Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

Welcome to the March 28th edition of the Weekly Check on the Bias of media covering gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment.

Kyle Huff was a mutant. He killed six people and then himself. Why? We don't know. Since he took the coward's way out we may never know. Rather than squarely blaming him, though, the press in Seattle where this [nationally, rather rare type of] tragedy took place immediately blamed the guns and gun laws. Writing in the Seattle Times today, Nicole Brodeur says:

We all want to know why Huff opened fire on a houseful of innocents. But what confounds me is why anyone should have such weapons, and so many.

Huff used a pistol-grip shotgun and a .40-caliber semiautomatic Ruger.

He used them six years ago to blast a moose sculpture in his hometown of Whitefish, Mont. Police seized the guns, then returned them to Huff — their rightful owner. And why not? He had committed no felonies. And no one could have known then what would happen years later in a house in Seattle.

On Saturday, Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske walked through that house before the bodies were removed. Afterward, he called Huff's shotgun "not for hunting purposes, but for hunting people."

Two things. First, Chief Kerlikowske -- a known opponent of all civilian gun ownership -- says that the Winchester Shotgun was designed for hunting people. Actually, it was designed for home protection. That is, for protecting people from the mutants who hunt us! If Huff used the gun to commit a crime, it doesn't invalidate the proper purpose intended by the manufacturer and the many law abiding citizens who own one.

The same could be said of a .40 caliber pistol. Yes, I suppose mutants could use it (and do) to "hunt" people but it is, again, intended as a defensive weapon. A goodly percentage of all state troopers around this nation have one as standard issue. They don't have them to "hunt" humans but to defend themselves and others from criminals.

Now, the columnist states that Huff was arrested and his guns (these two, in particular) seized in Montana years ago for shooting up private property but returned to him because "He had committed no felonies."

In fact, he wasn't convicted of a felony but had indeed committed one. From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Huff denied shooting the artwork and refused to cooperate with police, Ferda said, but they eventually got a court order to seize his guns. They matched the casings to his weapons and arrested him for felony criminal mischief.

A felony conviction would have made it illegal for Huff to own any firearms again.

Instead, he ended up pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge.

Then on Oct. 19, 2001, Ferda said, a judge noted that there was no longer any reason for Huff's guns to be confiscated and ordered that police give them back.

So. Here again we have a criminal who is allowed to plea-bargain down to a minor charge and is back on the streets, with his guns. This happens all the time. And folks, I'm not going to pretend to be so boorishly rigid that I think that shooting up a paper-mache moose is deserving of a life sentence but when someone uses firearms in the commission of a crime of any sort, it should be a warning signal. Felony criminal mischief as a charge would not have been unreasonable and it would have made future firearm possession illegal for him. Not that laws like that ever stopped criminals and other mutants.

So do we blame a court in Montana? Well, maybe a little bit. In the end though, it must all fall back on the head of Kyle Huff. Incidentally, while he had other weapons in his truck (including a baseball bat and a machete) and at home. Let's focus on the firearms he used. Neither were illegal even before the demise of the silly assault weapons ban but that isn't stopping the Brady Bunch and other ban-guns advocates from using this ugly incident as a call for even more gun control. From the same Seattle PI story:

CeaseFire Executive Director Natalie Reber said state and federal leaders need "to think very seriously" about how to prevent such tragedies, perhaps by restricting the number of guns someone can legally purchase or the amount of ammunition one can carry.

She said that while none of Huff's weapons would have been illegal under a federal assault weapons ban that expired two years ago, it might have applied to the amount of ammunition he carried.

Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said guns are too readily available, though finding "a systematic fix" that would have prevented the bloodshed on Capitol Hill might be difficult.

Gun rights advocates, however, said supporters of gun control have not offered any specific solutions that would do anything to prevent such violence.

So CeaseFire suggests that people be limited in the number of guns they can purchase -- we presume over the course of a lifetime since Huff purchased the two guns at different times. Brady Bunch's Hamm admits that there really is no law that could be passed to prevent this type of event. Short (I'm extrapolating here) of an outright ban on all gun ownership.

The owner of stupid billboards at Fenway Park and founder of the phony American Hunters & Shooters Association, John Rosenthal thinks he knows the answer:

Rosenthal wants to represent the millions of American gun owners who act responsibly and expect the government to do the same, like restricting access to military-style weapons, and requiring training and permits, and tightening rules for gun-show sales.

I told him about the guns Huff used.

"People are asking where these guns are coming from, and I think the question is, 'Where aren't they coming from?' " Rosenthal said. "National gun policy has been to allow unrestricted access to all firearms, including assault weapons, which had been banned until last September."

Just one problem, John. The shotgun and handgun were legally purchased and NICS instant checks run on Huff. In addition, these aren't "military-style" or so-called "assault weapons". Of course, any firearm that is misused is assaultive so should we just ban everything that could be used in the commission of a crime?

Speaking of blaming the guns, Robert L. Jamieson does exactly that:

Don't blame the rave scene for the Seattle's worst mass murder in more than two decades.

Blame the guns -- and a culture that celebrates firepower.

Blame the murdering madness on a country that has seen Columbine, Kip Kinkel and bullets at the Tacoma Mall, but lacks the common sense to clamp down on weapons of mass carnage.

Blame the gun lobby on the other Capitol Hill -- not the rave crowd on Seattle's Capitol Hill.

Gun advocates like to say guns don't literally kill, and they're right.

People do.

Problem is, people keep killing people with guns, just as Kyle Huff did over the weekend.

So if there were no guns then people wouldn't kill each other? I wonder how anyone ever fought a war centuries ago... I don't know of anyone "blaming" the rave scene for what happened. Actually, I don't even know what a "rave" is but then I'm an old fogie. Anyway, Jamieson concludes:

Huff had guns that were legal to possess. The guns he used in the killings appear to have been bought legally, which is disturbing, given the sneaky lethalness of his 12-gauge and his past gun trouble.

The Capitol Hill slayings present an opportunity for people to talk about how our nation is overrun with guns, including high-caliber assault rifles and semiautomatics.

A total gun ban isn't the answer; guns are here to stay.

We do need to talk about stricter gun control, restrictions on some weapons, more thorough background screening of buyers, plugging of loopholes and tough penalties for guns that are used in lesser crimes.

Out of all that blather, one thing he says makes sense: Tough penalties for all crimes committed with a firearm. Is this a good time to point out one little thing none of these stories mentioned? If just one of the adults at that party had been CCW armed, the results could have been quite different. Lives could possibly have been saved. Instead, they were sitting ducks for mutant Huff.

Notice a common thread in all these stories? Even though so-called "assault weapons" weren't used, all the writers and spokespeople keep bringing up the "assault weapons ban" that no longer exists at a federal level. It's like, "okay, the thug used a butter knife so we have to ban chef's knives!" or, "Well, the guns were purchased legally and not through a loop-hole so we need to close that loop-hole anyway..." Yipes! They could care less about the crime and the criminal. Those are just incidents useful as stepping stones on their way to banning all firearms.

And then there's Ken Schram of KOMO TV in Washington State who offers this gem:

300,000 kids' charm bracelets are being pulled from stores because one 4-year old died after swallowing a piece of the jewelry.

Yet even though there are more than 11,000 people a year murdered by guns here in the U.S., more guns are more easily available then ever before.

Spineless, cowardly politicians remain intimidated by the pro-gun lobby even though 75% of the people in this country don't even own a gun.

Death is tucked away in too many bedside tables.

Death is left to descend on house parties, school hallways and shopping malls because groups like the NRA have sold a bumper-sticker mentality as being a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Bottom line: Guns DO kill people.

And it's time to stop it.

You're right, Ken, it IS an outrage! And how about the fact that double that number perish in alcohol related auto accidents every year yet spineless, cowardly politicians refuse to ban car ownership or alcohol?

Quick Takes:

So if only cops are allowed to own guns... From the Express Times (PA):

Grand jurors cast doubt on Matthew Renninger's account of Jesse Sollman's fatal shooting, but they stopped short of calling the Easton police officer a liar in a 25-page report released Wednesday.

Despite their misgivings -- his sworn testimony contradicted evidence presented by a forensic pathologist and others -- jurors believe Renninger killed fellow officer Sollman unintentionally while the two men cleaned their weapons at police headquarters.

[...]

Joe Westfield, an Easton resident and firearms expert, said only one thing is certain about what happened March 25: Renninger broke the cardinal rule of gun safety when he failed to unload his .40-caliber handgun before cleaning it.

"The guy was careless, and as a result a police officer is dead," said Westfield, a senior training counselor with the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs Inc., a National Rifle Association affiliate. "If you're going to clean your firearm, the first rule is: you empty it, period."

Renninger violated the second rule of gun safety when he put his finger on the trigger of a weapon he didn't plan to fire, Westfield said.

The grand jury report indicated Easton police officers routinely breached elementary gun safety rules and that there was no policy in place to govern how they handled firearms.

Renninger violated other safe gun handling rules taught in any elementary firearms training class: Always assume a gun is loaded until proven otherwise and always keep your firearm pointed in a safe direction.

How about something positive? Well, okay. From the Houston Chronicle (first item):

A southeast Houston man shot and killed one of two armed intruders who forced their way into his home Friday night. Homeowner Sergio Quintanilla, 26, told officers he was in a rear room of his house in the 1200 block of Flushing Meadow shortly before 9 p.m. when he heard his mother and children scream for help. When he entered the living room, he saw the two intruders holding assault rifles. Quintanilla retrieved his weapon, the men exchanged gunfire and one of the intruders was killed. Officials did not release the deceased intruder's name. The second intruder, who may have been injured, fled in a gray or black Chevrolet. Police said there may have been three other suspects outside during the shooting.

Not to belabor the point but again, what if one person at the Capital Hill party had been armed and able to pick Huff off?

How about another? From the Craid Daily Press (CO):

A domestic dispute Sunday evening left a Moffat County man dead, shot twice by his former girlfriend's son in an incident police say was justifiable self-defense.

Craig police said the shooting occurred after the slain man, Mario Cruz Vigil, 60, broke into a home in the 800 block of Washington Street at about 5:30 p.m. Sunday.

Vigil was armed with a .30-30-caliber rifle and had threatened the homeowner, Josh Jackson, and his 9-year-old son earlier in the day, police said.

Jackson, 33, called police and grabbed a shotgun when he heard Vigil breaking in, police Chief Walt Vanatta said.

Jackson shot Vigil once in the chest as Vigil entered the home, and he hid in a bedroom with his son, according to a statement from police.

The gunshot to the chest wounded Vigil but did not stop him, police said.

Vigil shot through the door of the room where Jackson and his son were hiding and tried to break down the door, police said.

Jackson grabbed another gun, a .30-06-caliber rifle, and shot twice, police said. The second shot through the door struck Vigil, police said.

Another dead mutant. Charges are not expected to be filed.

On the legislative front from PA... From the Daily Pennsylvanian:

The epidemic of gun violence is reaching epic proportions, and yet Philadelphia is unable to act because the state government has tied its hands. Philadelphia cannot control the flow of handguns on its own streets because cities within Pennsylvania cannot enact stricter gun-control ordinances than those created in the state gun-control laws.

[...]

House Bill 871, introduced by Rep. John Meyers (D-Phila.), proposes to allow Philadelphia the ability to limit handgun purchases and sales.

Under the "One Handgun Per Month" legislation, individuals will only be able to purchase a handgun once every 30 days, providing exception for parties with a need for more guns each month, like gun collectors and law-enforcement agencies. This should ensure that unfair restrictions are not placed on anyone needing multiple guns each month for legitimate reasons.

This legislation does not represent an attack against the right to bear arms. It gives cities in Pennsylvania the ability to control the flow of illegal handguns on its streets, not to deny individuals the right to own a handgun.

With Philadelphia's homicide rate up 11 percent from 2004, it is imperative that HB 871 is passed so that Philadelphia can control the illegal trafficking of guns within the city.

So if they pass this law, criminals will only steal one gun per month?

How about some "health" advice? From eMaxHealth:

Many couples with small children living at home disagree not only about how they have firearms stored but also about the number and types of guns they possess, a new study shows.

The study suggests that because of those firearm knowledge and reporting differences, which reflect a form of gender gap, gun safety counseling should be provided at hardware and home improvement stores, workplaces, shooting ranges, sporting events and other places men are likely to go, researchers say.

Such as...The men's room?

One last thing, in a post a few days ago about an op-ed by Ron Miller who stated that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to bear arms, his brother Tom Miller has posted a comment there in Ron's defense.

There's lots more stuff to get to but time to get this posted. You can hear me live later this afternoon on The Cam Edwards -- NRA News Show and as always, thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at March 28, 2006 11:19 AM