Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

It's summertime and the living is easy. Rising temperatures, hot and steamy; but enough about me...

Yes, it's time for the Weekly Check on the media bias against guns and the Second Amendment. I seek out stories from a variety of sources including Yahoo and KABA. Things tend to get a little slow during the dog-days as vacations surplant the thoughts of firearms in many writers' minds. Still, there were some stories... The first concerns:

From the Washington Post:

In a spat that could have implications for the presidential campaign, the National Rifle Association has angered a group of opinion makers among America's 50 million hunters and anglers.

The president of the National Rifle Association warned a convention of outdoor writers last month that it should not be seduced by environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, which promise to protect hunting habitat but actually are scheming to ban guns.

"It's pretty hard to hunt without guns," Kayne B. Robinson, president of the NRA, told the Outdoor Writers Association of America at its annual meeting in Spokane, Wash.

At the convention, the Sierra Club had offered to join forces with hunting groups to protect wildlife habitat, a proposal that generated considerable support. But Robinson said the NRA, which has 4 million members, half of whom are hunters, would never cooperate with the Sierra Club, which he suggested was trying to "hoodwink hunters into voting for gun ban candidates."

Robinson's remarks have prompted an unprecedented rebuke from the Outdoor Writers, a 77-year-old group of newspaper, magazine, radio and TV commentators who for decades have had a somewhat fawning relationship with the NRA. Many are longtime NRA members and contributors to its publications.

The writers' board of directors voted 11 to 4 to send Robinson a letter "expressing our disappointment in your harsh criticism of fellow OWAA supporting member Sierra Club." The June 30 letter described his comments as "inappropriate."

The problem is that the NRA supports Bush in the coming election and Bush is pushing to open more forests to roads and logging:

Governors would have to petition the federal government to block road-building in remote areas of national forests under a Bush administration proposal to boost logging.

Environmentalists say the proposed rule change, outlined this week in the Federal Register, would signal the end of the so-called roadless rule, which blocks road construction in nearly one-third of national forests as a way to prevent logging and other commercial activity in backcountry woods.

Without a national policy against road construction, forest management would revert back to individual forest plans that in many cases allow roads and other development on most of the 58 million acres now protected by the roadless rule, environmentalists say.

The vast majority of hunting and fishing enthusiasts revere our wilderness areas and do NOT want them interlaced with logging roads. Neither do conservationists such as the Sierra Club. I have searched the Sierra Club web site and have not noticed any special bias against hunting. And while they will be the first to admit that their political agenda does not often match the NRA's, they do say:

Given these shared passions, environmentalists have much to gain from banding together with hunting and fishing groups. Sporting enthusiasts are numerous in some states with lots of public land, like Wyoming and Nevada, where environmentalists tend to be on the defensive. National environmental groups have a combined membership of more than 5 million, with millions more in local and state organizations. Add that to the nation's 50 million hunters and anglers, and you have a formidable grassroots force.

And this seems to be what is angering the NRA so much because many of the same politicians who support or are supported by the NRA are the same ones who care little about preserving our wilderness areas from developement or industry. President Bush, or his advisors are also under pressures, of course, because as any builder or lumberyard worker can tell you, the price of hardwoods has skyrocketed this past Spring. So there is some hue-and-cry to open more lands to logging.

Frankly though, I think the NRA is wrong on this one -- that is, on claims that the Sierra Club is against hunting. or that sporting groups should have nothing to do with them. If they were, why do they have such pages on their site as Why I Hunt. They even offer a bookshelf of like books. True, they don't advocate irresponsible hunting, or hunting and fishing to the point of extinction, or with machine guns, but who does?

ESPN Outdoors has more on Robinson's views about opening up wilderness areas to roads and also, somewhat strangely, complaining that many states' hunter-safety courses are too long because they last up to 12 hours or more:

"NRA practically invented hunter safety programs," Robinson recalled.

"But safety means safety, not heaping on hours and hours of unnecessary classes to drive people out."...

[snip]

...[in Pennsylvania] Students must be present for the entire course, which includes segments on "Hunter responsibility and ethics," the "Principles of wildlife management and conservation," field care of game, wildlife identification, survival and first aid, turkey hunting safety, discussions of bowhunting and muzzleloading, firearms and ammunition, game laws and trapping...

[snip]

...Oregon's course runs at least 14 to 16 hours, again with emphasis on "ethics and respect for private landowners," wildlife management and identification, survival, hunt preparation and techniques and firearms handling and safety...

[snip]

... Over the years, concerns have been raised that expanding hunter education requirements create problems for families with conflicting work or extracurricular schedules, such as high school sports.

It doesn't seem to me that any of the subjects being taught are useless or frivolous and the claim of taking up too much time is nonsense since generally speaking, you only have to take the course once, when you apply for your first-time license. If the person can take days and days off to hunt or fish, they can certainly spare a few hours once to learn the right way, safety, and survival.

I don't pretend that my views here are necessarily correct since, frankly, I'm not a hunter. Therefore I welcome comments from those of you who are; both about hunter-safety classes and the larger issue of the NRA claiming that hunting and fishing groups and outdoors writers should reject alliances such as from the Sierra Club.

Getting back to the original WaPo story, mostly it reads as an NRA bashing and I suspect -- given the newspaper's known hostility to all things NRA and firearm related -- that was the intent. There's only one quote from an NRA spokesperson in defense of the charges leveled by various outdoors sportsman writers. Is the bashing deserved; you'll have to decide but I'm sure it gave the Washington Post glee to print it.

I'm sure that last Saturday it was with less glee that they printed this:

With time expiring on the decade-old assault weapons ban, gun control advocates are angry at President Bush for apparently doing nothing to extend it. In fact, the president never asked the House to continue the ban, which will expire in September, because he knew it was pointless, says Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.).

In his 2000 campaign, Bush said he favored extending the 1994 ban on 19 semiautomatic assault weapons. But now, "time is running out, and President Bush's strategy is to remain silent," said Michael Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in a recent statement.

The Senate dropped efforts to extend the law in March, and the House never started. "We stated our position before the White House had to ask us," DeLay told reporters last week. The White House "knew not to [ask], because the votes are not there."

Of course, the chance to bash President Bush certainly didn't cause them much pain. Notice the third paragraph about how "The Senate dropped efforts to extend the law..." which is rather misleading since the real effort was to attach the AWB ("assault weapons ban") onto another bill dealing with protecting firearms makers and distributors from frivolous civil lawsuits.

The Houston Chronicle goes further:

The administration has sent mixed signals about its support for the law, amid election year pressure by the National Rifle Association to do nothing...

[snip]

...In the Senate, where there is majority support to renew the law, sponsors are running out of time. There are only a few legislative days remaining before the Sept. 13 expiration date, and the Republican leadership has filled the calendar with other items.

The Senate's lead proponent of the assault weapons ban, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has vowed to attach a weapons ban extension to another "must-pass" bill that is a high priority for Bush. That would force the administration to weigh in on the issue, an aide said.

"It's hard for me to understand why the president won't act," Feinstein said. "We know that there are shiploads of guns waiting to come into this country and be sold. And we know that when the ban expires they are going to appear in gunshops all over America. We also know that the domestic manufacture of the large ammunition feeding devices that make these weapons so deadly — in that you can fire dozens of rounds without having to reload — will begin again."

But supporters of the ban concede their only option may be to wait for the next Congress and push for a bill that expands the list of banned weapons.

"We think that the current law has been completely evaded by the gun industry, so expiration is not going to change what's going on in the marketplace right now. It's more important to push for a stronger bill," said Kristen Rand, of the Violence Policy Center.

Houston is far more "liberal" than most of Texas and the Houston Chronicle reflects this, I guess. Nothing like the opportunity to place the blame on Bush, the NRA, and Republicans in Congress.

By the way, if you don't think this election is important, read those last two paragraphs again. A Kerry presidency along with a Democrat controlled House and Senate will assuredly lead to that "expanded" and "stronger" AWB bill. The current bill only prohibits new sales of these allegedly "assault" rifles. A new one could lead to government confiscation from existing owners!

How about some upbeat news? The Arizona Daily Star had a story about how, ten-years after Arizona's concealed-carry law went into effect, it's working well! Here are some select quotes:

Ten years after it became legal to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona with a permit, proponents say the law has been an absolute success, increasing self-defense options for law-abiding adults without a consequential increase in crime.

While law enforcement officials still keep a close eye on the process and opponents continue to fight attempts to ease requirements to get the permits, there are no real data to suggest the program has led to more gun crime...

[snip]

... "We feel the program has done very well over the past 10 years," said Sgt. Bill Whalen, supervisor of the DPS Concealed Weapon Permit Unit. "The program has served as a model for other states."

There has been no analysis of whether the concealed-weapon law has had any effect on crime, Whalen said, but nearly everything he's heard points to the vast majority of permit holders as responsible gun owners focused on safety.

"All the people who get concealed weapon permits are law-abiding citizens. These are the people who aren't getting in trouble," Whalen said. "The people who don't care for laws, in general, don't get permits."...

[snip]

...There have been "virtually no problems" with the law, said Pima County Superior Court Clerk Patti Noland, who sponsored the legislation as the Republican chairwoman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"A lot of the critics that didn't want to see this happen thought there'd be blood running in the streets, and that just hasn't happened," she said.

Do you think you will ever see an article such as this appearing in WaPo or the NY Times? There's even a quote from the local (AZ) chapter of a gun-control group that grudgingly admits there haven't been any problems with the law. Kudos to the Daily Star!

The Indianapolis Star took a different tact where the theme of a long story seemed to be that while Indiana does issue carry permits -- the law should be amended to require firearms training to get that license. After giving a couple examples of folks legally using guns to protect themselves, the article then says:

Indiana doesn't require people to take any training before obtaining a permit to carry a gun.

That's a policy even some gun owners disagree with.

Daniel Floyd, for one.

"I think it's a good idea," he said. "It would ensure they have at least a basic competency. That would make people feel safer to know they didn't just hand out permits to anybody."

He has no formal training, but he grew up around guns and knew how to handle one long before he got his permit to carry one. He worries that not all gun owners will take the time to learn what they're doing.

I've no comment on that because I live in Vermont (heh!) where we don't have any permit requirement. In any event, the story inadvertently makes the case that concealed-carry is far more desirable than open-carry, a position I agree with. I see no reason to simply strap-on a firearm other than for intimidation effect. There ARE a couple states that allow open- but not concealed-carry and they might want to rethink that policy and start allowing concealed-carry.

There's an interesting chart at the end of the piece showing the states (that issue carry permits) with the highest number of permits issued per-thousand adults. Would you believe that New York State is number one? I can assure you none of those permits is in N Y City except for the rich, famous, and well-connected?

Lastly, and without condescension, WFSB-TV (CT) reports on the reason we all support bearing arms:

John Skouloudis has been carrying a gun everyday for the seventeen years he's owned Campus Pizza in an area know as Frog Hollow in Hartford.

Until today he never fired his gun. According to him, a would be robber came in pointing a firearm.

Skouloudis ducked behind the counter and heard two shots fired. He pulled out his own gun and fired two shots in return.

When he looked up the robber was gone. Skouloudis still had his money and, more importantly, his life.

How's that for unbiased reporting from a coastal TV station? Kudos to them as well.

* * * * * * *

Here's what a few pro-2A bloggers are chatting about:

Say Uncle reports on handgun permits in Tennessee.

Hell in a Handbasket posts on giving your guns names.

Les Jones has a range report for a couple S&Ws.

I'm out of time but check out all the terrific bloggers down the sidebar. Thanks to you all for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at July 12, 2004 07:17 AM