Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

Welcome to the October 4th edition of my Weekly Check on the Bias in media against firearms and the Second Amendment.

Most of the nation's newspapers were focused on the presidential debate last week where the two candidates outlined their bold new initiatives in foreign policzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Oops, sorry, I fell asleep.

I thought the more interesting story was that another lawsuit against a gun manufacturer was dismissed in a West Virginia court. In honor of that, and the defendent, let me present this little beauty that's on my "wish list" for any of you who might...

That's the Sturm, Ruger PC4, a .40 caliber carbine with synthetic stock that would fit perfectly in my gun closet.

To quickly summarize the case, two New Jersey policemen were shot with a Ruger handgun. Both are now on permanent disability and they sued the pawnshop that sold the handgun used in the shooting as well as Sturm, Ruger for making the gun. The pawnshop (which in my opinion was clearly at fault for allowing an obvious "straw purchase" settled with the plaintiffs this past Summer. Fortunately (and true to the fighting spirit of the founder, the late William Ruger) Sturm, Ruger and Company did not. From the AP:

Former Orange, N.J., police officers Dave Lemongello and Kenneth McGuire are not entitled to damages from Southport, Conn.-based Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., Kanawha County Circuit Judge Irene Berger ruled Thursday.

The officers sued the gun maker and a South Charleston pawnshop two years ago, arguing they should pay damages because a Ruger handgun sold at the shop had been used to shoot them in January 2001.

Berger said it would require "a real stretch" to make the gun maker responsible because the gun had originally been sold to an Ohio wholesaler. By the time it got to the pawnshop, it had changed hands four times.

The AP story exibits no bias and just reports the facts. The judge in the case made the (to those on "our side of the issue") logical ruling that Sturm, Ruger did not sell directly to the pawnshop or to the criminal who misused the pistol. Contrast the opening of the AP's story with that of the Charleston Gazette:

A Kanawha circuit judge ruled Thursday that gun maker Sturm, Ruger & Co. does not have to pay a cent to two former New Jersey policemen injured by a gun it made.

Former Orange, N.J., policemen Dave Lemongello and Kenneth McGuire filed a lawsuit against Sturm, Ruger and a South Charleston pawnshop two years ago. They argued that the companies should pay damages for allowing a Ruger 9mm semiautomatic to land in the hands of the convicted felon who shot them in January 2001.

If you only read the first two paragraphs of that report you would think there had been a miscarriage of justice against the injured policemen. Only at the end of the story do you find out that:

As it turned out, the gun's history before it arrived at Will played a key role in the outcome of the case for Sturm, Ruger.

Sturm, Ruger sold the gun more than a year before Songer bought it. By the time it got to the pawnshop, it had been sold three times and given away once.

Given that history, Berger said that Sturm, Ruger hadn't violated its duty to exercise reasonable care in selling its product. "What we have here are two people that entered Will's, [a shop] that was not the immediate distributor for Ruger," she said.

She added that there may be circumstances "under which it might be held that liability exists" for a gun company that produced a firearm used in a crime, but did not outline what those might be.

True, the Charleston Gazette story is more complete, but the AP story is (to my mind) less -- actually not at all -- biased.

The other big news of the past week is that the House of Representatives voted to end the ban on handgun ownership by Distric of Columbia residents. While that sounds like a good thing to us pro-2A types it really is meaningless until or if the Senate follows along, and at present the votes might not be there and the similar bill there probably won't come to a vote until next year when the political landscape could be much different if Democrats win the White House and a majority in the Senate.

So at the present time, the victory is symbolic and DC residents will continue to be victims to criminals. Needless to say, this vote struck the Washington Post about as well as a case of "bad clams" in their reporting of it:

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) assailed the "ludicrous logic . . . that gun safety laws cause murders" and said the vote amounted to political grandstanding. She and other opponents of the bill said increasing the supply of guns would undermine homeland security initiatives, lead to more bloodshed in a city in which 16 children have been shot to death this year and trample the unanimous will of the District's elected leaders, police chief and school superintendent.

"I have seen various members of Congress try to do some low-down, dirty, mean things to the people of the District of Columbia, all to promote their own political agendas against the will of the people who live here," Norton said. "That we are here discussing this matter is yet a new low."

There were other quotes as well, both against (and in truth) for the bill but the overall tone could be summed in the opening paragraph:

The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a bill yesterday repealing most of the District's gun laws, in a vote that handed an election-season victory to gun rights groups and was denounced by the city's leaders as a historic violation of home rule.

I will concede that there is a case to be made about "home rule" but when the situation is such that the elected delegate issues a statements such as "ludicrous logic . . . that gun safety laws cause murders" ignoring the fact that those "safety laws" completely BAN ownership, well, then I have to side with the congress in trying to bring some relief to the crime beleaguered citizens by restoring the Bill of Rights to them.

The Washington Post -- that same day -- also featured an editorial puff-piece on Delegate Norton:

Norton already had successfully lobbied Senate colleagues to stop similar legislation from getting to the floor, at least for the time being. But she had a purpose in lobbying the House, even though the ultimate outcome seemed a given.

"You've got to make it difficult for people to cast that vote in the House. The easier you make it, the more you invite this kind of outrageous interference with the city and, frankly, with the lives of its residents," said Norton, adding that defeat in the Senate was not guaranteed. "I always operate off of the worst-case scenario. I'm always looking for the unexpected."

Norton, 67, blunt, media-savvy, disdainful when she wants to be, sprang into action on the gun issue this month, but hardly for the first time. She escorted mothers of dead children into Senate offices, held hastily arranged news conferences, rallied allies and orchestrated stinging editorials in her opponents' hometown newspapers.

She described the gun legislation as the latest affront to the District and its right to govern itself. In doing so, she reaffirmed her reputation as a fierce advocate for the District on a variety of issues and a passionate fighter sometimes so sharp in her diatribes that she wounds her allies.

It would have been nice if WaPo had also included an op-ed from someone in favor of the bill but that would have work against their anti-gun agenda.

Others have pointed out that this might all just be election year jostling by Republicans. Such was the case at the New York Times:

With the November elections approaching, Republican leaders in the House have scheduled a series of votes on hot-button social issues that they hope will force Democrats into a difficult position at the polls, particularly in areas where support for gun rights is strong. On Thursday, lawmakers are expected to take up a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage [they did -- it failed]; last week, they passed a bill that would prohibit the federal courts from hearing challenges to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

As the Times points out in the next paragraph though, 52 Democrats supported the measure as well. I found the Times piece somewhat fairer overall and probably correct in their analysis. Hitting home to where I live, they ended the article with this:

Within hours of the vote, Republican Congressional candidates began using it to criticize opponents who voted to keep the gun law intact. In Vermont, for example, Greg Parke, who is running against Representative Bernard Sanders, an independent who usually votes with Democrats, issued a news release saying, "If Sanders isn't protecting the Constitutional rights of Washington residents, how can he be trusted to protect Vermonters' rights?

Certainly various candidates around the country are taking advantage of the vote on this bill. Witness the grandstanding by one New York politician in this Staten Island Advance story:

Democratic congressional candidate Frank Barbaro yesterday sharply criticized Rep. Vito Fossella for his vote to allow more handguns in Washington, D.C.

"I am shocked and outraged," said Barbaro. "Congressman Fossella voted for a bill that would put guns in the hands of cop-killers and criminals."

Barbaro's remarks came after Fossella (R-Staten Island/Brooklyn) voted in favor of ending a 28-year-old ban on handgun ownership in the nation's capital.

D.C. officials vehemently protested the House effort to abolish the handgun ban. Mayor Anthony Williams said it was an "insult to the memory of people who died in our city due to gun violence."

Barbaro, a former state assemblyman and Supreme Court judge, charged that Fossella's vote proved he was a "prisoner" of the National Rifle Association (NRA), which has given Fossella $8,000 in campaign contributions since he has been in office.

"Who really supports the police officers?" asked Barbaro. "I think he has sold his soul. That is a difficult thing to say. But to take thousands of dollars from the [NRA] and then make a vote like this is a perversion of the democratic process."

Well. Well! Those are pretty strong words, even for a wannabe congressman. The Staten Island Advance obviously thought they were worth quoting, though, because any Staten Islander will tell you exactly who the paper endorses each year, party wise. To their credit, they did at least manage to squeeze in a small quote from the target of the diatribe, Rep. Fossella:

Fossella said the repeal measure would allow D.C. residents to the same rights as citizens elsewhere in the nation.

"This bill gives the law-abiding residents of the District the ability to protect themselves and their families," Fossella said in a prepared statement, noting that Washington's per-capita murder rate is higher than that of New York City.

"The ban has served only to embolden criminals," he said.

Sounds like good sense to me! If the criminals know their intended victims aren't armed, it just makes their job that much easier. As for the challenger's claims that Fossella's vote would "...put guns in the hands of cop-killers and criminals", does anyone really think those guns ever left the hands of such mutants because of a law banning ownership? And if so, then why is Washington DC the proud possessor of the second-highest murder rate by firearm of all cities in the country?

And guess which city holds the coveted number one position? Chicago! Where -- you'll be shocked -- gun possession is ALSO outlawed for law abiding residents.

Getting back to the news article, the Advance then gives MORE quotes from Barbaro, further supporting the paper's obvious bias. I'm sure you all can find many more in your own local papers.

So those were -- to me -- the big stories last week. Here's what just a few (I'm running really late getting this post up) of the many terrific pro-2A bloggers are up to:

We've (okay, I've) been discussing what happens when a city bans all handgun ownership. What happens when you have a country that bans all firearms ownership? My buddy Sean blogs from Japan at The White Peril and reports that the police there are asking the unarmed citizens for help fighting crime. Sean makes the correct and logical arguments and you should read the post. Not -- of course -- that the Japanese authorities will follow them...

Another friend (I've met him!) Chan Eddy from Weekend Pundit reports on gun locks and references this post by Medic Mom about how they can really slow you down when you need your gun the most.

Good friend to Alphecca, blogger Say Uncle confirms my suspicions that local papers will use the DC gun vote to further their agenda. In this case from Tennessee.

I have to get this post up. I've got a phone interview with a reporter from the Cleveland Plains Dealer in a few minutes. Thanks to all of you for stopping by and for your support.

Posted by Jeff Soyer at October 4, 2004 10:31 AM