Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

Welcome to the February 14th edition of the Weekly Check on the Bias of media and gun rights. This being Valentine's Day, here's a sentimental snap of me with a couple of my sweeties:

(The photo is small 'cause I'm ugly...)

Okay, now with that mushiness out of the way...

So it's been a boring last few days as nothing involving a firearm has happened. Well, okay, so there was the Cheney Incident but frankly, it's been talked about to death both here and just about everywhere else in the known universe. I won't rehash it except to point to one especially grievous VPC press release:

Saturday's shooting of a fellow hunter by Vice President Dick Cheney was just one more addition to the more than quarter million Americans who have been injured by firearms during President George W. Bush's tenure. From 2001 through 2004, the most recent year available, 252,076 Americans were injured by firearms according to federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data. From 2001 through 2003, the most recent year available, nearly 30,000 Americans a year were killed by firearms according to information from the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Unlike the administrations of George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton, both of which supported gun control measures such as banning assault weapons, the current Bush Administration has, in fact, allowed measures like the federal assault weapons ban to expire while at the same time rolling back other portions of federal gun control policy.

[...]

Josh Sugarmann, Violence Policy Center executive director, states, "The Cheney shooting punctures the pro-gun argument that 'knowing guns' and 'having respect for guns' are enough to overcome the inherent hazards of firearms. Vice President Cheney's victim is now just one more sad statistic in America's annual gun toll."

In just those first two paragraphs I can spot more disinformation then you'd find in a modern high school textbook on American history. I won't even deal with the basic "injuries" concept because we regulate and police automobiles, both ownership and use, to death and yet there are a million injuries from accidents every year.

First of all, under the spin put on this by the VPC (Violence Policy Center, that things are worse under the current president,) crime should be increasing under the current president and yet it's at a 30-year low.

Secondly, their tactic of stating that 30,000 people are killed by firearms each year is disingenuous because two-thirds of those deaths are suicides, not wanton killings. If a gun wasn't available, suicidal people would find plenty of other methods of self-extermination.

Thirdly, just using Los Angeles as an example, over half of the remaining deaths by firearms come from street gang violence. You can ban guns all you want and gangsters will never turn theirs in. Period.

Rule out accidental deaths and the above mentioned and suddenly you're left with a surprisingly small number of killings by firearms considering a current population in this country of nearly 300 million and possession of almost 200 million guns.

As for the first President Bush and President Clinton supporting the phony assault weapons ban, that has had no measurable affect either during it's tenure or after it's demise. And by the way, the current President did state he would sign a renewal of it but fortunately Congress heard the will of the people and let it die on the branch. And WHAT other gun control legislation did GW's administration "roll back"?

Lastly, using Cheney's accidental shooting of a friend as a fund-raising tactic is "just one more sad statistic" in the VPC's desperate attempt to remain relevant.

Firearms in worker's cars... This just in:

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver has ruled it is legal for an Oklahoma company to fire workers who had guns in their vehicles on company property.

The firings led to state legislation in 2004 that would make it much harder for employers to ban guns from their property. The state law at the time, allowed employers to ban weapons from their property.

8 former Weyerhaeuser employees had sued the company after they were fired for having guns in vehicles, which were parked on company property. The employees worked at the Weyerhaeuser paper mill plant in Valliant.

The court of appeals ruling upholds a decision by a federal judge in Muskogee last year.

This is critical because it underscores the need for legislation -- such as was finally passed in Oklahoma -- to prohibit companies from firing workers who had firearms in their personal vehicles. A similar fight is underway in Florida. A couple days ago, columnist Mike Thomas wrote in the Orlando Sentinel:

In reality, any employee can pull into any employee parking lot with a handgun locked in the glove box and no one would be the wiser unless the employee told somebody or shot somebody. It is that latter possibility that has companies and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence bent.

The Brady folks point to a study that found workplaces where guns were permitted were five to seven times more likely to be the site of a workplace homicide. That sounds bad.

But think about it. If Minnie really was whacked out enough to blow holes in the Seven Dwarfs, would a policy against handguns in parked cars stop her?

Even so, it is Disney's business to set its own gun policies, not the government's business or the NRA's business. The Second Amendment says we can own guns. It doesn't say we can take them wherever we want.

If someone is so paranoid he can't drive to work without a gun, then maybe he isn't the kind of guy who should own one.

It's rather obvious if you read the whole thing, or even just the quoted section, that Mr. Thomas' sympathies lie with business and not with the Constitution.

First of all, I won't even bother with the Brady Bunch's made-up statistics. In the (actually rather rare) instances of workplace shootings, the perpetrator doesn't suddenly "blow up" and run to their car for a gun. We always read that they went home or were fired days before, stewed, got drunk or drugged, and then went to their job and -- against company policy almost universally -- carried the firearm into the workplace and went on a rampage.

While I have some very slight concern about business owner's rights, I do not think those rights should extend to their parking lots when those would interfere with the rights of workers to carry whatever they want in the privacy of their car or truck (which is a right reinforced by court precedent). I don't even think a company should have the ability to search an employee's vehicle. Cops can't do it without a warrant. Or at least they aren't supposed to although many do anyway with the prevalence of vague "reasonable suspicion" laws now in effect.

Also, it isn't paranoia to have a firearm in the car. Maybe the employee is planning to go hunting or to the range after work. Or maybe they exercise their right to conceal carry for personal protection. Maybe they live in a bad neighborhood. Why should they have to leave their gun at home, and after work drive home to reclaim the Second Amendment?

Okay, so now you know that my sympathies lay with the NRA and the Bill of Rights. I never said I wasn't biased around here...

Jetting back to Oklahoma for a moment, not all businesses there have a problem with employees having firearms in their cars:

Still, not every employer is unhappy with the new laws. "As long as employees are carrying the guns legally in their vehicles," says Charles Barton, finance manager of the Oklahoma Electric Cooperative, "there's no objection."

Neither does the company where I work; during hunting season the cars and trucks are bristling -- well, of those who actually show up at work.

Firearm permits and privacy. We've seen how some biased newspapers think it their duty to "warn" the public about who has a license for concealed carry. A new bill in Kentucky would put an end to such nonsense:

The names of Kentuckians who carry concealed weapons would no longer be public under a bill passed yesterday by the House Judiciary Committee.

House Bill 290 would also make secret the records of training completed by people who hold concealed-weapons permits.

The names of permit holders are now public record, as are the names and addresses of people who have training certificates.

Critics said that hunting and fishing licenses, construction permits and virtually all other permits are public, and that concealed-weapons permits should be treated no differently.

But the committee, which includes six Republicans and nine Democrats, approved the bill unanimously, despite the objections of Kentucky Press Association lawyer Ashley Pack.

"Why would names be confidential?" she asked the committee. "The press and public have an interest in knowing."

But the bill's sponsor, Robert Damron, D-Nicholasville, brushed off Pack's concerns.

"The information is available to law enforcement," said Damron, who holds a concealed-weapons permit. "We see no reason for the press to use the information to harass law-abiding gun owners."

Damron also sponsored the 1996 law that created the right to carry concealed weapons.

Hmmm... Is Robert Damron considering a run for President in 2008? Maybe there's finally a Democrat I could vote for!

Back in the real world, unfortunately, why-oh-why, Ashley Pack, should the press and public "have an interest in knowing"? Seriously, what possible reason could be advanced for publishing such information? Do members of the Kentucky Press Association regularly publish the names and addresses of those who pass their driver's test? Do they -- even though it's public information -- put out extra editions or take up valuable newspaper page space to list all those who have hunting licenses? No? Then how come some newspapers think it their duty to print the names and addresses of CCW permit holders?

Well, since she's not available to respond, I'll take a crack at answering myself. It's because some anti-gun editors think they can stir up the gun-control crowd by printing such lists. Or maybe, being mentally defective liberals, they think there's some sort of shame to owning firearms. Or they want to "scare" liberals into thinking there are lots of people carrying firearms. There are but the only scary ones are the criminals who don't bother to legally obtain a license and training and go through background checks.

There's a lot more in this meaty article:

State Rep. Jim Wayne, D-Louisville, said he voted against the 1996 bill allowing concealed weapons and would vote against this bill

"It is appalling," said Wayne, who is not a member of the Judiciary Committee. "How much more protection do gun owners need?"

The 1996 law allows people who are over 21 and don't have a criminal record to obtain a concealed-weapons permit after a day of training.

David Thompson, executive director of the Kentucky Press Association, said his organization will continue to work against the secrecy provisions of the bill.

"Any other kind of permit to my knowledge is a public record," he said. "They're really concealing everything."

But Damron and several other lawmakers cited privacy considerations.

Damron also said most people carry concealed weapons for security and don't want the permit to be a public record. Marketers have recently been seeking the names of people with training certificates for commercial purposes, which Damron said he opposes.

Rep. Robin Webb, D-Grayson, and a member of the Judiciary Committee who voted for the bill, said, "I have a concealed weapons permit, and I don't care who knows it."

But Webb said she understands why others might not.

"This is a privacy issue," she said.

I can think of another reason not to make such information public. In fact, it's a pretty good reason not to even record the information anywhere. I wrote about it last week where there is a spate of gun collections in Canada being stolen:

Just this week, two men were arrested at gunpoint in downtown Toronto and charged with possession of two handguns stolen from a gun collector in Oshawa last week. Ken Foster, 67, lost his entire collection of handguns when thieves broke into his home while he was in hospital recovering from his fourth stroke and made off with his prized firearms, which included 10 Lugers.

Robert Massey of Orangeville and Brent Matheson of Toronto, both 33, face several gun charges, including illegal possession of firearms for the purpose of trafficking and "unauthorized presence" of a firearm in a motor vehicle.

On Dec. 8, gun collector Lionel Weese returned to his Consecon, Ont., home to find 23 handguns, including five .45-calibre pistols, missing. The thieves did not touch any of the roughly 30 long guns Weese had in his home.

Late last year, thieves broke into the Parliament St. offices of lawyer Arthur Brown and made off with the 17 handguns he was storing in a gun safe. Only one of those guns has been recovered.

Gun collector and firearms trainer Mike Hargreaves also lost some 35 handguns and assault rifles when thieves broke into his Gilder Ave. apartment in December 2003, and spent two days cracking a 1,700-pound safe to steal the weapons.

And the response by Toronto's Mayor David Miller?

Earlier this week, Mayor David Miller said recent gun seizures have proven there is a "direct link" between break-ins at the homes of collectors across Ontario and guns on Toronto streets.

"If somebody steals a canoe, it's a private problem," Miller said. "If somebody steals a gun, it's a public problem."

But wait a moment! Isn't the problem that guns are flooding into Canada from the U.S.? Anyway, any time you have lists, or registrations, or ammo-purchase records, you are creating a potential "shopping list" for mutants who can use that information to target certain homes for burglary.

Speaking of Mike Hargreaves, let me give you one more blast from last week, this one from the CBC:

Guns stolen from federal office

Thieves broke into the Department of Natural resources office in Sackville Monday, and stole two revolvers, three rifles, ammunition, and more.

It's the second gun theft at a provincial office in the last weeks.

RCMP Constable Dan Hilchie said the thieves used a steel bar to pull back a steel re-enforced wall in the Department of Natural Resources office in Sackville.

Hilchie said the two revolvers are a concern to police because they are easy to conceal. "They could be used in robberies or various things like that," he said.

Three weeks ago, someone also broke into a DNR office in Coles Island. They took two handguns, two shotguns, and two rifles. DNR spokesman Brent Roy said precautions are taken to prevent thefts like this. In Sackville, the guns were not only stored in a vault, but also locked in personal lockers inside the vault.

"The manner in which we store firearms in all our offices exceeds federal requirements for safety and security," said Roy.

Why isn't there a warrant out for the arrest of the DNR officers for "unsafe storage" of firearms?

Pandering by politicians. Granted, that's how they earn their living. Still, here's one from the Journal News of Westchester, NY:

ALBANY — Jeanine Pirro is a pistol-packing politician.

Pirro, Westchester's former district attorney and now a candidate for state attorney general, impressed a gathering of state Conservative Party leaders yesterday by telling them she owns three guns, including a German-made hunting rifle known as a Mauser.

"It's the illegal guns that are the source of crime," Pirro, a Republican, said to the gathering. "I have done everything I can to get them off the street, to make them accountable, to increase penalties for those who have and traffic in illegal guns ... and by the way, I have a .22, a .38 and a Mauser."

[...]

Pirro's comments about the guns sparked a loud ovation from Conservative leaders, many of whom have been critical of her views on gun control, abortion and gay rights. Her comments, however, raised eyebrows among some gun-control advocates who consider Pirro an ally.

Jackie Kuhls, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, said Pirro has a "solid record as an advocate for sensible gun laws" but added that her comments could send a negative message to children.

"What it says is that a person has to have guns to have status within the party," Kuhls said.

Cora Greenberg, executive director of the Westchester Children's Association, which has lobbied for strict gun storage and licensing laws, said she was not alarmed by Pirro's comments.

"She's been very consistent on her record on gun control," Greenberg said. "It seems like it is politics as usual to have that type of conversation."

And this:

Republican Pirro, the former Westchester County district attorney, said her main goal has been to keep illegal guns out of circulation, not curtail legal gun ownership.

But if you keep narrowing the definition of legal gun ownership then no one can own or carry them anymore.

Talk about a fake, phony, fraud. Pirro has spent her whole life supporting gun control. That those "Conservative leaders" might applaud her just shows how 'effing stupid or closet-case liberal they are. When she was planning to challenge Hillery Clinton, she proudly declared she was pro-gun control. As District Attorney she favored every gun control measure pushed through Albany. She supported extending the Assault Weapons Ban.

Pirro is just another hypocritical liberal who thinks it's okay for her to own guns but no one else should be allowed to. I'll bet she has a carry permit, too. You know, one of those pieces of paper routinely denied to the crime beleaguered NYC residents. A pox on her.

Anyway, I guess this wraps things up around here. Naturally I'll be on Cam Edwards' NRA News this afternoon. By the way, due to a work conflict there won't be a Weekly Check next week but it will return the following week on February 28th.

Thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at February 14, 2006 10:26 AM