Left Leaning Care 2 Offs Biased Reporting as “News”
The headline sums up where this story is going: On The First Anniversary of the Giffords Assassination Attempt, Things Are Still In Limbo.
This from Care2.com ,which begs the question… what is in limbo? Apparently because guns are still legal the issue is in limbo. But this article then throws in bias as news. It does begin as news, as is noted with this introduction:
It’s been exactly one year since the country was stunned by the violent shooting rampage that nearly killed Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, and did kill and wound numerous staff, supporters and even a little girl.
That is news and it sums up the situation well, but consider this misinformation at the end of the article:
And others are even using the anniversary to promote weapons. According to Think Progress, the Crossroads of the West gun show has decided to use today as the day to throw their Tuscon exhibit and sale. But at least they don’t appear to be raffling away the same type of gun that nearly killed her, like the Arizona GOP did last fall.
The gun show wasn’t scheduled for any particular reason! But this article would you have believe that was in fact the motive of the Crossroads of the West Gun Show organizers! Shameful that this is bias passes as news.
Time Magazine: Mt. Rainier Shooting: Why Guns and National Parks Don’t Mix
Writing for Time Magazine, Bonnie Rochman suggests that in light of the shooting of Margaret Anderson on New Year’s Day guns and national parks don’t mix. She writes:
But the debate raises a valid issue: why do we need guns in national parks in the first place? Our 392 national parks are supposed to be a sanctuary for the nation, a place to forget cell phones and emails and the mortgage check that has to be written. They’re oases of serenity where Americans can unwind. Guns do not beget serenity; they beget violence and they have no place in national parks.
As we have noted, we do feel for Ms. Anderson’s family. But we have to ask… what does the law allowing guns in the park have to do with her murder? Does a “no guns allowed” sign really deter someone who might do someone harm?
In fact, doesn’t this actually reinforce the need for some people out in the wild, where help from law enforcement could be hours away, to actually have a gun to protect themselves?
Would Gun Ban Have Stopped Park Shooting?
It wasn’t the way the New Year should have begun we admit that. A Park Service Ranger was murdered at Mount Rainier National Park, and The Washington Post of course was there – with a story from Associated Press – to note that this could have been prevented… had it not been for the federal law that allows for guns in national parks. The story notes:
Sunday’s fatal shooting of a Park Service ranger Margaret Anderson could have been prevented, said Bill Wade, a former superintendent of Shenandoah National Park, just outside Washington, D.C., who started his career as a professional ranger at Mount Rainier.
This all assumes that criminals follow the law! Clearly the shooter broke a much bigger law by committing murder. This fact can’t be ignored. If someone is going to commit murder does a gun ban really stand in their way?
Gun Business: SHOT Show to Stay at Las Vegas Sands Through 2014
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, owners of the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show, and Reed Exhibitions, producers of the SHOT Show, have reached an agreement with Las Vegas Sands Corp. to present the SHOT Show at the Sands Expo and Convention Center through 2014.
“SHOT Show attendees have made it clear to us that Las Vegas is their city of choice, and this agreement allows the National Shooting Sports Foundation to meet their expectations and to continue our great relationship with the city and the Las Vegas Sands Corp.,” said Steve Sanetti, president and CEO of NSSF, trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry. “The Sands has responded to our requests for improvements to the venue that have been very favorably commented upon by exhibitors and attendees alike, and this was a key factor in our decision.”
The SHOT Show is one of the largest trade shows in North America, featuring 1,600 exhibitors covering 660,000 net square feet of product-display space. Exhibitors, buyers and media from more than 100 countries attend the show. Read more
Harvard Crimson Offers Interesting Commentary on Tucson and Assault Weapon Ban
Perhaps there is hope for the future of journalism in this country. Peyton R. Miller, writing for the Harvard Crimson, notes that while there have been renewed calls for the assault weapon ban, these would have done little to prevent the Tucson shooting.
Interesting this writer for the student run paper, also seems to understand that the so-called assault weapons are merely “military style” and further explains how “semi-automatic” operates. More in the media could take a cue and know as to what they are writing about in their articles.
Miller also notes that the gun and magazine used in Tucson, even if banned, could have been bought on the black market – making a ban nearly a moot point.
And here too Miller makes a good point:
“Academic literature does not provide consistent evidence that such restrictions reduce crime, and analyses frequently conclude that they have little if any effect. With respect to the AWB, a 2004 University of Pennsylvania study noted that assault weapons were rarely used in gun crimes before the ban and that the reduction in violence that would result from renewing the law, while nontrivial, was likely to be ‘small at best.’”
This is a refreshing take from not only the media but from a student at a notoriously “liberal” university. The argument is well-founded and without any bias.
Tehran Times: US Needs Gun Control
If ever there was an argument for why the United States should never adopt any form of gun control, it comes from Tehran Times: Iran’s Leading International Daily. In an editorial titled, “Gun control in Congress: Lawmakers must shed their fear of the NRA” the editors write:
“Bills to ban high-capacity gun ammunition clips and close the ‘gun show loophole’ have been introduced in Congress. The Tucson shootings demand a courageous effort by lawmakers to pass this legislation.”
Now in fairness, it seems that this editorial actually cites The Christian Science Monitor, a paper that is notoriously anti-gun. But if Iran’s largest international daily thinks gun control is good then isn’t that enough of a case against gun control?
Jan Brewer Says Gun Laws are Fair and Just
In a story for The Arizona Daily Star, Governor Jan Brewer got to speak her mind, noting, “We believe our laws are fair and just in the state of Arizona.” This follows the release of videos from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who had a “sting” showing nothing more than private sales at Tucson gun shows.
We would like to ask… why isn’t Brewer getting to speak out more on the national front? She is a governor of a large state, and the one where both the Tucson shooting occurred and where the subsequent gun show took place. Yet, Bloomberg seems to be the media darling this week? Could that be further proof of media bias?
NNPA Columnist Misses Gun Carry Issue
In writing for Frost Illustrated, NNPA Columnist George E. Curry tries to imply that relaxing gun laws makes the country more dangerous. Based on his statements he is either naïve or idealistic on the subject – probably both. He writes:
“Columbine High School. The Washington, D.C. sniper. Northern Illinois University. Virginia Tech. Red Lake Indian Reservation. Chicago school children. And now, Tucson, Arizona. In dramatic ways, shooting deaths have horrified, mesmerized, and confounded Americans. Yet, an increasing number of people say it is more important to protect the rights of citizens to own guns than to limit those authorized to carry lethal weapons.”
Why bring up shootings where the shooters broke the law not only by using the guns to commit crimes, but also in many cases by simply having the guns with them in places where guns were not allowed? The point is to protect the gun rights of law abiding citizens, because as Columbine, the D.C. sniper, Virginia Tech, etc. prove those who break the law will break the law anyway.
But Curry tries to offer his world view in the process:
“When I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, if I got in a fist fight with a guy, at worst, we might have a rematch the next day. Over the years, however, things have changed. Instead of settling disputes by duking it out, it is far more likely that one of the parties will try to settle the feud with a gun.”
While this sort of event happens in gang ridden areas, it isn’t the same as a fist fight situation. In the 1950s kids got in fight over girls, or sporting grudges and similar events – today however, the shooting starts over turf wars by drug gangs. That’s a huge difference. Suburban kids aren’t fighting with fists one day and shooting each other up the next.
FirearmsTruth.com Goes to The SHOT Show
Deadline Las Vegas. All this week FirearmsTruth.com will be reporting from the annual Shooting, Hunting Outdoor Trade Show – also known as the SHOT Show. This is the largest and most comprehensive trade show for all professionals involved with the shooting sports and hunting industries.
We’ll be looking at the newest and most innovative products that will be available this year for hunters, sport shooters and firearms enthusiasts. Last year’s show in Orlando saw nearly 60,000 in total attendance with more than 1,600 exhibitors and nearly 700,000 square feet of exhibit space – and this year the National Shooting Sports Foundation expects an even bigger show with nearly 2,000 members of the media in attendance.
Check back all week for the latest news from Las Vegas.
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.
