Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

Welcome to the March 29th edition of the Weekly Check on the Bias by media against guns and the Second Amendment.

Last week we saw the horrific shooting at a school in Red Lake, Minnesota and I had predicted a rash of editorials to follow demanding more gun control. Aside from a handful, it hasn't happened. One that did was the Laura Washington piece from the Chicago Sun-Times that I mentioned yesterday. She said:

...Sarah Brady asked: "When will our leaders have enough? When will the government do something to help stop the bloodshed?"

Not any time soon, it seems. The culture of death is nourished by political leaders with other priorities. Last week, President Bush and other conservatives were consumed with a national crusade to keep Terri Schiavo alive -- against her own wishes, her husband says. It's a crusade, the politicians say, to protect and preserve life.

Last September, Congress and Bush allowed the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons to expire. The law kept AK-47s and other semiautomatic assault weapons off the streets and out of the hands of the gang-bangers and drug dealers who trade in them. What was that about protecting lives?

Last November, we re-elected Bush -- and most of Congress.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration has spent billions in Iraq and Afghanistan to keep us safe from terrorism. The administration crows that since Sept. 11, 2001, there has not been a single terrorist attack on American soil. That's great. But in that time, we have lost at least 21,800 lives to gun-related murders on our streets. What was that about preserving lives?

[...]

Unless we get serious about gun control, the killing will continue. There is a gun around every corner. One of them could have your name, or the name of your child, on it. Live -- and die -- with that.

Quite a wide swath she cuts there! In just a few paragraphs she manages to blame President Bush and other political leaders for encouraging a "culture of death" by ignoring crime while focusing on such unrelated subjects as Terri Schiavo and the war in Iraq.

Then she blames him further for the demise of the phony "assault weapons ban" without acknowedging that he had stated he would sign the bill if it came to his desk.

THEN, she apparently blames the voters of this country for re-electing Bush (and most of Congress). And lastly, declares that it's all about the gun and we have to get serious about gun control. I might ask her how any gun control laws enacted anywhere would have prevented Jeff Weise from stealing his grandfather's guns (which, being a cop, he was entitled to own) or would have stopped Brian Nichols from grabbing the gun of a deputy in the Atlanta courthouse?

Another -- near hysterical editorial dealing with a rise in shootings in Philadelphia appeared in the Philadelphia Daily News:

The evidence is clear: Philadelphia needs greater control over handguns. To hell with the rest of this happy-hunting gun-nut state, which remains hostile to any gun-control legislation, and the legislators who claim nothing can be done.

What must happen is:

• Repeal the 1995 legislation that kept Philadelphia from passing its own stricter gun laws. Those strict laws were first pushed by then-mayor Rendell, who became a national figure for urban gun control... until he backed away from the issue.

The rest of the state can do what it wants, but Philadelphia MUST control its own destiny on this issue.

• Enact state Rep. John Meyers' one-gun-a-month purchase law. This concept is among the most reasonable in a gun-happy state like Pennsylvania. It gets to the heart of "straw" purchases, when an individual legally buys several guns, then sells them on the black market. Rendell likes this proposal, but has said it is unlikely to pass, because lawmakers believe any such law will be the start of further infringements on their constituents' gun-toting rights.

But this law would affect only handguns favored by criminals, not rifles and shotguns favored by sportsmen and hunters. Why would anyone need to buy more than 12 handguns in a year?

• Strengthen requirements to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons, and limit the number of permits. Street supports this.

Strengthening carry permits would be more symbolic than effective. Few of the 29,000 permits to carry in the city are revoked because the owners are involved in a gun-related crime. But that ignores the point that 29,000 legally gun-toting people on the already dangerous streets is far too many.

We really don't need another task force. We need action. And politicians with vision and guts.

Wow! So cops are having trouble controlling crime in the City of Brotherly Love! Therefore, to hell with Pennsylvanian residents who don't live there, we want to enact new laws that could effect anyone.

The writer asks, "Why would anyone need to buy more than 12 handguns in a year?" Because to collectors and enthusiasts, each one is unique, different, a new challenge at the range, an opportunity to explore other calibers, barrel lengths, and so on. Or maybe they just WANT them. Why would anyone buy more than 12 DVDs a year?

I love the fact that while the writer acknowledges that almost none of the 29,000 legally permited CCW holders have committed any crimes (what is it, like 2 in the past 3 years?), that's still 29,000 too many. Hmmm, sounds like they would prefer the Chicago solution where there are none. Hasn't helped Chicago any, though... But history likes to repeat itself.

Of course, the writer also falsely states that Philadelphia should be allowed to pass stricter gun control measures regardless of what the rest of the state does. But that opens up the exact same problems for non-City residents as was experienced a couple years ago when Denver did the same thing. Suddenly, Colorado citizens legally carrying a gun in their car became a felon if they drove down a highway that passed through Denver City limits. So such legislation DOES impact residents from other parts of the "happy-hunting gun-nut state" of Pennsylvania.

Fortunately -- or surprisingly -- most stories have adopted a more realistic view of the recent glitch of violence we've seen. One by Nathan Gorenstein appears in today's Philadelphia Inquirer regarding the recent spate of murders in that city. While guns are mentioned as being part of the problem, that is hardly the focus of the point being made:

Changing attitudes is crucial, said State Rep. Jewell Williams (D., Phila.), who represents an area on the west side of North Broad Street that in recent years has had more shootings than any other city neighborhood.

"You're dealing with a Colosseum type of environment," Williams said, in which some residents "sanction the violence" and some children grow up in families that have long been dysfunctional.

"We have not been able to give hope to people who are hopeless," Williams said. "I can look at four or five generations that have gone wrong."

[...]

That [$4.2 million dollar initiative] opened a "gun court," tightened laws on the use of firearms while committing a crime, and helped fund the Youth Violence Reduction Partnership, which provides intensive monitoring to youths considered at risk of killing or being killed.

[State Rep. Dwight Evans (D., Phila.)] warned those at the meeting against making passage of tougher gun laws "the only measure of success."

Despite Republican opposition to tougher gun laws, Evans said that House Speaker John Perzel (R., Phila.) and other city Republicans helped secure last year's $4.2 million appropriation. "Every other item, there has been support for" by GOP legislators, Evans said.

It should be noted that Evans IS a fierce proponent of increased gun control yet even he is saying that won't solve all the problems. My point here is not that this article (it's actually a news story, not an op-ed) isn't anti-gun, just that the blame for recent shootings in Philadelphia are not being blamed in total on guns.

Much better was this Whittier Daily (CA) editorial:

It's become clear over the years that most of these spectacular episodes are so freakish that they are not amenable to regulatory solutions. It's also become clear that any imaginable gun-control laws are not likely to have much effect on crime in America.

Even the staunchest anti-gun organizations made only perfunctory efforts to capitalize on the Minnesota shootings. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence used the opportunity to criticize Congress for letting the federal "assault weapons" ban expire, mandating immediate destruction of the records of gun sales, and considering a bill to limit lawsuits against gun dealers.

But these had nothing to do with what happened in Red Lake. Records of gun sales? The killer, 16-year-old Jeff Weise, wasn't old enough to buy a gun legally in Minnesota. At least two of his guns were stolen from his grandfather, a police officer whom he killed.

Assault weapons ban? His arsenal included no such weapons -- only a .22-caliber pistol, plus a police-issued .40-caliber handgun and 12-gauge shotgun. Limiting lawsuits against dealers? A bill that hasn't been enacted couldn't have caused a mass shooting yet.

The Violence Policy Center charged that the problem lies in "America's love affair with guns," and held up the example of countries that, it says, have prevented mass shootings through "severe restrictions on the availability of specific classes of firearms, such as handguns and assault weapons."

This statement only confirmed the National Rifle Association's suspicion that gun-control advocates are bent on banning entire categories of common firearms -- even though most owners use them in a responsible and law-abiding manner.

But decrying America's love affair with guns is like decrying America's love affair with football or movies. There are some 260 million firearms in private hands in this country. Any solution requiring vast numbers of people to reject something they have long valued is not a solution but a fantasy. It's also an admission that no politically feasible options are likely to have any perceptible effect on crime.

Support for gun control has been sliding in recent years. In 1990, 78 percent of Americans said they thought laws on firearm sales should be stricter. By 2004, only 54 percent agreed. By a 2-to-1 margin, they oppose a general ban on private ownership of handguns -- as dreamed of by the Violence Policy Center. When Congress let the "assault weapons" ban expire last year, there was no public uproar.

Past experience with school shootings, horrific as they are, may have also made people skeptical of overreaction. As it happens, this sort of mayhem is rare and getting rarer. Last year's annual federal report on school crime and safety notes that the number of kids killed at school dropped from 33 in the 1998-99 school year to 14 in 2001-02. Other violent crimes against students at school have also declined.

I'm hoping The Whittier Daily will excuse my long quote but they are to be congratulated for sound thinking in this unsigned editorial (which means it didn't come from a "guest writer"). Those of you in California should buy a few copies to show support!

Turning to Florida, I had mentioned last month that the state legislature was trying to pass a bill that would untie the hands of people defending themselves from home intruders. I'm dazzled that the story I had talked about from the St. Petersburg Times is still available:

Under current law, homeowners cannot use deadly force unless they believe an intruder intends to kill them or a loved one, or severely harm them. Although criminal case law tends to favor homeowners, anyone who kills an intruder can be arrested.

Under the bill, anyone who breaks into an occupied house or car would be presumed to have deadly intent. Victims would no longer have to determine the intruder's intent.

"You can't expect a victim to wait and ask, "Excuse me, Mr. Criminal, are you going to rape me and kill me, or are you just going to beat me up and steal my television?' " said Marion Hammer, lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.

The bill has law enforcement support because it does not allow homeowners to shoot law officers who legally break into homes, such as when they believe someone is in harm or evidence is being destroyed.

"I think if you talked to the average Joe or Jane Citizen they would say, "There ought to be a law.' This is your chance to make a law," said David Murrell, lobbyist for the Florida Police Benevolent Association.

The bill does not allow people to shoot intruders outside the home.

Note that an amendment would now permit the principles expressed in the law to apply (in a limited way) outside the home. That is, if you are attacked in the street or while riding in your car, you could also use deadly force to protect yourself.

So what's the problem? I don't see one but Florida U.S. Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Miramar apparently does and writes in yesterday's Sun Sentinal (FL):

The Florida Legislature's passage of legislation making legal the use of lethal force any time an individual feels threatened is nothing more than political pandering that will ultimately leave our communities more dangerous than ever...

[...]

Law enforcement personnel are regularly trained on clear standard operating procedures when determining if the use of deadly force is necessary. It is this process that protects us from potentially overly aggressive police officers and keeps us from turning our streets into a showdown at the OK Corral.

Here we go (again and again and again...) with the claim that the streets will flow with blood, the wild west, and so on in all the same arguments used in other states that passed concealed carry laws -- except that Florida already allows it and it hasn't happened. In fact, it hasn't happened anywhere where such laws were enacted. All this law says is that you don't have to administer a rorschach test to some mutant who's assaulting you before defending yourself. Hastings goes on:

This legislation allows individuals to invoke their own personal subjective analysis of a situation, without requiring them to factor in possible racist tendencies or prejudicial attitudes that they may hold toward people who may look or sound different from them. All of this with full immunity from prosecution.

[...]

Shame on anyone who suggests that this bill will make our streets safer. Even more, shame on the state Legislature for trying to make it legal for one citizen to take the life of another.

Ah, the crux of the matter: Folks shouldn't be allowed to defend and protect themselves because they might be "racist" or "prejudiced"? Hastings -- who is Black -- is playing on the racial-victim fears of his constituency. Is he implying that Blacks will be killed without cause by Whites? Who's pandering now?

In fact though, Blacks are more likely to be attacked by other Blacks than by others. I have argued many a time here that minorities (Blacks, Gays, Jews) should be the first ones embracing the concept of concealed-carry for personal defense. Apparently Hastings feels otherwise. Here's a snap of him from his own website sharing the love with Janet Reno...

That explains a lot!

Personally, I think the proposed laws are a good thing. They put Florida mutants on notice that if they target someone to hurt, they might become a target themselves. And folks, there's a universal language that crosses all ethnic and racial borders. If some thug is breaking into my home, I don't need to stop and think, "hmmm, he's ___________ (fill in the blank), maybe I just don't understand his culture." He's there for no good purpose and I will gladly present him with another universal symbol, that of my Para .45 caliber pistol.

I'm not saying that if you confront a mutant and he stops, backs-off, dives back out the door he broke into, you should shoot him. But if he keeps on coming despite a warning, he'll experience another universal phenomenon called death.

Here's what's happening at some other fine pro-2A blogs:

Zendo Deb at TFS Magnum reports that St. Louis is running out of excuses for not issueing concealed carry permits.

Jed at FreedomSight announces a new page of his listing Colorado gun shows.

Just a reminder that Joe Huffman is organizing -- and you have less than a month left until -- Boomershoot 2005!

Hey, Bruce at mASS BACKWARDS has a shirt just for women!

Say Uncle reports on how gun control laws are making it tough in Iraq.

A nice piece of porn over at North Georgia Dogma. Or is that porn of a nice piece?

James at Hell in a Handbasket on packing. I'm with him, give me a small pocket-rocket, not the big honker shown in the photo...

And I guess American Drumslinger has made up his mind for April 15th, Buy A Gun Day.

Countertop Chronicles gives his own thoughts on an anti-gun parent.

Time to get this up. You can listen to me later today on NRA News (link to the right) and until then, thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at March 29, 2005 09:28 AM