Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

Welcome to the April 5th edition of the Weekly Check on the Bias by media against gun ownership and the Second Amendment. This report can't possibly be all inclusive; I just scan around to see what some news stories and editorials are saying about the issues involved.

To me, the big story was an article in Sunday's New York Times basically admitting that recently publicized shootings have actually increased the call for allowing less restrictions on civilian concealed carry. The story was certainly NOT anti-gun ownership. I discussed this a bit on Sunday of course but I'd like to examine some other points now. For instance:

Even supporters of gun control acknowledge that the atmosphere is sharply different than it was in 1999 when the nation's deadliest school shooting took place at Columbine High School near Littleton, Colo. Those shootings inspired gun-control proposals in Congress and in state legislatures, and forced gun advocates to retreat from legislation they hoped to pass, including a Colorado bill to allow concealed handguns.

[...]

Supporters of gun control express hope for some of their legislation, particularly in Illinois, where Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich and Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago, both Democrats, are pushing for background checks on all weapons sales at gun shows and a ban on assault weapons.

But they say their best chance now is to try to hold the line against more laws allowing concealed handguns. "We were very much more on the offensive after Columbine," said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. "It's just the way politics have worked. I hate to be in this position, but we are."

Instead of calling for new restrictions on guns after the Minnesota shootings, the coalition, which includes 45 groups, simply asked for "a dialogue on the role of firearms in America."

Oh, please! "a dialogue on the role of firearms in America"? What is this, a children's special on PBS? Let me explain the "role" of guns:

The Negatives:

• Some mutants use guns for evil purposes.

The Positives:

• Guns allow law-abiding citizens to defend and protect themselves from those mutants.
• Guns helped the United States obtain it's independence.
• Firearms have helped us win most wars with other countries.
• Guns have allowed people to hunt and put food on their table for 300 years.
• Firearm target shooting is the most popular participation sport in the U.S.
• Firearm ownership has prevented any politician or government from becoming totalitarian (although God knows the Democrats and Republicans keep trying...)

How'm I doing so far?

One reason posited by the gun-grabbers for more states passing legislation to permit concealed carry is that "the atmosphere is different" these days. Yes it it! The American people who have eyes have seen that when you take away the guns from the normal, law-abiding residents, only the mutant criminals have guns. They are no longer buying the crunchy-granola line that "if we just ban all guns...". But some are still trying. Here's the opening paragraphs from the Times story:

Paul Bucher, the district attorney for the Wisconsin county where a man opened fire in a church service last month, killing seven people and himself, has one answer to the deadly mass shootings around the country in recent weeks: more guns.

"The problems aren't the guns, it's the guns in the wrong hands," said Mr. Bucher, a Republican who recently announced his candidacy for Wisconsin attorney general. "We need to put more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Whether having that would have changed what happened is all speculation, but it would level the playing field. If the person you're fighting has a gun and all you have is your fists, you lose."

Well, that didn't sit well with one paleolithic commentator, Laurel Walker at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Sometimes when you check which way the wind blows, you can get spun so fast you end up dizzy.

I thought I'd check the wind conditions after reading Paul Bucher's remark in Sunday's New York Times:

The article begins by saying that Waukesha County District Attorney Bucher's answer to the deadly mass shootings around the country in recent weeks is more guns.

"Ridiculous," Bucher told me. "That's her (the reporter's) view of what I said. I never said that. It's not in quotes."

OK, he's right about that.

The first paragraph was followed by the second paragraph, which was in quotes:

"The problems aren't the guns, it's the guns in the wrong hands," said Mr. Bucher, a Republican who recently announced his candidacy for Wisconsin attorney general. "We need to put more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Whether having that would have changed what happened is all speculation, but it would level the playing field. If the person you're fighting has a gun and all you have is your fists, you lose."

Accurate? Yes, Bucher said.

Wouldn't the playing field be level and non-lethal if everybody stuck to fists and forgot about the guns altogether?

Okay, it's easy to understand how a gust of fresh air might send Walker's frail convictions spinning to the ground. It's also obvious that Bucher's accurate quote clearly contradicts what he is saying about his supposed "non-quote". Is he pandering? Sure, that's what politicians do best but it's also clear that -- like many Americans who've changed their minds over the past few years (70% favored more gun control in 1999, only 52% do now) -- he now realizes that many recent incidents might have been prevented or lessened if ordinary citizens had been carrying at the scenes.

Laurel Walker's Barney-like statement that maybe if we all "stuck to fists" ignores the reality that criminals rarely if ever stick to their fists. Now, I'm not exonerating Bucher because his statements of the past (quoted in the article) clearly indicate that either HE knows which way the wind is blowing these days (and it isn't for stricter gun control laws) or he has had a genuine change of heart. He was against allowing concealed carry in Wisconsin just three years ago. Now he isn't:

"If I'm sitting in a room with 10 people and they don't have guns, I feel safer," he said then.

My thoughts exactly. Everybody probably would be safer without fists, too, but even somebody who thinks we'd be better off with stronger gun control, not less, knows when she's gone too far.

Bucher said he doesn't recall the context of that 2003 statement, but "I favor concealed carry legislation. I have all along." Then, adding an "if," he said legislators should "stop and pause" and include a way to incorporate a warning system to protect police officers stopping gun-toting drivers.

Feeling a bit windblown by now, I told Bucher I thought it made more sense taking guns away from bad people than giving guns to every potential victim.

"I'll go along with that," he said. "If you can do that, I'm with you."

Alright, Lauren, go out there and take those guns away from the gang-bangers and thugs and criminals. And if you do that, then the rest of us will all feel a lot safer and burn our stocks. I reserve the right, though, to decide just when it is that I feel completely safe from mutants, terrorists, and other garbage preying on us.

Now, this was interesting: In Arizona, the legislature passed a measure to allow what I interpret as a pro-gun course offered to that states' schools. From KVOA TV:

PHOENIX -- The Legislature has voted to allow public schools to offer an elective gun safety course that would have to include instruction on how firearms help protect peace and freedom.

The Senate approved the bill in February and the House approved it today. It now goes to Governor Napolitano.

State law already allows the state Game and Fish Department to provide training in safe handling of guns and bows at schools requesting the training.

However, the bill would allow school districts and charter schools to offer a one-semester course in firearms marksmanship.

Under the bill, the course would have to include instruction on of gun safety, the basic operation of firearms, the history of firearms and marksmanship, "the role of firearms in preserving peace and freedom" and the "constitutional roots of the right to keep and bear arms."

I understand that Sen. Chuck Schumer in NY and Sen. Diane Feinstein in CA are pushing to make this a national educational initiative. Oops! Sorry, April Fools Day was last week...

Granted that TV News websites tend to be mercifully brief, I noticed that they didn't even try to find a dissenting quote from any anti-gunners. A bill such as this is important because while it IS happening in Arizona, a state that does tend to recognize our founding heritages, it also signals a throw-back to the middle of the last century when such courses in gun safety and ownership were rather the norm in most schools across the country.

While it is to be desired that gun-owning parents would take the lead in safe firearm handling instruction for their children, reinforcing that in the schools is a wise and prudent course (no pun intended). In addition, teaching the history of guns as helping to "preserve peace and freedom" is an admirable clause that might help counter-act the image of being simply a tool of mayhem propogated by Hollywood and TV.

Since the course is "elective" it will be interesting to see how many Board-of-Eds actually implement it.

Meanwhile in Illinois, the rift between the cities and rural areas shows clearly regarding gun control in this Peoria Journal-Star report:

Illinois hunters and gun dealers are trying to shoot down a flurry of gun-control proposals they say rose from fear in the streets of Chicago, far from the downstate prairies and woods where guns are appreciated for sport.

They see no room for compromise on Chicago-led efforts to ban assault weapons and .50-caliber rifles and ammunition, and they oppose proposals to require background checks for gun-show purchases and to limit gun buyers to one handgun per month.

"The problem is once you start banning things, where does it end?" asked Dan Brookman, a retired police officer who owns a gun dealership in Pana, midway between Springfield and Effingham. "Banning is nothing but censorship. Once they're done with the Second Amendment, they could move on to the First."

[...]

"We're very conscious of the upstate-downstate views on guns," said John Dunn, Chicago's deputy director of governmental affairs.

But gun dealers and advocates say the proposals this year illustrate just how little politicians know about guns.

Banning .50-caliber ammunition, for example, would affect guns used for deer hunting, not just the high-powered rifles that gun control advocates are targeting, said Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, a group affiliated with the National Rifle Association.

The proposal to limit handgun purchases to one per month would inconvenience collectors and could mean it would take years for a gun owner to sell off a large collection, said Ron Darnall, the owner of a Bloomington shooting range whose family has been in the gun business since the 1920s.

"Legislators sometimes have no reality check. All of this is being guided by people up in northern Illinois, and they just don't realize the implications," Darnall said.

There is an age-old divide between Chicago and the rest of the state that often focuses on who gets the biggest slice of state money for roads and other projects, but when it comes to guns, the differences are polarizing.

"In rural areas, guns are much more of a way of life - part of a tradition, a part of growing up that creates bonds between parents and their children. In urban areas, guns are seen as a threat or a way to protect yourself," said Robert Bradley, an Illinois State University political science professor. Many downstate hunters worry that any attempt to restrict gun rights, even if it seems innocuous, will open the door to even tighter restrictions.

Rather than being biased towards more gun control, I found this story quite fair and balanced and almost sympathetic in the concerns many normal folks have about passing endless new measures to ban various guns.

Rather than blather on and on about the high crime in Chicago, let's think about the low crime rate in rural areas. Certainly most criminals have cars and can travel. Why aren't they making forays into sparsely populated areas of the state where more trusting souls tend to live? Certainly they run far less risk of their mutant thuggery being noticed and intervened with either by other residential neighbors or by small, spread-thin police departments. One would think that downstate raids could be rather profitable for burglaries.

Might I suggest that one reason is that they KNOW they are far more likely to be thwarted by armed residents in rural areas? Could it be that they fear conducting their criminal business in those small towns where they might be greeted by more than fists?

Just a thought...

Here's how it works:

And to reinforce those thoughts, how about a brief story from the Charlotte News Channel:

GASTONIA, N.C. – Gastonia police are investigating after a store owner shot a burglar early Saturday morning.

Police say 27-year-old Tony Lee Long broke into Mac's M&M Auto Parts on West Franklin Boulevard and was shot and killed by the business owner during the burglary attempt.

That man's name has not been released and no charges have been filed.

Or this one from California:

An intruder trying to burglarize the gun safe of a Grandview Mobile Home Park resident met up with the homeowner outside — and fled after facing the business end of a revolver.

The resident was returning home around 5 p.m. when he heard a loud banging noise coming from inside his mobile home in the 8500 block of C Avenue, said Sgt. Larry Bowman, of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department.

The homeowner grabbed a .38-caliber revolver he had stashed in his car and went to investigate, Bowman said. As he was rounding the kitchen corner he came upon a Hispanic man, about 15 to 20 years old, with a shaved head, wearing a gray sweat shirt, Bowman said.

"Basically they both ran into each other," Bowman said.

The intruder dropped his backpack and took off running, Bowman said. The homeowner pulled the trigger, firing several shots in the general direction of the fleeing burglar, he said. Deputies said they do not suspect the intruder was shot.

The homeowner probably shouldn't have fired off shots if the mutant was fleeing but still, you get the idea. Here's one from the great State of Texas via WOAI:

An east side homeowner confronts burglars with gun in hand, for the second time in four days!

George Shandy grew up in the home on Dawson, and still takes care of it. That's what he was doing on Saturday, when he shot a burglar in the arm. That suspect was arrested.

When Shandy went to the home Tuesday, he noticed the front door was open, and someone had stolen a China hutch. The burglars had left a washer and dryer, as well as a refrigerator, in the center of the living room. Shandy had a hunch the crooks would be back, so he sat and waited for them with his 9mm handgun.

"Because I knew they were coming back for the rest of the stuff so that's why I did what I had to do; I just waited on them," says Shandy.

Sure enough, the two suspects showed up.

"They walked in the front door because they left it open," explains Shandy. "That's when I surprised them, and startled them cause I was sitting in the living room and left this door open. When they got to the washer that's when I told them to stop."

Shandy stopped them in their tracks, called 911, and held the two at gunpoint until officers arrived. Both suspects were arrested.

In all three cases, I don't believe the criminals would have been chased off or captured by the use of fists alone...

Here's a couple other things for your reading pleasure:

Always good stuff at The Ten Ring including this post about guns and suicide statistics. Not to toot my own horn but I wrote about this more than two years ago. Well, okay, so actually I toot my horn rather a lot...

Another fine Pro-2A blogger, Heartless Libertarian celebrates his one-year-blogaversary. I'm never really sure how to spell that but Happy Birthday!

Meanwhile, Heads Bunker has some gun porn. I'm excited already. Remember to click the pictures for larger-than-drool images!

As a revolver fan, I also appreciate Les Jone's gun porn and, of course, his latest Gun Links.

Hey, nothing to do with guns (other than he's Pro-2A) but Laughing Wolf could use some sponsorship for his coming good deeds on National Volunteer Week. Otherwise, the Gnome gets it!

I think Zendo Deb at TFS Magnum is just about right concerning the "No Guns Allowed" signs in Ohio via a Columbus Dispatch story. I found it also the possible start of a disturbing trend that the Dispatch now charges $4.95 a month if you want to read any of their stories online.

Wadcutter has a big post about Ruger revolvers. Interesting.

I better get this up. Thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at April 5, 2005 10:06 AM