Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

Welcome to the January 17th edition of my Weekly Check on the Bias of media regarding guns and gun control.

Just yesterday I was subject to having to watch all sorts of violence and assaults on my TV screen. I have to admit, it didn't bother me that much. But enough about the New England Patriots crushing the hapless Colts...

My "lead" today is about a story making the rounds internationally that is casting the US pro-gun lobby in an unfavorable light and it should disturb all of us because it isn't really true.

Anytime someone is randomly killed by any means, normal human beings feel bad about it. When that someone is a child, we call it a tragedy. (In fact, any untimely death is a tragedy.) When it's by a firearm, many of us who support gun-rights cringe and worry about how it will play in the press. We know the problem was with the mutant who pulled the trigger, not the gun itself. Others don't see it that way and while they would never (trial lawyers excepted) blame the car for a DUI accident, many are all too willing to blame the firearm and call for it's extinction.

This concerns a random shooting of a two-year-old in Turkey back in 2003. He was in a baby carriage and a Turkish hoodlum opened fire in a cafe and killed the boy. The British parents of the boy started a campaign to enact stricter gun control in Turkey. Well, that's their right although I think it's misguided. A Turkish court found the mutant gangster who committed the crime guilty and sentenced him to life in prison.

The problem is that the international press (and several US newspapers as well) have used random criticism from various sources as the spring-board to claim that the "pro-gun lobby in the US" has started a hate campaign against the parents. From Sky News (UK):

The parents of a British boy killed by stray gunfire in Turkey have become hate figures for the US pro-gun lobby.

David and Ozlem Grimason, whose two-year-old Alistair son was killed as he slept in his pram, have been described as "idiots" by incensed critics of their pleas for tighter gun control.The couple, from Edinburgh, stumbled across websites attacking their efforts but are determined not to be put off.

Well, who exactly is "the US pro-gun lobby"? I tend to think of the NRA. I've searched their web site and while there are mentions of the Grimasons in some stories, I have not seen any reference to them as "idiots" or any other items that could be considered a campaign of "hate" against them.

Even yesterday's Telegraph joined the fray:

The parents of a two-year-old British boy who was shot and killed in Turkey have become hate figures for the US pro-gun lobby.

David and Ozlem Grimason, whose son Alistair was killed in 2003 as he slept in his pram in a cafe, have been targeted over their campaign for gun control.

Almost word-for-word what Sky News said. So if actual lobbying groups aren't engaged in a "hate" campaign, who is?

Alphecca isn't a "pro-gun lobby". I'm a pundit with a web site who supports the right to bear arms. I'm a blogger but I have no contact with legislators, congressmen, the President. I've never been to Washington DC. I comment on the news and offer my opinions. So do a bunch of other bloggers. But we're not lobbyists. Now, while I've never mentioned this story in the past, I've mentioned plenty of others. And I have comments by others. They're not lobbyists either. So where is the "hate" coming from? The Sunday Herald (UK) gets more specific:

But the couple's actions have enraged the US gun lobby, which has long supported the right of individuals to bear arms and believes that "foreigners" should not campaign for firearms restrictions, despite the fact that Ozlem Grimason is a Turkish national. The website of Keep And Bear Arms, a self-declared "grassroots movement for the people" that demands the repeal of all gun laws, includes a number of scathing attacks on the couple.

In one posting, an un- named gun owner railed against the Turkish government itself. "What bothers me more are the countries and leaders who give these idiots their attention," it reads.

Another contributor to the site said: "Not satisfied with their own gun control failures, the Brits are attempting to disarm citizens of other countries as well."

Yet another asked, with more than a tinge of sarcasm: "If I were to travel to Turkey to ask that they rescind most of their gun laws, since all evidence shows that gun control kills, would [Turkish prime minister] Tayyip Erdogan meet with me? Highly unlikely."

Other gun groups have defended the sentiments of the Bear Arms postings. The Second Amendment Sisters, a women's advocacy movement, believes the Grimasons were "pathetic" for trying to change the law in another country.

A spokeswoman said: "I cannot imagine why anyone would mess about in another country's way of life. These people should stick to their country and mind their own business."

She also took a swipe at the couple's continued campaign to deal with gun violence in Turkey. "The Grimasons have made Turkey more dangerous. They are well meaning people who have not thought this situation through. We have got enough home-grown idiots without importing any more."

Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America, mocked the Grimasons by saying that he hoped they would campaign for gun control in the US .

"I would pay their trip. Let me know when I can buy the Grimasons their fare," he said.

But many conservative groups in the US believe stories of families affected by firearm deaths are a potent weapon for the gun control advocates.

In recent years, Jonesboro, Paducah and Springfield joined a growing list of small US towns blighted by massacres in schools where guns were involved. Perhaps the worst atrocity of all was at Columbine High School in Littleton, a suburb of Denver, where 15 pupils were gunned down in 1999 by two of their classmates.

Each tragedy gave gun control groups a boost as bereaved parents, backed by large swathes of public opinion, demanded tough restrictions. This kind of reaction is what the gun lobby fears could be repeated were the Grimasons to campaign in America.

So there are mentions of the Grimasons as idiots. That's not the most usefully constructive commentary but is that "hate"? Scorn would be a better characterization. I don't see threats against them. I don't see anyone wishing them death. They're not being compared to Adolph Hitler. I read that several folks think they are misguided or are interfering. One of the quotes says they're "well meaning people who have not thought this situation through..." Mocking, and other scornful comments are not "hate" and don't constitute a campaign of "hate". They are the opinions guaranteed by the First Amendment and when anyone becomes a public figure by engaging in lobbying of their own, which the Grimasons are doing, they become a legitimate target for those who disagree.

The bias of all these articles of late is that they consider any comments by anyone who doesn't agree with the Grimasons, or with the liberal British writers of these stories, to be engaging in HATE. To draw a parallel, many on the left in the US consider that anyone who doesn't think that homosexuality should be celebrated or that marriage should include same-sex couples must be full of bigotry and are engaging in "hate speech". If YOU don't agree with me, YOU are hateful! Disagreement for any reason on any subject is not allowed. Just witness what Bill Cosby is being subject to for criticizing parts of the current state of Black culture and home life.

Maybe I'm making a bigger deal out of this than it calls for but these newspapers, and many today, really don't understand what "hate" actually is. We throw words around and overuse them so much that they lose all original meaning. Someone says "I love pizza" and that's hardly the same as "I love you" under any context. Similarly, not agreeing with someone's point of view is hardly hating them as in the context of loathing and wishing them harm. British newspaper writers should learn the difference.

Recently, following Prince Harry's brilliant decision to wear a Nazi uniform to a costume party, several commentators referred to him as "an idiot". Was THAT "hate" speech? By the way, you might find this thread from the BBC soliciting comments about the Prince Harry incident interesting. Many thought it was much ado about nothing. Others thought otherwise and their comments are no less harsh then many of the ones quoted above regarding the Grimasons. It isn't "hate". Just scorn and legitimate critique.

In other news... BB guns seem to be under fire these days, or rather, they're being fired a lot these days. First we had the crackdown in England:

POLICE chiefs are winning the war against misuse of BB guns thanks to tough new laws - but they warned the threat from real firearms remained high.

Inspector Clive Benneworth, head of Suffolk police's firearms and support training, said there had been a dramatic drop in the number of young people reported brandishing potentially-lethal ball-bearing (BB) guns, thanks to new legislation.
[...]
Insp Benneworth recalled one incident in Suffolk in which a member of staff at a supermarket was convinced an armed robbery was about to take place after spotting a BB gun being brandished by youths outside.

"That's a prime example of an incident which prompts an armed response. The young individuals were arrested," he added.

"That's exactly what the Anti-Social Behaviour Act was brought in to stop. Obviously there is still a long way to go. We would urge members of the public to be very responsible."

Wow! Kids playing with a BB gun certainly is "anti-social behavior". Even using their fingers to "make a gun" is grounds for expulsion in most US schools. We don't want kids to behave like kids. Seriously, if a child does do stupid things with a BB gun, homeowners have to pay for broken windows and such. In Laconia, NH:

Police in Laconia are investigating a rash of BB gun shootings that occurred in the city over the weekend.

Police say that a group of people vandalized the windows of 17 downtown businesses sometime during the early morning Sunday, causing around $10,000 of damage.

This is a serious incident and it probably was caused by irresponsible youths. They need to be caught and punished. More than that, our society needs to hold parents responsible for controlling and supervising their children. After a new ordinance was proposed in Cobb County, Geogia, former Congressman Bob Barr wrote:

All of us as individuals and as parents have a responsibility to ensure our children handle BB guns and similarly potentially dangerous toys responsibly. Moreover, we must recognize we will be liable if such use results in harm to persons or property. Before the Cobb County Commission moves to outlaw air guns, or so severely restrict their use that they might as well be outlawed, I suggest we take a collective deep breath and rest easy.

The fact of the matter is, the irresponsible use of a BB gun is already illegal. I recall a young man I represented years ago - before I served in the Congress - who had fired a BB gun irresponsibly, and damaged a neighbor's glass patio door. Charges were brought and, if my memory serves me correctly, the case was handled without the young man receiving a permanent criminal stain on his record as a result of his foolish actions. However, the seriousness with which the local prosecutor addressed the matter drove the point home to the young man and his parents that his behavior was very dangerous and possibly criminal.

The laws today in Cobb, under both county ordinances and state law, remain very clear - if you discharge a BB gun in an irresponsible manner or cause harm or property damage, or if you fire it onto someone else's property without permission, you can - and should be - held accountable.

Why then are some citizens in Cobb now clamoring for tougher anti-BB gun measures; designed essentially to make it so difficult to fire a BB gun and meet ordinance limitations, that their use anywhere in the county would be virtually impossible? Why? Because we live in an age in which every problem or perceived problem is seen not as the responsibility of parents and citizens to resolve, but the responsibility of the government - federal, state or local - to prohibit. It's the "Patriot Act syndrome": if some action is deemed undesirable in any way, shape or form, it must be outlawed. Thus, we see the Patriot Act now being used to prosecute, under threat of 25 years in federal prison, a stupid resident of New Jersey for aiming a lawful, though dangerous laser measuring device at an aircraft, just to "see what it did." Even though the FBI and the New Jersey U.S. Attorney conceded there was no evidence whatsoever this New Jersey jerk was a terrorist or wanted to cause any harm, he is now being prosecuted under the full weight of the Patriot Act, a law enacted to provide the federal government tools to fight terrorists.

True, this was an op-ed. But Barr makes important points. Parents need to start "parenting". It is fashionable for the left to portray any parents that spend more than 10 minutes a day with their children as being "simpleton rural rubes" as we see from the leftist idiots (Hate Speech!) at ABC TV with their latest piece of garbage, Wife Swap. No doubt the liberal elitests in NYC and LA are howling over the "rich-bitch" having to actually cook breakfast or read to their children or make them do some chores. To me, the rich, socialite women come off looking pathetic but I doubt the chattering classes think so.

Actually taking part in your childrens' lives, supervising them, even snooping on them if you have to, would go a long way towards keeping them out of gangs, away from drugs, and preventing them from taking a BB gun and shooting out windows. But I'm just an old fashioned kind of guy...

Not the longest of my blatherings but focused for a change. I better get this posted now so you can all read it from work... Thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at January 17, 2005 10:27 AM