Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

Welcome to the April 26th edition of the Weekly Check on the Bias of media as they cover guns, gun rights, and the Second Amendment. It was sort of a hodge-podge this past week but the inestimable Chris Muir saved the day(s) by starting a series of cartoons on gun defense. Chris is a big Second Amendment supporter and he's also the designer of our campaign poster from a couple years ago.

Well, certainly you won't read many stories of proper defensive uses of firearms in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Still, most smaller, rural newspapers and TV stations aren't afraid to publicize such (rather common) events. From my "Here's How It's Done" files, From WOOD TV (MI):

In Walker, police are investigating a break-in that ended with a homeowner shooting a robber. It happened at a home in the 1400 block of Wilson SW in Walker.

Police say the suspect broke into the home around 6:30 a.m. Sunday. The homeowner woke up, confronted the robber, and shot at him with a handgun. The suspect also fired his weapon, but missed.

The suspect fled the scene and was arrested a short time later. He was then taken to a hospital to get treatment for his gunshot wound.

As with most stories from TV web sites, there's no bias any which way because these types of articles are so brief. I consider that a good thing.

Now, what happens when a newspaper writer who has repeatedly railed against guns suddenly finds himself in a similar situation? Thanks to reader Stanley B., I came across this Houston Chronicle op-ed by Rick Casey:

We live in, shall we say, an urban neighborhood, with several popular bars nearby.

The house, built by a former Marine, is surrounded by a 6-foot iron fence with locked gates. Occasionally someone going home from a bar thinks it's cute to ring the buzzer.

A few minutes after I hung up, I heard loud crashing, then tinkling of falling glass. Someone was breaking in.

I have one daughter in an upstairs bedroom, which I checked first. Then I headed downstairs, where another daughter and a foreign exchange student, a girl from Paraguay, sleep.

[...]

As I turned at the landing I saw him at the bottom of the stairs. He was not a large man, a skinny 5-foot-7 or so. He was wearing slacks and a T-shirt, but what I noticed first were the tattoos covering his arms.

He didn't appear armed. I decided to act out of my anger, not out of my fear.

"Who are you and what are you doing in here?" I yelled. Then I called to my wife: "Kristen! Get the gun and call the police!"

I was grateful she didn't yell back: "What gun?"

I continued to tell him to get out, but he frantically tried to push by me to get upstairs. He wasn't belligerent, but seemed desperate, as though he thought he was being stalked.

He smelled strongly of alcohol and was bleeding from a variety of cuts. I was able to herd him down the stairs and across the living room to a door leading out to a garden. I pushed him out and locked the door.

Casey is rather lucky. It turned out the guy didn't have a firearm or other weapon, he was just some drunk. That doesn't deter from the irony that the writer, when confronted with real danger, pretended that he (or his wife) did have a gun. They didn't, of course.

But what if this mutant then pulled out a gun? The results could have been disasterous for Casey's family. As reader Stanley B. writes:

Rick Casey wrote about his recent home invasion. Being the Liberal he is, he has on other occasions made it clear that he would like nothing better than the uninvention of guns of all types. But what does he shout when he realizes that someone is in his house that should not be? "Get the gun and call the police!" (and hopes his wife doesn't shout "What Gun?") then he goes on to say that he intimidated the guy into leaving on his own accord, and that he is buying a really big dog. His wife then comes down not with a gun (there is no gun of course) but with a clothes hamper and a lacrosse stick. 10 minutes later the Police arrive and he worries that "one of the girls may startle them as they search the house with guns drawn". In the words of Moe from the Three Stooges: "Why I oughtta...."

Some things I think Mr. Casey should remember:

The next guy that comes into his house might not be so whacked out that he is incoherent and he may not be unarmed.

If he is armed, one shot will dispatch the biggest of dogs, as well as him, his wife, his daughters, and his exchange student from Paraguay.

When you come to a gunfight, you don't come armed with a knife (or a clothes hamper and a lacross stick! Or even worse, confronting an unknown intruder unarmed!).

Mr. Casey and his family has recieved a wake-up call, but instead of answering it, he let the phone ring....

Exactly.

Now, while the NY Times might not see fit to publish stories about defensive gun uses, they certainly know how to try to revive -- once again -- the call for the phony "assault weapons ban". From Sunday:

Despite dire predictions that the streets would be awash in military-style guns, the expiration of the decade-long assault weapons ban last September has not set off a sustained surge in the weapons' sales, gun makers and sellers say. It also has not caused any noticeable increase in gun crime in the past seven months, according to several metropolitan police departments.

So what's the problem, then?

"The whole time that the American public thought there was an assault weapons ban, there never really was one," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control group.

What's more, law enforcement officials say that military-style weapons, which were never used in many gun crimes but did enjoy some vogue in the years before the ban took effect, seem to have gone out of style in criminal circles.

"Back in the early 90's, criminals wanted those Rambo-type weapons they could brandish," said Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police. "Today they are much happier with a 9-millimeter handgun they can stick in their belt."

When the ban took effect in 1994, it exempted more than 1.5 million assault weapons already in private hands. Over the next 10 years, at least 1.17 million more assault weapons were produced - legitimately - by manufacturers that availed themselves of loopholes in the law, according to an analysis of firearms production data by the Violence Policy Center.

Throughout the decade-long ban, for instance, the gun manufacturer DPMS/Panther Arms of Minnesota continued selling assault rifles to civilians by the tens of thousands. In compliance with the ban, the firearms manufacturer "sporterized" the military-style weapons, sawing off bayonet lugs, securing stocks so they were not collapsible and adding muzzle brakes. But the changes did not alter the guns' essence; they were still semiautomatic rifles with pistol grips.

First of all, the VPC has previously admitted that the end of the ban would have no effect. Now, this article quotes police as saying the same thing -- indeed, we've all been saying it for a long time: The ban was all about cosmetics. When you strip away such nonsense as bayonet lugs, pistol grips, et al, you are left with a gun that functions the same as any other garden-variety semi-automatic. That would lead most of us to the conclusion that it isn't the gun -- they all fire one bullet per pull of the trigger -- but the mutant who's using that firearm for evil deeds. They're just rifles.

But the writer of this piece, Deborah Sontag, keeps on referring to these rifles as "assault weapons" regardless of the fact that she claims 1.17 million of them were sold during the ban that didn't fit the criteria of an "assault weapon". One must therefore conclude that she, as well as VPC spokeswoman Rand, consider ANY RIFLE to be an "assault weapon". Now their agenda becomes clear and Sontag says as much here:

"In my view, the assault weapons legislation was working," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, a chief sponsor of the new bill. "It was drying up supply and driving up prices. The number of those guns used in crimes dropped because they were less available."

Assault weapons account for a small fraction of gun crimes: about 2 percent, according to most studies, and no more than 8 percent. But they have been used in many high-profile shooting sprees. The snipers in the 2002 Washington-area shootings, for instance, used semiautomatic assault rifles that were copycat versions of banned carbines.

Gun crime has plummeted since the early 1990's. But a study for the National Institute of Justice said that it could not "clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence."

Research for the study in several cities did show a significant decline in the criminal use of assault weapons during the ban. According to the study, however, that decline was offset by the "steady or rising use" of other guns equipped with high-capacity magazines - ammunition-feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds.

While the 1994 ban prohibited the manufacture and sale of such magazines, it did not outlaw an estimated 25 million of them already in circulation, nor did it stop the importation of millions more into the country.

Senator Feinstein said she wished she could outlaw the "flood of big clips" from abroad, calling that the "one big loophole" in the ban. But that would require amending the bill, and Republicans like Senator John W. Warner of Virginia and Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio are willing to back it only without amendments, she said.

Some gun-control advocates say it is pointless to reintroduce the 1994 ban without amending it to include large magazines and a wider range of guns. They see more promise in enacting or strengthening state or local bans. Seven states - California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey and New York - already have bans, most based on the federal one. The model ban, gun-control advocates say, is a comprehensive one in California (referred to as "Commiefornia" on some gun enthusiast Web sites).

The Fraternal Order of Police has not made a new federal ban a legislative priority, either. Mr. Pasco, the organization's director, said he could not recall a single "inquiry from the field about the reauthorization of the ban - and we have 330,000 members who are very vocal."

"In 1994, I was the principal administration lobbyist on this ban," said Mr. Pasco, who then worked for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. "But here we are 10 years later, and these weapons do not appear to pose any more significant threat to law enforcement officers than other weapons of similar caliber and capability."

So here again, we have gun-grabber contradictions. Senator Dianne Feinstein first says the ban was working and a few paragraphs later she says it had big loop-holes that need to be closed if and when it is reinstated. And we have another statement by police saying that they don't even consider it (reviving the ban) a legislative priority. I would think that the police know better than Di-Fi.

I'll close with this pair of quotes:

Gun-control advocates say military-style semiautomatics do not belong in civilian hands. "They are weapons of war," Senator Feinstein said, "and you don't need these assault weapons to hunt."

Gun makers, however, say the weapons do have sporting uses, in hunting and in target shooting. "People buy these rifles because they're fun to shoot and they perform well," Mr. Luth of DPMS said. "They also like them because you can jazz them up like you can your car. You can custom-paint them, put on a multitude of handguards or buttstocks."

Di-Fi makes the usual mistake of assuming that the only reason to own a firearm is for hunting -- that that must be the sole legitimate use for owning a gun. Kerry made the same stupid mistake when he kept equating the Second Amendment with the right to hunt. In point of fact, though, we live in a world of terrorists and gangs that are assaulting us from all sides and a law-abiding citizen should have the right to arm themselves at least as well as the mutants.

Lastly though, Mr. Luth is correct in that guns such as the AR-15 are very popular at rifle ranges and target shooting competitions. Reader Robert Langham sends us this photo and caption:

Katie Wilkens, a second-year Texas State Rifle Association National Match Team member awaits firing commands at the 200 yard line at the TSRA Highpower Rifle Championship this last weekend at Watt, Texas.

Katie holds her personal AR-15 Armalite, the same rifle labeled an "assault rifle" by groups interested in restricting firearm rights. Nearly all competitors in Highpower Rifle shoot this firearm.

Texas lawmakers are considering making Katie Wilkens a felon for pursuing this sport.

Katie is a 15-year old student from Ft Worth. She and her brother are both TSRA National Match team members. Her parents support the TSRA Junior team. She won the High Woman's trophy at the Texas Highpower Rifle Championships this weekend.

Turning back to Florida, there was a nice feature In Florida Today about women in that state bearing arms:

You see them every day, shopping or dining with children, stopped at traffic lights next to you or walking alone at night through store parking lots.

Chances are, a woman you saw today was carrying a gun.

In fact, nearly 50,000 women in Florida are licensed to carry a weapon concealed on their person or in their vehicle.

Whether for personal protection, sport or hobby, women around Brevard County are considering options for pursuing firearm ownership and shooting proficiency.

[...]

While Speed-Isom of Cocoa waits for her carry permit to arrive in the mail, she practices shooting her Beretta 9 mm once a week with the shooting league at the American Police Hall of Fame and Museum in Titusville.

"I wasn't really hitting the target," she says about the early experiences that earned her the nickname, "Ricochet Rabbit."

"I have learned to respect the gun, and I would not be afraid to use it now, whereas before I was," adds Speed-Isom, who has since been designated "Most Improved Shooter" by her league companions.

Women generally make better students, according to Andy Stanford, founder and director of Options for Personal Security, a private training company in Indialantic.

"They don't bring a lot of macho baggage," says Stanford.

And they often are better shots than men.

"Ninety-nine percent of women turn out to be better shooters because they take direction better," says Elizabeth Beckley, an Air Force firearm instructor for 13 years and part-time range master at the shooting range where Speed-Isom practices.

Beckley, with her perfectly French-manicured nails, does not appear to be the typical firearm instructor.

I included that last line to show that while the writer, Lee Nessel Daszuta certainly tries be fair in this article, he (she?) resorts to the typical stereotype that somehow a well-groomed woman wouldn't be a firearms instructor or owner. Daszuta's ignorance shows through. Just as the coastal elites think that any guy who owns a gun must be some redneck bubba, so I guess women who do must just wear flannel shirts or something... Still, a good story.

One last piece, it appears that the gun-grabbers have at least partially lost in a Washington DC court. From the AP:

Gun manufacturer Sturm, Ruger & Co. Monday said a court dismissed all common-law claims, including those of negligence and public nuisance, in a Washington municipal lawsuit against the company and other members of the firearms industry.

The Southport-based firearms company said the court let stand claims based upon Washington's "strict liability" act against certain manufacturers of machine guns, used in crimes against city residents.

According to the company, none of the pleadings in the Washington case identify a Sturm Ruger firearm as having been used in any of the criminal shootings.

I don't know a lot about this case but I suspect Sturm, Ruger was included under the "pasta on the wall" move by many attorneys to name every possible gun company as liable for the misuse of a gun in a crime and see which accusations "stick". That is, they don't really know who made the firearm used so "let's just sue all of the makers".

Okay, I'm way late with this so will post it now. Just a reminder that there won't be a report next week as I'll be sequestered in company meetings all week. Thanks for stopping by.

Posted by Jeff Soyer at April 26, 2005 11:08 AM