Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

Welcome to this edition of the almost weekly check on media bias regarding guns and gun-control. I check out news stories and op-eds from a variety of (mostly newspaper) news sources. We are indeed in the dog-days of summer and the pickings are slim. I seem to remember struggling during this period last year too.

I was hoping there would be some "red meat" during the Democratic Convention last week but the DNC (Democratic National Committee) was careful to muzzle all the speakers in order to avoid mention of special-interest issues such as abortion, gay-marriage, the "assault weapons ban". They wanted to show one big happy family united in their hatred of Bush their candidate. Indeed, if you didn't know what year it was, you'd swear this convention was taking place in Atlantic City in 1964 when Lyndon Johnson was the nominee and Viet Nam was the issue of the day. I try to avoid politics for the sake of politics itself in this particular weekly commentary except as it relates to gun-control. You'd have been hard-pressed to hear any mention -- other than the most glancing -- of gun-control.

(Rep. McCarthy, left, with Jim and Sarah Brady. 2001 AP photo.)

The one exception was the brief (about four minutes long) monotonal speech by NY Rep. Carolyn McCarthy on early Wednesday evening. To show you the lengths to which the DNC is trying to avoid the "gun issue", they offer transcripts of speeches by almost everyone except McCarthy. I searched long and hard for a photo of her at the convention but none were to be had and I wasn't going to take a photo of the three inch image from the Real Player repeat of her speech from C-Span.

Naturally, considering the tragedy that killed her husband and injured her son, she is an advocate for gun-control and her speech extolled the virtue of extending the "assault weapons" ban. She repeated the usual mantras about "military style assault guns" and how the streets would be flooded with them after September 13th when the current ban expires. And of course, she said it was "for our children." Why? Are they clamoring for them?

From a surprisingly balanced report from the (TX) Star-Telegram:

"It's an uphill battle," Sarah Brady, one of the nation's leading gun-control advocates, said in a telephone interview last week. "Our streets are going to be filled with AK-47s and Uzis" unless Congress extends the ban, she said...

...Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, portraying himself as a candidate with "the courage to stand up to the NRA," has embraced an extension of the ban and interrupted his presidential campaign in March to return to the Senate for an early test vote on the issue.

Congress will have less than a week to take up the issue before the Sept. 13 deadline after returning from its August recess following the Democratic and Republican conventions.

Republican leaders have said that they have no plans to bring the issue up without a directive from the president.

And many congressional Democrats, especially those in close races, are skittish about attaching themselves to an issue that could backfire, said Robert Spitzer, author of the Politics of Gun Control...

...Clinton, in his memoir My Life, has acknowledged that at least 20 House members who supported the ban were driven from office in the following election. One high-profile casualty was Beaumont Rep. Jack Brooks, a 42-year Democratic incumbent and dean of the Texas delegation, who was upset by a political novice largely because of his support of the ban.

Jonathan Grella, a spokesman for DeLay, said last week that "there is not the requisite support" for an extension, in part because politically "vulnerable" Democrats "can't afford to vote for such a ban."

And this from Newsday:

Abortion rights, gay rights, affirmative action, gun control -- these and more traditional liberal convention themes were shoved to the margins as the Kerry team relentlessly focused its convention on the candidates' Vietnam War record.

"The special interests that favor Democrats understand that they will be vastly better off under a Kerry administration than they have been under Bush," said Matt Bennett, spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety, which supports gun control.

"They also understand the way to get Kerry elected is to focus on the issue that is most important to voters -- that is security both at home and abroad," Bennett said.

Democrats are not stupid; they know that Gore's support of gun-control probably cost him the election. Look for a lot of silence on this issue during the fall campaign except from a few liberal lawmakers whose seats in a few leftist-states are secure. But isn't this a bit hypocritical? Isn't this a display of lack of courage of conviction?

I may not agree with President Bush about such issues but at least he's front-and-center on his opposition to gay-marriage and stem-cell research. Of course, how HIS convention later this month handles things remains to be seen... It could be that -- as far as convention organizers are concerned -- these issues should just "go away" during prime-time.

Or will they? From the Oregonian:

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry focused on jobs and national security in his acceptance speech Thursday, but his campaign plans to raise second-tier issues such as gun ownership to win key states in the West...

...The issues include: Gun ownership: The campaign will tout Kerry's record of support for the Second Amendment, officials said in a news briefing. The issue is important to blue-collar voters who might feel disaffected by calls for gun control legislation backed by urban Democrats from the East, they said.

In 2000, Gore shied away from the gun issue, and he resisted being photographed holding a hunting rifle. Kerry, by contrast, is a sportsman, and his campaign has promoted images of the candidate hunting.

"We feel very, very confident that we have inoculated that issue," said Sam Rodriguez, Kerry's campaign manager in Washington state. "John Kerry is a hunter." ...

He's kidding, right? Rodriguez thinks Kerry is immune to charges that he is anti-gun ownership? Because he had a photo-op of himself pheasant hunting? I DARE them to bring up Kerry's voting record in the Senate! (Notice that during the convention, nary a word was spoken about his 18 or so ineffectual years there.) John Kerry has voted FOR every single piece of gun-control legislation that has been presented to him. Period. In regards his record on the Second Amendment, as Kerry himself has taken to blathering: Bring it on!

Okay, one last "Kerry" piece, this one by one of my favorite op-ed writers, Mark Steyn in the (UK) Telegraph:

[Kerry] was in Wisconsin the other day, pretending to be a regular guy, and was asked what kind of hunting he preferred. "I'd have to say deer," said the senator. "I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double-barrel, crawl around on my stomach... That's hunting."

This caused huge hilarity among my New Hampshire neighbours. None of us has ever heard of anybody deer hunting by crawling around on his stomach, even in Massachusetts. The trick is to blend in with the woods and, given that John Kerry already looks like a forlorn tree in late fall, it's hard to see why he'd give up his natural advantage in order to hunt horizontally.

Read the whole thing, of course. Ya' know, crawling around on your stomach probably makes enough noise to scare off every deer within five miles. Hunting them with a shotgun means you'll never get close enough to bag one with that ridiculous technique. I'm sorry but this guy is an idiot or a poseur. Maybe he thinks he's still in Viet Nam. You did know that he served there, right?

President Bush is on the campaign trail and is also touting his support of the Second Amendment. From the Chicago-Tribune:

"We stand for the 2nd Amendment, which gives every American the individual right to bear arms," Bush told several thousand people who filled a rain-soaked baseball infield in this southeastern Ohio community. "I've got a record on that issue. It stands in stark contrast to my opponent." ...

... "Our message is, law-abiding citizens should be allowed to bear and own a gun, and criminals who commit crime with guns ought to go to jail," Bush said.

En route to Pittsburgh later, Bush stopped at a soon-to-open Cabela's outfitters store in suburban Wheeling, W.Va.

Officials said the store will create 1,200 jobs and become West Virginia's top tourist attraction, with up to 6 million annual visitors.

The president greeted several hundred workers and said he appreciated the chance to visit because he liked to "hunt and fish."

Aides to Kerry, meanwhile, accused the president of trying to twist the Democratic nominee's position on guns.

"Sen. Kerry's a lifelong hunter, combat veteran, believes in the 2nd Amendment, and it's another example of George Bush's misleading campaign rhetoric to create false impressions about his opponent," Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said Saturday.

Singer also said that because of Kerry, the Democratic convention platform for the first time included pro-2nd Amendment language.

Where to begin... Yes, Bush has a better record on gun-rights than Kerry; almost anyone does. But while he's exerted almost no political muscle to see it happen, he's on record as saying he would support an extension to the "assault weapons" ban. Maybe that's his method: claim support but let it die. In any event, he certainly is more desirable than Kerry.

As for pro-2A language in the Democratic Platform, here's all that I could find:

We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.

Well that is a rousing defense...

I thought the issue of open-carry in Virginia had just about run its course but an editorial last week in the Washington Post seems determined to keep it alive:

EVER SINCE July 1 -- when yet another gun-lovers' law loosened up Virginia's already lax governance of weapons -- it's been one big macho-fest for heat-packers who get their courage from strapping on pistols. Not every diner may relish the sight of six armed men at the next table, but unless the General Assembly comes to its senses next year, families out for a gathering will have to get used to pistols and ammo belts with their burgers and fries...

...Maryland and the District don't allow all these "freedoms." So area travelers should be on notice: Virginia Is for Gun-Lovers.

Notice the tired-old stereotype of implying that the firearms are compensating for... As for neighboring Maryland and Washington DC not allowing such "freedoms": The ability to carry a firearm is indeed part of our freedom. Indeed, the Second Amendment secures all the other amendments. Bearing arms is a "right" that Maryland and DC might one day like to restore if they believe in "freedoms".

There's certainly been a weird hodge-podge of stories this week. From KTVO TV (MO):

If you are a Missouri resident who's "packing heat", you had better stay out of Texas.

Missouri's concealed gun permits won't be honored in a state the prides itself on its cowboy past.

That's the word from the attorney general's office in the Lone Star state.

A letter to Governor Holden cites concerns in Texas that Missouri's permits can be issued before completion of a federal criminal background check.

Missouri requires background checks to obtain a concealed-carry permit. If, for some reason, that check is not complete within 45 days (a rather rare occurance considering the NICS checks usually take all of a minute) the permit has to be issued.

Two conflicting things come to my mind: First, this seems a rather small-minded and discriminatory decision by the Texas AG. Second: Texas has a lot to be proud of, not the least its "cowboy past". But the use of the phrase in this news report seems gratuitous, as if to suggest that Texas is somehow backward and should just welcome anyone toting guns. I recommend the article writer drive through the glistening high-tech cities, or anywhere else in the state. They actually have indoor plumbing now. (I'm trying to be sarcastic towards the writer, not Texas.) Or maybe I'm just reading this story wrong and the writer was using irony...

That brings up the fact that yes, sometimes the NICS takes too long to perform the background check and much hay was made of this by several media outlets. I won't rehash it here except to say that the amount of "not qualified" purchases of firearms (about 7000 out of 17 million in the past two years) is microscopic. As I mentioned last week, James R. Rummel shows just HOW tiny this percentage is. Now, the NICS check has a limit of three days. Missouri allows their sheriffs 45 days. I don't really see what Texas is worried about.

Using a gun in self-defense is what it's all about. But here's one of the strangest write-up of such an instance that I've seen... From the Henry Herald (GA):

An agent at a Riverdale insurance company shot one of two men who were trying to rob him.

The 48-year-old agent for All Risk Insurance was working alone at the office on Ga. Highway 85 around 5 p.m. Friday when two men entered and tried to rob him, Riverdale Police Chief Greg Barney said.

"Apparently a scuffle took place," Barney said. "The (agent) pulled out a weapon and fired."

The other suspect then ran from the scene and police were still looking for him Friday night. Barney did not release the name of the agent. Riverdale police spokeswoman Myisha Callaway said he will not be charged.

So far, so good. But here's what one witness had to say, and the reporter actually printed it:

Jackie Douglas of Riverdale was getting her toenails painted at Vicki's Nails on the other side of the insurance agency from the hair parlor. When she heard the shot she ran outside to see what was happening, still barefoot with sponges between her toes.

"My feet are very hot," Douglas said.

Well it's good to see she has SOME feeling...

Lastly, back to the "assault weapons" ban due to expire. Gun-control advocates love to claim that all of the national law enforcement agencies support an extension. But as the Northwest Indiana News points out, some don't think it makes a difference:

Big shots in the national gun-control debate may party or hang out black crepe paper Sept. 13, when a 10-year ban on assault weapons is expected to end.

Area law enforcement officials expect it to be just another day on the streets.

"I think it makes most police officers uncomfortable knowing the amount of fire power that is out there and available to the percentage of the population that would use it for evil purposes," said David Lain, chief deputy of the Porter County's Sherrif's Department.

"But I don't see that, ban or no ban, that it's going to affect what weapons the bad guys are able to get ahold of."

There were plenty of quotes from folks that support the ban, but the fact that this paper would even include quotes to the contrary is -- to say the least -- unusual.

One last item today: Blogger Ordinary Galoot tells the tale of a man unjustly prosecuted for using a firearm to defend himself. Head on over there for all the details and help out with the defense fund if you can.

That wraps up this week. Thanks for stopping by! And yes, it's only 10PM on Sunday but I'm putting this up anyway...

Posted by Jeff Soyer at August 1, 2004 09:54 PM