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?

More Anti-Gun Bias From Time Magazine

While the gang war south of the border continues, Time magazine once again managed to point the finger at American guns. In a story titled, “Mexico’s Gangster Send a Grisly Message on Crime” there is not one mention of Fast and Furious or the ATF. Instead the article offers this passage:

“President Felipe Calderon was in New York telling the United Nations General Assembly that ‘organized crime is killing more people and more youngsters than all the dictatorships put together’. Since Calderon took office in December 2006, more than 40,000 people have died in drug related violence. The president also struck out at the United States for failing to stop guns sold in the U.S. from reaching Mexican criminals, and urged the U.N. to take on the problem. Tests show that a majority of the automatic rifles in the hands of Mexican criminals were purchased in gun stores north of the border. ‘For what reason do criminals have access to AK47s, grenades and rocket launchers?’ Calderon asked. ‘The U.N. has work to do on this.’”

The problem with this reporting is that it essentially backs up the notion that the United States is the source of illegal guns. But let’s look closer at that sentence:

“Tests show that a majority of automatic rifles in the hands of Mexican criminals were purchased in gun stores north of the border.”

This is Time magazine, not some high school newspaper. Shouldn’t the fact checkers be doing their jobs? Even most high school newspaper editors would probably catch the point that you can’t buy “automatic” as in “full automatic” weapons at gun stores in the United States. The second problem is that this statement is based on evidence that has been widely debunked. In fact, tests show that the majority of guns do NOT come from gun stores.

Finally, what about the grenades and rocket launchers? Time doesn’t take the time to even address that these are not the types of items one can purchase at any gun store in the United States.

Time Magazine Shows Anti-Gun Bias… Again

This week Time Magazine offered a story titled, “Kids and Guns: Why Doctors Have a Right to Know.” This is in response to the Florida law that makes it illegal for doctors to ask parents if there is a gun in the home. Obviously from the headline Time shows its own bias. This story ran as a “case study,” but is essentially an editorial.

However, our friends at The Gun Zone have compiled years (seriously years) of similar anti-gun bias at Time.

The Gun Zone: Time’s Anti-Gun Agenda

Time Says Obama Silence Not Pleasing

Would most gun owners agree with a recent Time magazine headline? It says: “Why Obama’s Silence on Gun Control Pleases No One.” The article notes that the Brady Campaign gave the president an F on gun control last summer, and then notes that the National Rifle Association won’t give him a nod. The article offers this thought:

“If Obama has disappointed both sides so far, the tragedy in Tucson provides a possible pivot point. Senior White House aides have said the President will address the gun issue sometime soon, though they’ve declined to offer specifics on the timing and format.”

That passage explains why the NRA won’t give him the nod. The NRA, and other gun groups, continue to wait for the shoe to fall. As Senator Obama he was anti-gun, from an anti-gun city in and anti-gun state. That says enough. What is also missing is that the Brady Campaign praised Obama and the State Department last fall when efforts to import M1 rifles from South Korea were halted.

The article goes on to suggest that many members of the NRA do support background checks and common sense laws, which is true. But for the article to suggest that the silence pleases no one is an outright lie. We think many gun owners would prefer Obama’s deafening silence to continue.

Mayor Bloomberg: Too Many Guns Caused Times Square Shooting

It only takes one gun – that being a gun in a criminal’s hand – to be too many. But clearly that isn’t the point that New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg wanted to make with Time magazine. But did Bloomberg make this statement, or is this Time voicing what the mayor might say? The story does suggest that Bloomberg thinks there are too many guns:

“Mayor Michael Bloomberg was asked about the shooting while appearing at a Manhattan charity event, and he used the question to discuss one of his signature issues — illegal firearms and gun violence in New York and other big cities. ‘We’ve got to stop this,’ Bloomberg said. ‘This is one of the great public health threats. And our police officers are clearly in danger.’

Is this really a threat to public health? Frankly we think Bloomberg thinks any gun that belongs to anyone – law abiding or otherwise – is too many. But clearly he doesn’t think that two terms is enough, even if that was the law.