Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias...

Folks, we live in dangerous times. Violence can rear-it's-head at almost any moment, shattering the tranquility we've come to expect in our homes, our lives, our neighborhoods. But enough about watching the Pacers and Pistons play basketball...

Yes, it's time for the November 22nd edition of the Weekly Check on the Bias, where I examine some of the news stories and editorials for their slant on gun-rights and the Second Amendment.

Before starting, I should mention some commentary that widely made the rounds of the blogosphere and several newspapers. For those people who had a visceral dislike of outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft based on his unfettered support of the Second Amendment, I don't think they'll be any happier with the fact that Dr. Condoleeza Rice, replacing Colin Powell, is also a very strong 2-A supporter.

Reuters photo

Her views are pretty much the same based on an excerpt from her biography, Condi: The Condoleezza Rice Story by Antonia Felix published by Newmarket Press. From yesterday, here's a quote from the London Times:

Violence was turning her hometown into "Bombingham" as Alabama's governor George Wallace fought a federal court order to integrate the city's schools. The Ku Klux Klan bombed the homes of blacks who were beginning to move into white neighbourhoods. Among the targets was the home of Arthur Shores, a veteran civil rights lawyer and friend of the Rices. Condi and her parents took food and clothes over to his family.

With the bombings came marauding groups of armed white vigilantes called "nightriders" who drove through black neighbourhoods shooting and starting fires. John Rice and his neighbours guarded the streets at night with shotguns.

The memory of her father out on patrol lies behind Rice's opposition to gun control today. Had those guns been registered, she argues, Bull Connor would have had a legal right to take them away, thereby removing one of the black community's only means of defence. "I have a sort of pure second amendment view of the right to bear arms," she said in 2001.

It's good to have gun-rights friends in high places! While her position would not directly relate to anything concerning gun-control, there's that big "what-if" the UN tries to implement their dream of worldwide small-arms gun-control. I shudder to think what a cabinet put together by Kerry would have looked like...

Meanwhile, there are indications that several issues of concern to gun owners that faded-off during the past year will soon be revisited. From today's Denver Post:

Emboldened by the results of the month's elections, the nation's largest gun lobby will push again for a federal law shielding gunmakers and sellers from lawsuits.

When the new Congress convenes in January, the National Rifle Association says, it will have four more pro-gun senators. The trade group hopes that will help make the difference in passing a bill that died in the Senate in March.

The news story itself is quite fair, given the number of quotes from both supporters and opponents of this and other issues raised. But I did wonder about one line:

The idea of lawsuit immunity pits gun owners and hunters in rural areas against city dwellers often beset by violence. The NRA wants a law that would exempt manufacturers from civil lawsuits, except when they violate local, state or federal law.

In actuality, it is NOT either of these "demographics" that are for or against the bill. I believe (opinion time here...) it's all about being fair to gun makers who manufacter and distribute a legal product that is inherently dangerous. The group that is most against such a bill shielding them from frivolous lawsuits are the American Trial Lawyers, who are trying to sue for any moneys they can. Most of the cities or municipalities that have filed suits agains gun companies have done so only AFTER they were approached by lawyers who dangled a green carrot before their eyes.

The argument that cities should somehow sue to recover expenses involved in the criminal misuse of firearms falls apart if we return to the "car scenario". Do local governments attempt to sue automakers when cars cause accidents because of careless driving or by drunk drivers? I haven't seen it yet although maybe that's around the corner.

The Denver Post story also says:

The 10-year-old assault weapons ban automatically expired in September because it was not renewed. It banned 19 named semi-automatic weapons and other guns with military- type features such as a grenade launcher, a fixed magazine in excess of five rounds or a protruding pistol grip. It also banned high-capacity ammunition magazines, such as those used in the Columbine shootings.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., said she plans to reintroduce the assault weapons ban, tweaking it to outlaw weapons with certain characteristics instead of certain named weapons. It's unlikely to pass, given Congress' new makeup, but introducing it will force lawmakers to stake out a position.

Two things to note: I am SURE that McCarthy WILL (along with the usual suspects) try to get the AWB through the house again in January but a casual search of her web site and news stories isn't bringing up any such recent statement. Indeed, try a Yahoo search under news for McCarthy brings up nothing at the moment, indicating she's not doing much of anything...

As for the gratuitous mention of Columbine, I wouldn't get to worked up over that because this IS a Colorado newspaper afterall.

Speaking of shielding gun makers, I reported last week on this AP story:

The Illinois Supreme Court threw out two lawsuits accusing gunmakers of knowingly letting weapons fall into the hands of gang members and other criminals, ruling Thursday that the manufacturers cannot legally be blamed for street violence.
[...]
The lawsuits, filed by the city of Chicago and victims of shootings, claimed the defendants created a public nuisance by pouring guns into the Chicago area that are used to kill.

"The mere fact that defendants' conduct in their plants, offices, and stores puts guns into the stream of commerce does not state a claim for public nuisance," the court said. "It is the presence and use of the guns within the city of Chicago that constitutes the alleged nuisance."

This, of course, is a good thing. So how did the New York Times handle the same story? How about with a brief titled, Illinois Ruling Sides With Gun makers:

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday that gun makers and dealers cannot be held responsible for crimes committed with the weapons they make and sell.

In a unanimous decision, the justices said they did not have legal authority to tighten restrictions on the manufacture and sale of guns.

The Times almost sounded wistful about it. To their credit though, they did quote the court as saying that a change in law "of this magnitude... must be the work of the Legislature, brought about by the political process, not the work of the courts."

Now, let's look at some REAL BIAS. Here's how the Chicago Sun-Times reported it:

In a crushing defeat for gun control advocates, the Illinois Supreme Court dismissed two lawsuits against the firearms industry Thursday, prompting the father of 19-year-old shooting victim Andrew Young to say the justices "will have some of that blood on their hands now."

And that's just the FIRST PARAGRAPH! Carrying on in like vein, the "story" continues:

Steve Young, whose son Andrew was killed in 1996 by a gang member who got a gun through a middleman, said he was astounded.

"After my son died, I was so devastated and the pain was so great," said Young, a plaintiff in the families' lawsuit. "I could not understand why all these guns were on the street. Here we are six years after the suit was filed and eight years after my son died and some people still don't get it, namely the Illinois Supreme Court."

Indeed, it isn't until about halfway through the artricle that the court is quoted with their rational in the ruling and then there's a quick rejoiner from the "special concurrence" by several of the judges alarmed at the proliferation of guns in "gun free" Chicago.

The Sun-Times even has a handy chart of statistics provided by the Brady Bunch showing how badly gun-control advocates have been doing in the courts and yet they then have this quote in the story:

Dennis Henigan, legal director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the rulings were "very much out of step" with courts in other parts of the country.

Well, apparently not, Dennis, since in most courts around the country these suits have been getting trounced!

The Chicago Sun-Times then had a follow-up story a couple days later. Again folks, we're talking about something labeled as "news", not editorial content. In this case the AP writer, Don Babwin, who managed not to find a single quote from anyone representing opposition to efforts to sue the gun makers. Again, heart-strings are played in the first paragraph:

Maybe it will be another parent who receives the worst news possible, that their child has been fatally shot. Maybe it will be a lawmaker. Or one of the college kids Steve Young teaches about guns and the law.

And:

"Sooner or later, someone is going to break through and these guys (gun dealers) will be held accountable for what they've done," Young said.

Arlene Macias wondered after the court dismissed the cases whether the one good thing that could come out of her son's death-- a law that might keep some cheap handguns off the streets-- was forever lost.

"When you really think about this, it's madness," said Macias, who had been a plaintiff in the case but was dropped from the lawsuit because the gun used to kill her 19-year-old son, Miguel, was never found. "My son died for no reason."
[...]
Young cried when he heard the court's rulings, but also knew he would continue to fight.

"You don't give up," he said. "Never, never."

This isn't reporting, it's a screenplay for a "Movie of the Week". It's two pure examples of a major newspaper and it's writers publishing completely biased stories about a state supreme court decision. That's what this (almost) weekly thing I do here is all about.

Well, from one extreme to another, how about a quick look (via the NRA) of a new vanity license-plate available in Mississippi?

Neat, huh? It also sends a not-too-subtle message to would-be criminals to perhaps find someone else to victimize. Proceeds go to a good cause:

The specialized tags cost $31, with $24 of that total being deposited into the NRA Foundation State Fund Account for Mississippi to be used for Foundation-related projects such as youth hunter education, firearms safety training and shooting range development.

Well okay, so it isn't exactly a news story and it does come from the NRA but heck, I'm a blogger so I can be as biased as I want around here...

So how about instead an article from the Macon Telegraph (GA) that covers the basics of a child's first rifle?

Does that young person really want a gun and really want to shoot or hunt? Some don't and never will be and shame on the parent who forces this issue simply because it's the parent's wish and not that of the young person.

Assuming that the youngster is interested in hunting and shooting, and is mature enough to handle the responsibility, there are other issues.

Safety is first on the list. That young person should complete the hunter safety course before anyone goes shopping for a gun. And if it turns out that the beginner is interested in shooting but not hunting, that's OK.

Don't force it, Dad. Many people love to punch holes in paper targets and make tin cans bounce all over the terrain but have no interest in killing game. Nothing wrong with that.

The first rifle should be a rimfire. Until a couple of years ago, the only choice would have been a .22. With the arrival of the .17 calibers we now have other rimfire choices. Even so, I believe that the first rifle should be a .22. The .17 with its greater power, noise and velocity can come later.

The article goes on with more advice. I mention a story like this only because it's the type of thing you will only find in a newspaper from a rural area. You're not likely to see it reprinted in -- say -- the L.A. Times. And it indicates the natural bias of the large, national newspapers regarding firearms. True, usually (not always) we can count on the Washington Times or the New York Post to be on "our side" of the gun-control issue but they are far and few between.

Much more likely you will find frequent mentions of gun violence in the nationals with very rare appearences of a story reporting on the defensive (i.e. "good") use of a gun and its owner. That's the real bias. It's not always simply the slant of an article but is rather what articles the newspaper editor chooses to run with. And if non-gun owners only read [in these papers] about the negatives of firearms or more properly, their use, can we really expect them to side with us in the fight for protecting the Second Amendment?

This is an area that "needs work" on our part; bombarding the editors with links to the positive aspects of the Second Amendment in an attempt to get them to occasionally mention them.

There isn't much in the papers these days about proposed gun-control legislation. I could cite several reasons such as that most lawmakers are home for the holidays. It could also be that the success that conservatives had in the recent elections might make liberal Democrats a little "gun shy" of pushing for any new measures right now.

Fortunately, just to remind us of how much our tax-payer dollars are being abused, National Public Radio featured a spot last Friday during their show "All Things Considered" titled Shopping For Assault Weapons. Use that link to listen to NPR and reporter Wade Goodwyn confirm the fact that both of them are incapable of producing a balanced, unbiased report. I've listened to it three times (not easy on a dial-up connection) and here are the highlights: NPR correspondant Goodwyn finds a willing participant named Shawn Purkey and they visit a Texas gunshop following the sunset of the phony "assault weapons ban". Purkey (rhymes with turkey) wants to buy a pre-ban Colt AR-15.

Commentator and alleged reporter Goodwyn accompany him to a Texas gunshop where the clerk presents him with a Colt AR-15. Purkey is allowed to try the firearm out at the store's range. Here's a quote from Goodwyn:

So you want to buy a rifle like our troops are using over in Iraq?

The dealer presents Purkey with the AR-15 with a 100 round drum magazine. Here are some more quotes from Goodwyn (the "reporter") in this segment:

[Purkey] fires neat little holes in the center of the paperman's target [a silhouette target 100 yards away].

Someone in the next room you want to kill? There's no reason for you to go in there.

[Purkey buys the gun and] stashed it under the backseat of his extended-cab...

They even provide sound effects as Purkey tries out the gun at the store's range. Goodwyn says:

See if you can count the shots over the next 12 seconds.

Purkey fired 30 shots during that time, which almost anyone could do with any hi-capacity gun. When you hear it on the tape, I could swear it sounded like it was fed through a reverberation or echo machine to make it sound like something from a dishonest news show such as Dateline NBC. Indeed, I've taken my .45 with it's 15-round magazine and fired them off in about 5 seconds. So what? This has NOTHING to do with the firearm. It has everything to do with NPR and their reporter Goodwyn trying to scare their listeners over the phony AWB ban.

This segment has lots of recorded noises of gun stuff, sure to frighten any liberal.

That's Purkey in the NPR story. Since NPR is funded in part by tax-payers, I don't feel bad or guilty of using their photo. I and we helped pay for it. In a way, I feel badly for him because I think he was used by NPR to further their agenda, but he really should have known they would.

Not that any of us real people here in the USA should be surprised, but this NPR "report" reeks of bias. What bothers me most is not that a national news source is biased, but that our tax-payer dollars help support such an anti-American endeavor.

All right. Let's turn to some other stuff...

This next story isn't about bias so much as about misused resources. The Miami Herald had a story yesterday about a crime-infested city in Florida, Opa-locka. The city doesn't have enough money to fully fund their police department, the story relates. The cops there run from one criminal investigation to another. I only bring this story up because near the end of it we read:

While some officers attribute many of their ills to a lack of resources, others take a more aggressive approach to law enforcement duties.

Officers Kenneth Le Meur and Faulkner, for example, made 64 and 32 arrests, respectively, during the first six months of the year, according to department statistics.

Le Meur, a nine-year veteran, also issued 86 tickets for speeding and 78 for seat-belt violations.

Using a laptop computer and ticket-writing software he bought himself, Le Meur issued 60 percent of the traffic tickets in 2003, according to the FDLE report.

Uh, perhaps Le Meur might spend a little less time looking for seat-belt violations and a little more for, oh -- let's go out on a limb -- say CRIME? There, glad I was able to help the city out with some free consulting.

Here's some more: Since Florida allows it, why not encourage the residents of Opa-locka to take a more proactive stance in their own protection by purchasing a firearm. Here's an example of why from Shawnee, OK (didn't they just have a gun show there?) where a couple returned home to find an uninvited guest. From KOTV News:

Shawnee police say a suspected burglar is recovering from a gunshot wound in the stomach after he was shot last night.

Shawnee Police Lieutenant Conny Clay says a woman and an acquaintance came to the woman's home and found the intruder in the residence. Clay says the man then shot the intruder once in the stomach.

Clay says the intruder was taken to the O-U Medical Center in Oklahoma City, where he was stabilized. His name was not released.

Eventually the word gets out that a town has an unusually high number of armed residents and the mutants will move-off to happier hunting grounds.

So that's what is happening "out there". But there's really much more! Here are some links to what the great bloggers (far better at this than me) are chatting about:

Posse Incitatus offers his review of the Ruger KP89. The trigger gets a "thumbs down" but otherwise, he likes the gun.

Say Uncle reports on a deadly deadly hunting dispute and all over a tree-stand.

Via one of our best advocates, John R. Lott, I found this commentary by Audrey Hudson about the Illinois court decision regarding gun suits and gun makers.

Okay, this isn't actually about gun stuff but Banana Oil has a post about sci-fi that I enjoyed mightily. Here it is.

Posse Incitatus wants Condi Rice in the White House. I don't have a problem with that.

Once again, Publicola has a great post about the possible shame of some gun owners and he makes his points well. This is another blog you should all be reading.

As many readers know, I have a Marlin .9mm Camp Carbine. Kim du Toit has one better, the .45 version. Damn, so many guns and so little time and money.

Anyway, I better get this up now so thanks to all of you for stopping by. I will post details of my radio show appearance tomorrow morning. My best to you.

Update: I will be on the Cam Edwards radio show tomorrow at about 2:40 PM and will probably be on every Tuesday at around that time to blather about Media Bias against guns. I'll put up a link to the NRA link to the show tomorrow morning.

Posted by Jeff Soyer at November 22, 2004 02:24 PM