Alphecca

Weekly Media Report

Welcome to the September 27th edition of my media review concerning firearm ownership and the Second Amendment.

This past weekend the 20th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference was held in Los Angeles. You'd never know it though unless you caught the one brief write-up in the Los Angeles Times:

Paul Wilder avidly defends the right to bear arms, and he's heard all the insults. Crazy, trigger-happy, gun nut — to name a few.

Standing outside a hotel ball room near LAX on Saturday where 400 gun rights advocates from around the country gathered for the 20th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference, Wilder tried to explain the stigma that he and his fellow devotees of the 2nd Amendment were up against.

"There's this perception out that we're all rednecks who want a shootout in the OK Corral, but I'm a schoolteacher, and there are attorneys and doctors and people of all walks of life here," said Wilder, 44, who also edits books. "We're just average citizens who want our views heard."

Attendees at the two-day conference, which is held in a different city in the country each year, ranged from Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Assn., to individual gun owners such as Wilder who were interested in learning about issues for gun owners.

For many of California's grass-roots firearms activists, the two-day event was a rare chance to hear from leaders of the national movement.

"It's definitely invigorating," Wilder said. "It's tough; we're kind of fighting in the trenches."

Apart from trade shows, Wilder said he had never seen so many gun rights people in the same room.

It was a day of lectures, briefings and awards for local gun clubs.

There were tables filled with gun books, pins, mugs, belt buckles and lighters.

Mike Varner, 41, of San Jose summed up the prevailing view: "They say guns are bad; we say guns are tools. With proper training, [a gun] is no different from a knife. It's a way to protect yourself."

While I'll give the reporter credit for not ladening the piece down with anti-gun rhetoric, I do have to deduct points for not mentioning any of the high-profile speakers there such as talk show host Larry Elder.

It's interesting that (as I mentioned last week) the Brady Bunch continues to get their anti-gun message out and some newspapers are hanging on their every press-released word. From the Palm Beach Post:

Peter Hamm takes his family on vacation to Delray Beach every year, and plans to do it again this Easter. But make no mistake, Hamm says, Florida come Saturday will be a much more dangerous place.

That's why the spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says the Washington-based group plans to counter a state law going into affect at end of this week. The law allows citizens to use deadly force to protect themselves — be it in the driveway of their homes, in their cars or even on a public sidewalk.

Really, Peter? If Florida becomes a "much more dangerous place" then why would you put your family at risk by continuing to vacation there? What an awful parent you are. You must hate your children! Perhaps the department of social services in your home state ought to be called in. Everyone else should stay away from Florida because it's dangerous but you -- you! -- will sun bathe in Delray Beach.

Or is it more likely that -- as usual -- your campaign of fear is the same empty, false rhetoric that your anti-gun crowd always employs? What hypocrisy!

So here are the billboards the Brady Bunch are planning to put up in Florida:

A red-and-black billboard planned for at least one highway site states: "Visitor Warning. Florida residents can use deadly force. Please be careful." A silhouette of the state of Florida is superimposed over a handgun. The Brady organization — named for James Brady, who was shot in the head during an attempt to assassinate President Reagan in 1981 — also plans to hand out fliers at Miami International Airport and place ads in newspapers in Chicago, New York, Detroit and Boston.

"We understand and respect Florida is a tourism-based economy," Hamm said. "We don't want to unnecessarily alarm anyone, but we think visitors should know what the law is on the books starting Saturday."

The campaign conjures up a violent image of Florida that state officials had long worked to erase since a rash of tourist killings about a dozen years ago. Some opponents say Florida is going to return to the Wild West, where arguments were settled in gunfights.

Once the reporter stops quoting Hamm, he continues to employ their propaganda by asserting that Florida will become the Wild West, with gunfights breaking out on every corner. The only places I ever see that are in Washington DC and Chicago where the subjects aren't allowed to defend themselves. Crime in Florida has dropped to record lows. At least he also includes a brief quote from Marion Hammer of the United Sportsmen of Florida dispelling the Wild West myth by pointing out that that was the same language used by the Brady Bunch when Florida first got a "shall issue" CCW law in 1987. Then the reporter goes back to quoting another anti-gun state representative, Rep. Susan Bucher, D-West Palm Beach, who claims she now fears to go door-to-door campaigning and fears for kids going trick-or-treating.

As I said last week, the law still applies the test of "what would a reasonable person have done" to any defensive shootings. That's not mentioned in the article.

The Brady Bunch types are fond of claiming that most cops support their claim that people shouldn't be allowed to own or carry firearms. We, of course, know that to be false as this survey (link goes to download page for PDF) by the National Association of Chiefs of Police shows.

The 17th annual survey questioned over 22 thousand Police Chiefs and Sheriffs. It showed that a staggering 93.6% of them support the right of citizens to buy and own firearms for sport OR PERSONAL DEFENSE. On top of that, over 63% support concealed-carry and think it would help reduce crime. They apparently aren't too concerned over how many guns someone buys, either, since they oppose limiting law-abiding citizens to one gun per month by a whopping 72.8%. Further, 96% of the respondents believe that criminals obtain most of their guns from illegal sources, directly contradicting Brady Bunch claims that more gun control and firearm registration, etc., would reduce armed crime.

Folks, these are the law-enforcement professionals and they clearly and overwhelmingly support the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves with firearms. It's not surprising that the Brady Bunch don't quote much from that survey!

Hypocrisy isn't limited to the Brady Bunch. This past Sunday, Jim Kouri, Vice President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, wrote in Mens News Daily:

The mainstream news media have been aware that several antigun proponents are carrying concealed firearms but have failed to expose this hypocrisy. This writer's efforts to discover how many other anti-gunners are also packing heat -- a right they wish to deny other citizens -- met with limited results.

Not only does Schumer carry a handgun, the New York City Police Department also provides armed escorts for the good senator. In fact, the Government Accounting Office -- the investigative arm of the US Congress -- slammed Schumer's use of police resources for personal protection. It's clear that Schumer believes he's special. He wishes to ban private citizens' ownership of firearms, while he enjoys layers of protection.

"No wonder Chuckie Schumer shoots his mouth off so much -- he's able to protect himself," says a 25-year police veteran.

Also, a check of Pistol License records shows that Senator Schumer possesses an "unrestricted" pistol permit, a rarity in New York City. Licenses are distributed in different categories in the Big Apple: Target Permits allow only use of a firearm at a licensed firing range; Premises Permits allow weapons to be kept in a home or apartment; Restricted Permits allow the gunowner to carry their firearms concealed but only within the purview of their job (security, jewelers, armored car guards, etc.). So it's evident that Senator Schumer has two sets of rules -- one for Americans and one for himself.

And then we have Senator Diane Feinstein on the Left Coast who possesses something more rare than a conservative Republican in San Francisco -- an unrestricted concealed weapons permit. Apparently without shame, she participated in a citywide gun turn-in program that was intended to create some kind of statue from the donated guns that were to be melted down. One of her police body guards let it slip that she contributed a cheap model for the meltdown, while retaining her .357 magnum revolver for her own personal self-defense.

Well, no one ever accused Schumer or Feinstein of integrity in their actions. The old, "Do as I say, not as I do" is pretty much rote among almost all politicians, actually.

In last week's report I mentioned the new UN report listing England, Wales, Scotland, Australia, et al as being the most dangerous in the civilized world. In that survey it was revealed that in unarmed England, you're twice as likely as in the United States to be a victim of violent crime. Yesterday I mentioned another survey just released showing that in gun-totin' America, crime remains at a 30-year low. From CNN:

The nation's crime rate was unchanged last year, holding at the lowest levels since the government began surveying crime victims in 1973, the Justice Department reported Sunday.

Since 1993, violent crime as measured by victim surveys has fallen by 57 percent and property crime by 50 percent. That has included a 9 percent drop in violent crime from 2001-2002 to 2003-2004.

The 2004 violent crime rate -- assault, sexual assault and armed robbery -- was 21.4 victims for every 1,000 people age 12 and older. That amounts to about one violent crime victim for every 47 U.S. residents.

By comparison, there were 22.6 violent crime victims per 1,000 people in 2003. The Bureau of Justice Statistics said the difference between the rates in 2003 and 2004 was statistically insignificant.

Why is crime down? Many reasons are given and everyone wants to claim credit. From AFP:

Property crime declined 50 percent from 319 to 161 per 1,000 households, the study indicated.

"Though the downward trend in crime rates has stabilized, violent and property crime rates in 2004 remain at the lowest levels recorded since the survey's inception in 1973," wrote Shannan Catalano, the lead Justice Department researcher on the project.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales attributed the low crime rates to aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws.

Federal firearms prosecutions increased by 76 percent between 2000 and 2004, according to justice officials.

As a result, they said, only six percent of all violent incidents in 2004 involved use of a firearm, compared to 11 percent in 1993. The number of incidents of violent crime involving a firearm in 2004 was 34 percent lower than in 2000 and 73 percent lower than in 1993.

"These historic lows are a reality thanks to the dedication and hard work of law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and corrections officers across America," Gonzales said in a statement. "We will continue working each day to protect all Americans from crime and to bring justice to those who violate the law."

Well maybe. Certainly we all want to see "aggressive enforcement" of the laws. Remaining unspoken in any of the newspaper reports I read was that in recent years, many states have allowed or relaxed their concealed-carry laws. Could it be that criminals are starting to fear their intended targets? That maybe they're beginning to find safer lines of "work"? The nation's chiefs of police and sheriffs certainly think so. So do I.

I'll be on Cam's NRA News this afternoon and until then, I really do thank you for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at September 27, 2005 10:54 AM