Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias...

So, the Northeast digs out from a large snowstorm, especially in Boston so that there's a clear path for the victory parade for the New England Patriots when they CRUSH the Philadelphia Eagles on February 6th ("Don't hate me, I'm only the messenger"...). We here at Alphecca (that's an editorial "we" as in me and two cats) have other things on our minds and now present for your pleasure the Weekly Check on the Bias.

You might call this one the guns in schools edition.

I've shied away from the endless stories about children having access to firearms from their homes and bringing them to school because -- naturally -- I don't approve of either condition. A responsible parent who owns firearms should store them in a way that prevents the curious child from gaining access to them. many jurisdictions have laws requiring such but they are frivolous and frankly, you can't legislate common sense.

Why do children sneak a gun out of their home and bring it to school? Some of them are just trying to "show off" to their friends (and that's usually the reason they're caught at it) but some are also intimidated or bullied enough to think that this is the proper way to deal with situations. I have no intentions of spending the next ten paragraphs trying to analyze such psychologies -- that's not the purpose of this weekly report.

I certainly think that parents who own firearms (about 50% of the country) should be teaching their children "gun safety" and the fact that criminal incidents involving guns and kids are actually (the MSM -- Main Stream Media -- notwithstanding in their hysteria) extremely rare indicate that most DO.

In addition, for those few schools that still have riflery teams, teens should be allowed to keep their target guns in the trunk of their car (or even their locker, or a secure locker in an appropriate place within the school). And how many kids used to bring their hunting rifles to school so they could head-out after classes... It get complicated, doesn't it?

What brings all of this up is a couple of stories during the past week involving -- obviously -- guns in schools. Yahoo quickly linked to this LA Times story:

Internationally known artists Chris Burden and Nancy Rubins have retired abruptly from their longtime professorships at UCLA in part because the university refused to suspend a graduate student who used a gun during a classroom performance art piece, a spokeswoman for the artists said Friday.

"They feel this was sort of domestic terrorism. There should have been more outrage and a firmer response," said Sarah Watson, a director at Gagosian Gallery in Beverly Hills, which represents Burden and Rubins. "People feared for their lives."

Neither Burden nor Rubins would comment when contacted by The Times. They submitted their retirement paperwork Dec. 20, over the school's winter break.

The handgun incident occurred Nov. 29 at UCLA's graduate art studio annex in Culver City.

The brief performance involved a simulation of Russian roulette, in which the student appeared before the class holding a handgun, put in what appeared to be a bullet, spun the cylinder, then pointed the gun at his head and pulled the trigger, according to one student's account that was confirmed by law enforcement sources. The weapon didn't fire. The student quickly left the room, then the audience heard a shot from outside. What ensued is not clear, but police said no one was hurt.

When I read the story on Saturday, I remember thinking, hmmm, Eugene Volokh is a prof at UCLA, I'll bet he has something to say. He does:

My first three thoughts when I heard about this: (1) Anyone who plays around either with real guns or with fake guns that others are likely to think are real is an idiot, a jerk, or both. (2) I guess sometimes transgressive art gets too transgressive even for artists. (3) A teacher who gets shot (presumably not really) with a rifle complaining about a student who pretends to play Russian roulette, and a follow-up meeting conducted by someone who pierces and cuts his body — the modern art world is quite a place.

I won't argue with his first two positions. His third brings up the hypocrisy of the incident. Let me explain! Reporters write their stories following standard journalistic procedure. That is to put the basic facts in the first paragraph. Explanations in the second, and following formula, each paragraph starting with the initial one contains more information then the later ones because most newspaper readers only read the first few. So, if you -- average LA Times reader -- were only to read the first couple paragraphs as you scan the paper, you would think this was another "scary" story of a student bringing a handgun into a classroom setting. It might be a college, but they have classrooms there, too.

You would read the hysterical Sarah Watson, who I suppose "speaks" for one of the resigning teachers, Burden, claiming that this is "domestic terrorism" which I guess means she is placing it on par with the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building.

See, this is where the bias of the LA Times writer creeps in. All of the liberals in LA are scanning the story and nodding their heads saying, "yes, guns are terrible, no wonder the professors resigned. We need MORE gun laws...".

Now remember, this was a "performance" of a skit in a "performance art" class. Hollywood shows guns blasting away all the time. In this case, the handgun was just a prop, indeed -- a replica firing blanks. It isn't until the 17th paragraph that we read:

The student who did the performance is Joseph Deutch, 25, according to the campus police log entry on the case. Campus police said that in the course of the investigation, Deutch handed over a gun that was not a real firearm. Robison, the district attorney's spokeswoman, said there was "insufficient evidence to show a gun was discharged or any bullet fired."

But let's go back to the very 2nd paragraph where Burden's hysterical spokesperson says, ""People feared for their lives."

Well, apparently NOT, for those brave readers who made it all the way to the 19th paragraph:

A graduate student who attended the meeting said a few students expressed safety concerns but more were alarmed that the university, if it disciplined the artist, would be cracking down on freedom of expression.

Now, in a perfect world, Deutch (the student performer) would have pulled the apparently squeemish professors of the class aside before his show and said, "don't worry, the gun is a fake and here is what is going to happen" and also pointed out to them that they themselves believe in shocking audiences with their art.

After all, it is the self-righteous Burden himself who caused the following stir:

Burden made his name in the early 1970s with influential and controversial performance art. In his best-known piece, "Shoot," performed in a Santa Ana gallery while he was a graduate student at UC Irvine, Burden had an assistant stand 15 feet away and shoot him in the upper arm with a .22-caliber rifle.

You had to wait for that little tidbit until the 10th paragraph. From his own web site you find -- recorded in blur for posperity -- this:

That was Burden being shot in the arm with a .22 rifle in 1971. "Do as I say, not as I do" sums it up. The writer of the LA Times story, Mike Boehm, took a long time getting to the hypocrisy.

The Associated Press reported a much condensed version that pretty much left out the last 2/3rds of the LA Times story which would have explained to their readers much of the "much ado about nothing" of the incident. I consider THAT to be bias, too.

The other story I found interesting this week was a recruiting effort by the US Army on a high school campus -- also in California -- that involved a display of air-compressor driven replica guns.

Let me state at the outset that if other businesses (companies, sports teams, environmental groups, et al) are allowed to talk to students on the school grounds, then certainly our military can or should be allowed to do the same. We ARE talking about serving our great nation in our armed forces. And our armed forces offer stunning benefits, such as college tuition, in exchange for a few years of service defending all of us. This recruiting effort might have been slightly misguided though. You'll have to decide. From the Contra Costa Times:

U.S. Army recruiters turned College Park High School's quad into a lunchtime shooting range Wednesday, much to the consternation of teachers and students.

Recruiters arrived on the College Park campus in a glossy big rig, bearing realistic-looking handguns with air compressors to provide the recoil kick. And they gave the student shooters prizes.

Military recruiters are no strangers on high school campuses, but they usually restrict themselves to flier distribution, strolling about the quad or putting in an occasional appearance in the college and career center.

"It's not a soldier issue," said teacher Jen Kennedy. "In this post-Columbine era, target practice with high school students leaves me speechless."

U.S. Army Sgt. Delbert Miller said he and the Fort Knox marksmanship team visited College Park as just one stop on an annual tour of hundreds of schools and colleges.

"We presented it as an event for the kids," Miller said. "(We used) plastic pistols hooked up to an air compressor."

The author of the story, Jackie Burrell, sent me the link directly (I mentioned it on Saturday.

Naturally we have the "crunchy granola" teacher dragging in the rare event of a school shooting to claim that any target practice (much less supervised by the US Army) as leaving him "speechless". Then we have this blather:

Morgenstern and fellow senior Jayme Farrell-Ranker had set up the school's tsunami relief fund-raising effort on the quad early Wednesday and soon found themselves sharing plaza space with the recruiters and shooting range.

"We're trying to do something nice and they come with their games and guns," said Farrell-Ranker.

So we have the namby-pamby liberal Jayme Farrell-Ranker claiming that while an admirable cause such as raising money for the Tsunami victims is "nice", encouraging students to consider a career (or at least four years) defending our nation in the armed services is somehow (by extension) "not nice". Well, that doesn't surprise me when it comes from the average leftist garden-variety California liberal. Sheltered brats like him have no idea as to how or why he enjoys the freedoms he does. Certainly, if you listen to him, it couldn't possibly be because men who actually have testicles (and women who actually have... oh, never mind, bad analogy...) are willing to risk and sacrifice their lives in the belief that "freedom is not free" and that we HAVE TO put ourselves on the line to protect all that we take for granted here. And as President Bush clearly stated last Thursday, we have an obligation to propogate freedom to the rest of the world. The end result is that we as a nation will be safer and the world as a whole will be better.

Let me briefly sum up here again: I don't think it is "all right" for kids to simply bring firearms to school to intimidate, show-off, or ward-off bullies. Parents should be supervising their children (see last week's post) and securing their firearms. But when guns -- or in the two cases I've yakked about this week, replica guns -- are brought in to make a point, whether for artistic purposes or for recruitment purposes by legitamate organizations such as our military -- then I think the teachers, administrators, and students need to get a grip on the hysteria that has been instilled in them by the main stream media. Guns aren't a problem. Misuse of them is.

So! Another single-theme edition here...

Okay, so here's some other good stuff by folks much better than me:

Kirk at Fun Turns To Trajedy has more on Maryland's new "assault rifle" ban bill. I wonder though, if Governor Ehrlich will sign such a bill? He's been all over the place on gun control but mostly he's been against such legislation.

Denise at The Ten Ring has the latest installment on being a gun-nut. Not that I would know anything about that...

I've blathered many a time about the so-called "gun show loophole" and how most of the proposed laws to close it would classify any gun sale, even in your own home to a relative of yours, would suddenly be covered by such misguided legislation. My message doesn't reach too many people and Say Uncle shows proof.

Kim du Toit does more to encourage folks to become new shooters than most -- maybe even more than the NRA -- and he has a continuing series of posts on his blog from beginners, or just people coming back to the fold. Here's his latest. He's another blogger I would like to spend a day at the range with.

Good friend to Alphecca, blogger Publicola is celebrating his second anniversary in the blogosphere. We're all better for it and there are precious few like him who are fighting as hard for our Second Amendment rights. One day I'll get over my fear of flying and head to Colorado too.

Benjamin at ReasonableNut is preparing for Joe Huffman's Boomershoot. Benjamin is also playing with scopes. I do that...

Oops, just discovered that James at Hell in a Handbasket has also covered the pathetic LA professors.

So Bitter, how do you really feel about the MA DA in a probable justified shooting case?

Heartless Libertarian reports that some Brits are getting it regarding gun control.

Another good friend of Alphecca is Zendo Deb at TFS Magnum who wants you to start thinking about where you spend your money.

Okay, it's almost noon so I better get this posted... Thanks as always for your support, your visits, your donations, your comments; thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at January 24, 2005 11:46 AM