning that it was Mr. Otis McDonald who sued to have a gun to protect his home and his wife from violent intruders. Where is Mr. McDonald’s right to safety? Never once is McDonald even mentioned personally, only the case that the Supreme Court heard.
Vanguard Editorial Misunderstands SCOTUS Ruling
Did Mr. Otis McDonald challenge the Chicago ban on handguns because he wanted to carry around a gun? No, he challenged the ban because his home had been invaded previously and he wanted to defend his wife as well as himself in the future. But this point is clearly missed by Natalia Groznia and the staff of The Portland Vanguard. In an editorial that offers the viewpoint that “relaxed gun laws may put people at risk,” Groznia offers this take:
“Why do you need to carry around a pistol? It seems like the only reason people do this in some cities is for one purpose: Because they can.”
As with other anti-gun editorials this one conveniently fails to mention the reason for Otis V. Chicago completely. It goes even further with the final kicker:
“The Supreme Court is wrong for passing a law allowing people to bear arms because it only makes living in the U.S. more dangerous than it already is.”
Again, this isn’t the case for Mr. Otis McDonald. Now he can own a gun and feel a little safer. The streets of Chicago would not have been any safer had the law been upheld. Criminals would still illegally have guns, and Mr. McDonald would just be unarmed.
Los Angeles Times: Doctors Don’t Like Guns
In another example of just a slightly biased report, The Los Angeles Times offers yet another take on the SCOTUS ruling, but this time they offer insight from the New England Journal of Medicine. The article offers this information when looking at McDonald vs. Chicago, and specifically addresses the elderly Otis McDonald.
“‘(A gun) may just increase the risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental injury and death of those who live in or, like his (McDonald’s) grandchildren, visit his home,’ writes Dr. Julie Cantor, whose scholarship focuses on the intersection of health, law and ethics.”
Well, that’s an interesting take from Dr. Cantor. But neither she, nor the paper, bother to note that Mr. McDonald wanted the gun to protect his home, his wife and himself after repeated break ins. It is just irresponsible that only the potential negatives are mentioned without even a mention that this goes way beyond simple “self-defense.”
Of course that’s not enough for Cantor, who is further quoted:
“To the extent that McDonald means more handguns, physicians have reason to be concerned, she writes. One of her suggestions: Physicians should remain vigilant and address gun issues, such as access and storage, with patients, especially those who may be suicidal, have survived domestic violence or live with children.”
Wait, should doctors be the least bit involved with any gun issue? Unless the doctor is trained in knowledge of guns this is also extremely dangerous! We wouldn’t expect a doctor to give out tax advice or offer information on an auto tune-up. So why should doctors have any say in gun issues? To we need this type of meddling from doctors? And don’t doctors have enough to worry about already?
Miami Herald Misses Mark in Editorial
Another editorial that misses the point in the SCOTUS ruling. This time it is from The Miami Herald, which writes:
“Where is the line to be drawn between the right to own a gun and the public’s right to feel safe? The majority of justices at least acknowledged that laws to deny gun ownership to felons and people with mental illness and to keep places like schools and government buildings gun-free are reasonable.”
Where is the line? Clearly, the justices see the line! Most law-abiding gun owners agree that guns shouldn’t be in the hands of felons and those with mental illness. We can see this, so why the need to question where the line should be?
As with so many other editorials, the editors miss the point of the ruling in McDonald vs. The City of Chicago. Again, this was about the rights of an elderly man to defend his home with a handgun, something that was banned in Chicago. So we ask the editors of The Miami Herald, where do you draw the line when it comes to the rights for a man to own a gun and feel safe? You seem to think these are mutually exclusive when in fact to Mr. Otis McDonald there is no line.
Chicago Sun Times Gives McDonald His Chance to Speak
While many editorials around the country were bemoaning the Supreme Court ruling, Otis McDonald’s hometown paper gave him a chance to offer his thoughts. In speaking to The Chicago Sun Times McDonald noted why this is such an important ruling:
“If you have the right to have a handgun in your house, even if you don’t have a gun, that will give criminals a second thought, a third thought about breaking into your house.”
We couldn’t have said it better ourselves! Kudos to Mr. McDonald.
Meet the Man Behind McDonald v Chicago
The City of Chicago has some of the country’s most draconian gun laws. Law abiding citizens can’t keep a hand gun in their own home. When 76 year old Otis McDonald heard from other gun rights activists that the Supreme Court held in the Heller Case that Washington, D.C. couldn’t outlaw handgun ownership, he filed a lawsuit against Chicago. Read more
