Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

Has a week gone by already? Greetings and welcome to the June 7th edition of my Weekly Check on the Bias, where I take a peek at some of the coverage of gun-rights issues covered by Mainstream Media (MSM in blogoTalk. BlogoTalk is an old expression I just made up.). Since I cover so many stories throughout the week, I thought that since we're all enjoying the advent of Summer, I would focus primarily on positive news articles today.

For instance, who's this guy?

Gilbert Mayor Steve Berman

It figures that Gilbert's straight-shooting Mayor Steve Berman would have a basement gun range.

Known for his tell-it-like-it-is attitude and for being generally blasé toward political correctness, Berman's 10,000-square-foot-house in Circle G Ranches has a basement where the mayor can fire away.

Berman's gun enthusiasm stems from his years in the Army and competing in marksmanship events as a student at Arizona State University

[...]

Not long after he won a national marksmanship contest in 1968, he tells of a trip to his grandfather's house only to be humbled by his family members.

"I had just won the national contest, so I was feeling pretty spunky," he said.

His granddad, also a good shot, challenged him to shoot at a price tag that was hanging from a clothes line.

Berman just missed it. His father the corner. His granddad hit a little closer. His mother hit the tag, dead on.

"I might have just won that national shooting championship, but I was fourth place in my family," Berman said.

Gilbert is a town in Arizona. Berman is the kind of mayor I wish we had in my town (if we had a "mayor") and this is the type of positive firearms-ownership story I wish would appear more often in newspapers. It's also an example of a news (or special interest item) written without any anti-gun agenda, no condescension towards his hobby, and in fact might just inspire a few more people to take-up one of the most popular sports in the world -- target shooting.

Speaking of which, I first mentioned the Howell Gun Club almost a year ago as sponsoring "women only" shooting events to get them involved in the sport. Last month I pointed out a story from the Detroit News about the State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources trying to encourage more women and children to participate in hunting and shooting programs. Now, also from the Detroit News:

Donna Van Buskirk

Donna Van Buskirk decided to try her hand at blasting away at clay targets with a shotgun last year after she saw an ad in a woman's magazine.

Now, she's hooked. The 45-year-old mother of two visits the Howell Gun Club in Marion Township twice a week, on Wednesdays and Sundays, to blow apart airborne targets with her 12-gauge Remington 1100.

"I enjoy coming out here and all the people I've met," Van Buskirk said. "It's a good way to work out your aggressions."

She's not alone. Target shooting -- nonhunting shooting with a rifle, shotgun or handgun -- is a fast-growing sport for women, both in Michigan and nationwide. Nationally, the number has grown from about 2.33 million women in 1999 to 4.3 million last year, according to the National Sporting Goods Association. Women now make up about 22.5 percent of all target shooters, up from 17.9 in 1999...

Sarah Howard

Howell resident Sarah Howard agrees. She often goes to the Howell Gun Club with Jim Delaney and the couple's daughters, Maddie Delaney, 1, and Samantha Delaney, 10.

"It's not male-dominated anymore," Sarah Howard, 27, said Wednesday after shooting at the Howell Gun Club. "A lot of husbands want their wives out there with them. Until we start outshooting them," she added.

Heh. My thanks to Jim Dunmyer for the pointer to the above story. Now folks, try to imagine some alternate-universe where the NY or LA Times prints such an article. Oops! Sorry, even the fantasy genre has it's limits!

I would like to encourage you all to support news sources that print favorable articles about gun ownership and sporting events. If and when your local paper writes something along the lines of the above stories, shoot off a letter or email to them to let them know you appreciate it and that you would like to see more such pieces. Trust me when I tell you that the anti-gun types are busy firing off criticism!

The Tyler Morning Telegraph ran a favorable story covering recent good news for Texas gun owners:

The recently ended legislative session in Austin was a good one for gun owners, the Texas State Rifle Association said. Lawmakers cleaned up concealed handgun license laws, and made a number of other changes that will have an effect on both sporting and self-defense, according to the National Rifle Association affiliate.

"The one that has historic significance is House Bill 823," said Alice Tripp, legislative liaison for the TSRA.

Texas law says people can be in possession of a handgun while traveling, but the law doesn't define traveling.

[...]

"For example, there's a gentlemen from Dallas who works in rural real estate," Ms. Tripp said. "He had crossed five counties in his pickup, and he was almost home. He got stopped for a minor traffic violation. He was arrested because he couldn't put his handgun in his trunk because he was in a pickup. And the judge wouldn't let him use traveling as a defense."

The bill, now on Gov. Rick Perry's desk awaiting his signature, shifts the burden of proof onto the state. Now, a person in a private motor vehicle is presumed to be traveling, as long as he or she is not committing a crime nor is a member of a gang.

I know what you're thinking; how could someone driving a car or truck NOT be "traveling", but at least now the onus of criminality will fall on the cop making the complaint. Put another way, you will now be innocent until proven guilty. Sounds like a plan to me! This also helps remove judicial decisions against defendants by activist judges.

The article also mentions that if the state or town "annexes" property that was in common use for hunting or plinking, as long as safety is maintained, that property must continue to be open to such activities.

Regulars here know that when the legislature of Florida recently passed a bill strongly supporting the "Castle Doctrine" -- that is -- that a law-abiding citizen could meet force with force in defending himself, a lot of Florida newspapers were shocked and various Democratic lawmakers there predicted blood in the streets. Tampa Bay Online just had a news article that I consider mostly favorable to the bill:

At 73, Haymond considers himself a gun enthusiast and collector. He was among the first people to arrive Sunday morning at the Suncoast Gun Show, billed as one of the largest in the state.

Haymond came to the two- day show at the Florida State Fairgrounds to peruse new and antique firearms, hunting rifles and gun accessories.

"All of the guns are available,'' Haymond said.

Haymond said his interest in guns is no different than that of people who collect coins or go to car shows.

Haymond knows his hobby can be used for deadly force, which he isn't afraid to use. "If some young punk who's 20 years old wants to take my money, I can't fight him,'' Haymond said. "But I can shoot him.''

Now, under Florida state law, Haymond may legally have that right.

The state Legislature passed a bill in April that allows people who feel threatened in public places to "meet force with force'' to protect and defend themselves without fear of prosecution.

"I'm sorry, people, but if I'm attacked, I shouldn't have a duty to retreat,'' the bill's sponsor, Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, said in April. "That's a good way to get shot in the back.''

Baxley's bill said that a person has "the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so, to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.''

When Gov. Jeb Bush signed the bill into law, he called it "common sense.''

Paul Berry, a handgun and rifle owner from Bradenton, said the deadly force bill levels the playing field.

"It's taking away power from the criminals and giving people an equal amount of force,'' Berry said as he entered Sunday's gun show.

Now, "truth in advertising...", the story DID have a few quotes from the Brady Bunch, but they were pushed to the end of the article and by now you all know my theory about the placement of quotes and bias: The writer shows his/her bias by which quotes are near the top and bottom of their piece. I would certainly rate the first-half of this one as favorable.

Here's what the opposition had to say:

But the bill's opponents believe that giving more people the power to fire shots encourages more violence instead of promoting safety.

"You have the state telling them it's OK to shoot people and ask questions later,'' said Eric Howard, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a national organization that promotes gun-control regulations.

The deadly force law just creates more ways to put guns on the street, Howard said. It also takes the focus off efforts to better regulate the sale of guns through waiting periods and background checks.

Here, the reporter strays when she [Julie Pace] says the bill gives "more people the power to fire shots". If they didn't have that "power" then only the criminals would. Needless to say, Eric Howard is also wrong because this doesn't put more guns on the street, it just activates the ones that will scare the mutants off!

One sour note:

While Florida statutes do not require mandatory waiting periods or background checks for gun ownership, each county is given the option to adopt a waiting period of no more than three days. Hillsborough County ordinances require both a criminal record check and a three-day waiting period.

However, in what opponents call the 'gun show loophole,'' Florida laws also say that the waiting period does not apply to gun shows or to collectors exhibits.

A Tampa Tribune reporter was asked to leave both the Suncoast Gun Show and the Florida State Fairgrounds on Sunday and could not confirm whether any background checks or waiting periods were being used.

Charles Jay, who attended Sunday's show with his wife, Maureen, said preventing journalists from entering the show gives sportsmen and gun owners a bad reputation.

Firstly, any FFL (licensed) dealers at a gun show in Florida must observe any local ordinances. Those "opponents" are referring to unlicensed dealers which usually means just person-to-person transactions, maybe in the parking lot.

Secondly, if the gun show promoters DID ask the reporter to leave, that was a mistake. I can tell you that the local media here in Vermont have always had good coverage and access to local gun shows. WPTZ often brings cameras into shows with positive coverage of the events. Granted, Vermont and the far-Northern parts of NY State are -- how shall I put it? -- gun friendly, but I think it's important to allow them to attend. Banning them only helps the anti-gun side. I'd love if any of you down there know more details about this incident.

The Boston Globe has a column called "Dear Beth". She doesn't like guns. She makes that clear in the following exchanges:

June 7, 2005

Dear Beth:

I've never seen a gun get up and shoot someone. It takes a human to aim and pull the trigger. My kids grew up with firearms in the house and never ''played" with them. They were taught how to handle a weapon safely, that it does kill, and people don't come back to life like on TV. Our weapons were always locked in one place and the ammo in another.

Guns don't kill. People kill.
--ANONYMOUS

[Beth replies:]
I respect your opinion. But if someone is upset, angry, disturbed, and wants to take it out on someone, he or she will use what's available to do that. If he has access to lethal weapons, he can commit lethal acts.

If he doesn't, the chances are greater that he'll not be able to inflict as much harm and might even have more time to think about what he's doing.

Our culture now provides a primer for young people on how to kill. They've seen it done thousands of times. Gun control doesn't prevent disturbed or criminal people from wanting to inflict harm. But easy access to lethal weapons makes it more likely they'll do far more serious damage.

Dear Beth:

I, too, wish to keep guns away from kids and stop the senseless killings that occur, but I advocate a loaded gun for protection from home invasion or other life-threatening circumstances. I speak from experience.

One fateful night there was a crash in front of our house. I thought they had hit my car and went out to assess the damage. The driver was attempting to drive away, and I stopped him. His girlfriend suggested he hit me, and when he got out of his car, I ran into my house.

Then I heard others say, ''No, don't do it!" and realized he had a weapon.

I managed to keep him from entering, but he broke a window and shot me in the leg.

If I'd had access to a gun, I could've let him enter and then had a legal right to shoot him. I vowed to never allow this to happen again, so now my guns are loaded and locked in my bedroom.

Once the bad guys realize their lives are threatened, crime will decrease.
--NORMAN POYNETTE, WIS.

[Beth's reply:]
What a traumatic experience. I understand that people living in areas of high incidence of criminal activity are fearful. But I believe violence escalates when there's a threat of violence.

Once escalation starts, it's difficult to turn back, and you've increased the likelihood of more dangerous encounters.

The "anonymous" writer makes a valid point and Beth is wrong to blame the gun since it could just as well have been a knife, a fireplace poker, or a car. It isn't the object but the misuse of the object that harms people.

Her response to the second letter was totally asinine. How would the letter writer from Wisconsin owning a firearm for personal defense have "increased the likelihood" of more danger than what already happened when the mutant shot him in the leg?

When criminals know that the victim might be armed, crime goes down. When they know (as in England, Australia, Chicago, Washington DC) that the victim won't be armed, crime goes up. It's that fucking simple.

Here are a few links to what other pro-2A bloggers are up to:

Backroad Blog writes about expanding your CCW options.

Regarding the SCOTUS decision of medical marijuana use in their Raich decision, several bloggers are drawing comparisons to the soon-to-be-released ruling about Stewart. [re: Machine guns] See Heartless Libertarian here and Matt Rustler here. By the way, Matt also has up his RKBA round-up here.

Acidman makes the argument in favor of so-called "Saturday Night Specials" that I have also done in the past; he just does it better. To put it bluntly, if a cheap gun is all someone can afford, and it will protect themselves and their family, then legislatures have no business trying to outlaw them. Of course, Rob doesn't actually own any guns... [Stop that knowing snickering RIGHT NOW!]

Liberal-Gunner is new to my [reciprocal] blogroll. He's liberal (well, so am I on some issues) but loves guns. Nothing wrong with that. I don't agree with him on some of the clauses he's willing to accept on gun control but I can't fault him for his "wish lists" and he is itching for a Ruger 10/22 similar to what I recently bought.

Joe Huffman is one of the finest and most ardent Pro-2A supporters we have. Because of his blogging activities, he's been dismissed from his job. I don't see a "tip-jar" on his site but head-on-over and lend him your moral support.

Time to get this posted. I'll (naturally) be blathering it live, later today, on NRA NEWS and -- by the way -- Thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at June 7, 2005 10:27 AM