Alphecca

Weekly Gun Bias Report

Welcome to the September 13th edition of the Weekly Report on the media bias against guns. Here I examine some of the content of newspaper editorials and news stories during the past week.

Of course there's probably nobody reading this today since the phony "assault weapons" ban just expired at 12:01 AM this morning! You're all at the gun shops and sporting goods stores snapping up those deadly assault guns that have pistol-grips, flash-suppressors, folding stocks, hi-capacity magazines, and all sorts of other cosmetic features that make them look scary even though they operate the same as any other semi-automatic firearm.

Even Sen. Chucky Schumer couldn't resist and ran out to pick-up an Intratec Tec-9. Here he is in this Reuters photograph having some fun at the range:

I get a grin like that too when making some noise. One of my favorite punching-bag arguments of the AWB supporters is that these guns are "high-powered" and "spray" bullets around. Folks, I don't think anyone could describe the 9mm cartridge the Tec-9 uses as high-powered and the only spraying comes from the froth of the gun-banners' mouths.

Naturally, the major liberal media is beside-itself with righteous anger that the ban has been allowed to pass into oblivian. What they always fail to mention is that the "assault weapons" ban (AWB) was based on appearances more than anything else.

Sunday morning, the NBC Today Show featured a 4 minute segment with the NRA's Wayne LaPierre and Sen. Dianne Feinstein "debating" the AWB sunset. Wayne used the car-analogy that I often do and said that it was like banning automobiles with two "hood ornaments" while DiFi lamented that the "craven" gun makers had simply skirted the issue with some modifications to their banned guns. The interviewer, Lester Holt, asked how this bill could have been allowed to expire and DiFi blamed President Bush and the NRA. Alas, the allotted four minutes of this "in-depth debate" was over so LaPierre couldn't reply.

All of the major newspapers had editorials this past week and frankly, they all pretty much duplicate each other's blather. So rather than examine each one seperately, let's try lumping a few of the stories together. I'll only give the link in the first quote from each paper.

First, let's start with their characterization of the guns that had been banned:

The New York Times:

As regressive milestones go, few are as frightful in this new era of homeland security as the decision by Congress and the Bush administration to allow the expiration of the 10-year-old law protecting the public from assault rifles and other rapid-fire battlefield weapons.

The Baltimore Sun:

...But it will mean that eventually more military-style guns - weapons that can be spray-fired rapidly from the hip by repeated pulls of the trigger - will end up in the hands of drug-traffickers, gangs and other criminal groups.

SF Gate:

Chalk up another one for the National Rifle Association. Because of the organization's enormous political influence, Congress and President Bush are poised to allow the 10-year-old federal assault-weapons ban to expire after midnight Monday. As a result, military-style firearms like semi- automatic AK-47s and Uzis will be legal again nationwide, unless banned by state or local laws.

We should be deeply disturbed by this turn of events. Assault weapons are a class of semi-automatic firearms designed with military features, such as high-capacity ammunition magazines (some capable of holding 100 bullets) and pistol grips, to allow rapid and accurate spray firing. They are not designed for "sport"; they are designed to kill humans quickly and efficiently...

I could print a dozen more but you get the point. And you'll notice that the slant of the editorials isn't confined to just the firearms ban expiring but that the writers are happy to place the blame squarely on GW Bush, the president they love to hate:

NY Times:

When George Bush was a candidate four years ago and under campaign pressure from moderates, he announced that he did support the renewal of this highly popular law. It turned out that he was shooting rhetorical blanks; his support depended on the renewal's ever getting through Congress in the first place. As president, Mr. Bush has never once demanded that his G.O.P. leaders cease playing first responder to the demands of the gun lobby and take the initiative on this public safety issue.
...
Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford pleaded with President Bush to do more than give passive lip support to the ban, just as most major law enforcement agencies told him the law was a vital check on gun mayhem across the nation. But rather than protecting the law, the administration invested its single-party control of government on behalf of the National Rifle Association, not the public. Instead of trying to control assault weapons, Republican Congressional leaders tried to outlaw legitimate damage suits by gun victims against irresponsible manufacturers and dealers.

Baltimore Sun:

Both Mr. Bush and his Democratic opponent, John F. Kerry, say they support the Second Amendment. And both have expressed support for banning assault weapons. But while Mr. Kerry has cast a vote to do just that, the White House's current occupant has chosen a disingenuous path. Mr. Bush claims to be working hard to make this country safer - yet he's willing to allow the spread of these dangerous weapons.

SF Gate:

Unfortunately, prior to the adoption of the assault-weapons ban, the NRA succeeded in adding provisions to weaken the law's impact, including a 10-year sunset provision. Although Bush pledged his support for renewal of the ban during the last presidential campaign, he has failed to lift a finger to act on that pledge, despite the fact that renewal is supported by an overwhelming majority of the American public, including gun owners. The Republican leadership in the House has refused even to bring a renewal bill to a vote, stating it would only take action if urged to do so by Bush. But Bush has failed to act, saying simply that he would sign such a bill if it "reached his desk." This transparent gamesmanship has allowed the president to do the NRA's bidding while feigning support for the popular assault-weapons law.

And check out this advice from the SF Gate op-ed writer, Juliet A. Leftwich of the Legal Community Against Violence organization:

State and local governments should be prepared to act quickly to fill the void left by the expiration of the federal assault-weapons ban. State and local gun laws provide the best opportunity to reduce the nearly 30,000 annual gun deaths in this country -- indeed, perhaps the only opportunity absent a "regime change" of our own.

Democrats are furiously spinning this against Bush. Bush has said he supports extension of the ban if it crosses his desk; it hasn't crossed his desk. Yet.

Needless to say, Kerry took time off from his "hunting" photo-ops to condemn Bush on "allowing" the AWB to sunset. From what is actually a rather pleasantly balanced news story from the LA Times:

Kerry's call to renew the assault weapons ban, and his criticism of Bush's inaction, marked a rare departure from his practice of playing down gun control, an issue Republicans had used to undercut Democratic support in regions where hunting was popular.

The 1994 ban on semiautomatics and other assault guns is due to expire Monday. Bush has said he supports renewal of the ban but has not applied substantial pressure on Congress to extend it.

Describing himself as a hunter and gun owner, Kerry pointed to widespread police support for renewing the weapons ban.

"As a hunter, I have never, ever thought about going hunting with an AK-47 or an Uzi or anything else," the Democratic nominee told several hundred supporters at a campaign forum in St. Louis.

The Massachusetts senator, whose votes for gun control have led the National Rifle Assn. to give him an "F" rating, accused the president of bowing to pressure from the gun lobby by failing to push Congress to extend the ban. And in a new turn, Kerry drew a link between Bush's stand on the issue and the threat of terrorist strikes.

"These folks are out there talking about the war on terror, trying to scare Americans," Kerry said. Meanwhile, he said, an Al Qaeda manual urges attackers "to come to America and buy assault weapons."

"We should do more than just talk about it, and try to scare people about it, and make it a political issue," he said, referring to terrorism.

Gun control poses a tough challenge for Kerry in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and other swing states where Bush and his allies depict the Massachusetts Democrat as a threat to gun owners. Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Friday that Kerry had "spent a career in the Senate voting against hunters."Campaigning in West Virginia, Bush continued his effort to paint Kerry as inconsistent in his policy stances.

"He said she said" and all of that. But Kerry's voting record in the Senate speaks for itself: Kerry has voted FOR every single gun-control measure ever presented to him. And all this talk of Vice President Cheney trying to scare voters, well how about this quote from Kerry about the AWB extension as reported by the Washington Post:

"America's streets will not be safe because of a choice George Bush is making," Kerry said. The Democratic nominee will attend an event in Washington on Monday with police officers and families to criticize Bush for refusing to act.

Not all newspapers printed stories of doom-and-gloom and blood flowing through the streets. The always reliable (friend to gun owners) Union Leader (NH) said this:

About the only material difference New Hampshire gun enthusiasts are likely to see after the federal assault weapons ban expires tomorrow are lower prices for high-capacity gun cartridges that hold more than 10 bullets, gun owners and dealers said.

Under the 10-year-old ban, semi-automatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips that hold more than 10 bullets were not allowed to be imported or manufactured. It was, however, still legal to own, buy and sell these guns and magazines that were already in the country before the ban took effect.

During the 10-year ban, there was still a supply of these guns and clips. It's just that the prices had gone up considerably, said Ralph Demicco, co-owner of Riley's Sport Shop in Hooksett.

"There was really nothing banned that you couldn't buy before or buy slightly modified," he said.

Demicco said some high-capacity gun magazines he's been selling for $125 will now drop to about $25.

"I'm going to be left with quite a few of them" that will be sold at a loss, he said.

Even so, Demicco is happy to see the ban go.

"It's the first time I'm happy about losing money," said Demicco, who called the law a 10-year exercise in nothing.

And here's a quote from the Colebrook, NH Police Chief:

Colebrook Police Chief Stephen Cass said the law has not made a dent in the supply of assault weapons in his town.

"I don't know that it's had any effect because a lot of the crimes we see here are with assault weapons. I've taken M14s away from people, Colt Bushmasters, a lot of handguns with 15 shot magazines, everything," he said.

Cass estimated that in 35 to 40 percent of the cases his department takes a weapon away from someone that weapon is an assault weapon — a semiautomatic gun with magazines that can accept more than 10 bullets.

Even so, Cass opposes extending the ban.

"To me, it has not made a difference. It's just kept guns away from good people," he said.

My kind of cop! Meantime, there was a peculiar column in the Richmond Times (VA):

...But the absolutely galling thing about this whole experience is that the "assault-weapons ban" wasn't a ban at all. I could have saved my money.

That same AK is still available and has been all along and is even cheaper now than when I bought mine.

OK, so maybe you can't buy a brand-new, 16-round semiautomatic pistol from the gun store, but you can buy them used. You'll just have to settle for a 10-round semiautomatic pistol if you want a new one, although you can find plenty of grandfathered high-capacity clips to get past the 10-round limit.

We've been hearing some major fearmongering and politicking over the ban's end tomorrow. But whatever we think of the current administration and those gun-loving Republicans, don't think for a minute that the ban helped reduce high-capacity gun violence.

In Richmond, it may have even made it worse.

Many newspapers, including the local one to me, carried John R Lott Jr's op-ed:

Life without the ban is being painted as a frightening state of affairs. Sarah Brady, one of the nation's leading gun-control advocates, warns that "our streets are going to be filled with AK-47s and Uzis."

Ratcheting up the fear factor to an entirely new level, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) claims the ban is one of "the most effective measures against terrorism that we have."

Yet, despite the rhetoric, there is not a single published academic study showing that the ban has reduced any type of violent crime. Even research funded by the Justice Department under the Clinton administration concluded only that the ban's effect on gun violence "has been uncertain." When those same authors released their updated report in August looking at crime data up through 2000 — the first six full years of the law — they stated, "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence."

Well, for the moment, the silly, phony "assault weapons" ban is history. You can be sure that there will be attempts to craft a new one down the road, especially if Republicans lose the White House and Congress. In the meantime, I just looked out the window and terrorists brandishing AK-47's and Tec-9's haven't appeared as predicted.

Here's what some other Pro-2A bloggers are up to:

Countertop Chronicles reports on an AWB debate over at the PBS Newshour.

Publicola was listening to Randi Rhodes on Air America discussing the AWB sunset. He barely survived...

Heartless Libertarian takes on a local TV commentator and fisks him mercilessly for his anti-NRA stance.

Geek With A .45 reminds us all that just because the ban is over for now doesn't mean it's over for ever and vigilance is called for.

Lay Lines is just glad that normal capacity magazines will be back.

Me on his interest in guns.

Right Side of the Rainbow offers his thoughts on the AWB sunset.

By the way, I will be interviewed this Wednesday by Cam Edwards on his NRA radio show sometime between 2-5 PM. I'll post a link to it shortly (the link comes up blank right now.)

So, it's almost 2 AM and time for me to get this posted already. Enjoy your hectic shopping day today and thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at September 13, 2004 01:51 AM