The Media – Page 8 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Pearl Clutching Over Pocket Knives

This article in is a level of pants shitting hysterics we don’t often see on this side of the pond. From Stan Parish at Bloomberg News, who wants us to banish the term “pocket knife” for “stay-at-home knives”:

In this era of search-happy security, carrying a knife isnâ€™t just an anachronism; itâ€™s a terrible idea. So letâ€™s retire the term pocketknife, along with the practice it implies. Instead, meet the stay-at-home knife, an all-purpose blade for every place but your trousers.

I carry a pocket knife regularly because it’s a useful tool. The rest of the doohickeys on the knife come in handy on a regular basis as well. Seriously, Mr. Parish, you really need to get out of New York City more often, and see how the rest of the country lives. We do not fear tools in most of the rest of the country. If it’s useful to carry, we carry it. To the rest of the country, you sounds like you’ve lost your damned mind.

Kane’s Decision Not Going Over Well?

I’m rather surprised to see one of the local bird cage liners, hardly a friend to our issue, coming out against Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s refusal to defend a law she doesn’t like:

Our attorney general should not be deciding which laws she will or will not enforce. We should expect her to uphold all of the laws on the books, not just the ones she deems worthy.

I agree, but I do think if an official has a good-faith belief that a law is plainly unconstitutional, they have a duty to not defend or enforce it. Kane did not make her argument from a standpoint of constitutionality, however: she just doesn’t like the law. Probably more accurate is that Bloomberg put a lot of money behind her, and she needs to ensure he gets a good return on his investment.

‘He et what was set before him’

The title is basically my all-time favorite Heinlein line. It was chosen to describe a secondary character, in explicit contrast to ‘He played the hands he was dealt.’ (Because the character in question would absolutely stack the deck and commit other shenanigans along those lines). It’s a useful thing to remember the difference between the two statements when it comes to politics. There’s plenty of ways in politics to “stack the deck,” but in the end, you have to eat what is set before you.

Thus the money paragraph of Megan McArdle’s post on the President’s no-good, very-bad, horribly-wrong speech about immigration

At this very moment, someone is preparing to explain to me that most of these things areÂ only true because the left-wing MSM is so darn unfair to the Republican side. Assume, arguendo, that you are right. Now let me ask you a question: So what?

If the left-wing MSM is indeed biased against you, then yourÂ strategy needs to take that into account. Do you have a plan for compelling the left-wing MSM to treat you fairly? If not, then you should not settle upon a course of action that would work, if only this fact were not true. You don’t launch your cavalry regiment against a Panzer battalion on the grounds that you could beat the Germans if only they didn’t have all those darned tanks.

This applies to more than the immigration/impeachment debate kicked off yesterday. It’s all of politics,Â including firearms politics. The MSM is against us. The judiciary is no better than neutral, and more usually hostile. Those are facts on the ground, that have to be dealt with. We do not live in a perfect world, we live in one where the very notion of armed self-defense by the public is disdained by the policy makers, and the average voter doesn’t care because it makes no difference to them. That’s what has been set before us. We can season the dish, but we are going to eat that food, because that’s all there is.

Bucks County Courier Times: “Pssht… What Rule of Law?”

It’s no surprise to anyone who gets the local rag (I don’t subscribe, I prefer the softness of Quilted Northern, personally) knows that the editorial bent is decidedly anti-gun, so it’s hardly a surprise to see the Bucks County Courier Times offering a ringing endorsement of continued lawlessness on the part of municipalities in Pennsylvania, while simultaneously calling Bucks County RKBA advocates “gun zealots” and fanatics. I’ve come to expect things like this:

If such a weapon is later found to have been used in a crime, the purchaser commonly claims the gun was lost or stolen. The lost or stolen reporting requirement would rescind that free pass and hold straw purchasers legally accountable, as they should be

They keep repeating this, but Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, who combined have populations pushing two million, have yet to actually prosecute anyone under these laws we’re told are so vital to combat this oh so common problem. Why? Supposedly the Bucks County Courier Times folks are journalists. Shouldn’t that be a question you might want to ask the people pushing Lost and Stolen?

Yet, in step with their fanatical opposition to most any gun restriction, the NRA and like-minded gun zealots opposed even that modest attempt to keep guns out of the wrong hands. They claim that local versions of the would-be state mandate are unconstitutional based on a state law requiring gun law uniformity.

In our view, the local measures donâ€™t infringe on the legal possession of a firearm. And so that right remains uniform across Pennsylvania.

We oppose gun control fanatically because it doesn’t work. What’s the big issue right now around the country? Universal Background Checks, right? Pennsylvania has them for handguns, which in . How has it worked to reduce Philadelphia’s crime rate compared to say, Phoenix, where anyone can go strapped without a license of any kind, and guns can be bought and sold between private parties?

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, Philadelphia in 2013 had a violent crime rate of 1100 incidents per 100,000 persons. Phoenix, in comparison, had a violent crime rate of 632 incidents per 100,000 persons. That’s more than 40% less violent crime in Phoenix compared to Philadelphia. How does the staff at the Courier Times explain this disparity?

Now let’s look at that last statement, that local measures don’t infringe on possession. That’s not the issue as to whether it’s infringing or not. The issue is that under state law, local communities have no power to regulate possession firearms and ammunition. Period. That’s already been upheld by the State Supreme Court, who held:

Because the ownership of firearms is constitutionally protected,Â its regulation is a matter of statewide concern. The constitutionÂ does not provide that the right to bear arms shall not beÂ questioned in any part of the commonwealth, except Philadelphia andÂ Pittsburgh, where it may be abridged at will, but that it shall notÂ be questioned in any part of the commonwealth. Thus, regulation ofÂ firearms is a matter of concern in all of Pennsylvania, not merelyÂ in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and the General Assembly, not cityÂ councils, is the proper forum for the imposition of suchÂ regulation.

Emphasis mine. So does the Bucks County Courier Times have any respect for the rule of law? Is it OK for municipalities to act outside the law and evade consequences for it because judges like to warp the standing doctrine so that we’re unable to challenge such a violation? It seems to me they are fine with lawlessness, provided it’s lawlessness they approve of.

Headlines You Don’t See Anymore

One day of our trip involved arguing with the Oklahoma State Department of Health for access to family death certificates and a much more exciting stop at the Oklahoma Historical Society’s Research Center. Looking for obituaries seems a little morbid, but it’s actually kind of fun to read the old newspapers while you’re searching.

This is one headline from the 18 Jan 1912 edition of The Leedey Times of Dewey County, Oklahoma that you’d never see today.

Before anyone jumps on the editor for using shotgun and rifle like they are the exact same thing, I suspect that was more for the visual space in the headline. I think rifle would have been too short and left too much whitespace. I find it hard to believe that a newspaper editor in rural Dewey County wouldn’t know the difference.

It’s Not Just Gun Coverage: The Problems in Media

I actually found this article to be a very interesting read on the problems of media today. While some in media just want to pretend that it’s the financial challenges that keep things tough in journalism, Kristi Culpepper notes some other deep flaws in the profession:

There is less concern among the media for developing actual expertise in the fields they write about, capturing events accurately, or providing thoughtful analysis. Some journalists I have interacted with even take pride in their lack of seriousness, which is unfathomable to me. Reporting is less about honesty and more about ubiquity now.

Contrary to how it seems sometimes, we’re not actually completely anti-media in our household. If there’s someone out there who does reporting/writing right, we do pay for it. We have a few digital subscriptions, and we’ve even participated in a PBS fundraiser once because that particular station happens to produce and play (non-news) content we enjoy. But the problem is that many news organizations no longer value the reporting and writing done right. I’m not sure how to solve that problem when, as argued above, there are people in the industry who take pride in the fact that they are incapable of covering an issue with any sort of seriousness.

Those Heartless NRA Members

We all know that the NRA leadership are really demons placed on this earth to make humanity hurt as much as possible – at least that would be our “knowledge” if we listened exclusively to the mainstream media.

So, with that perception from those in the media, the WaPo seemed a bit shocked that Wayne LaPierre has agreed to do the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge and donate money to further research for the disease. He’s on a trip right now, so as soon as he returns, he’s going to do it.

I just have to say that I really hope the NRA staff gets very, very creative with this and actually shows NRA staff having fun and wiling to make the world a better place.* Continue reading “Those Heartless NRA Members”

Standing Up to The Attacks

As cynical as I feel sometimes about the direction things are headed in with the Second Amendment issue, I do have to give a little credit where it is due to some of the other citizens stepping up to speak out. I’ve noticed several letters to the editor standing up for the NRA and gun rights recently, and even though I don’t agree with every conclusion in every letter, I’m happy to see people speaking out publicly. We need a few more people to stand up to the really absurd accusations about gun owners in the media because it helps inspire others to step up.

LA Times Engaging in Right-Wing Paranoid Fantasy

That’s the refrain of anti-gunners everywhere. “No one wants to ban your guns,” “It’s right wing paranoia. It’s lunacy to think anyone is coming for your guns.”Â Then why isÂ such an esteemed publication as the LA Times just fine with publishing:

As for handguns, assault-style weapons, etc., letâ€™s have a flat-out ban. Beyond the histrionics of the gun lobby, there is no defensible reason for such weapons to be a part of our culture. They exist for one purpose: to kill. Yes, hobbyists also like to use guns for target shooting and other nonlethal purposes, but itâ€™s hard to say that desire for sport outweighs the atrocious level of gun-related deaths in this country.

So they are coming for my guns then? Probably shotguns eventually too, once they figure out they are highly lethal instruments when compared to “assault-style weapons,” and especially handguns. But nonetheless, how can they argue that no one wants to ban guns when people are regularly calling for it? Am I not supposed to take this seriously? Is this person kidding? Is it just engaging in a little left-wing daydreaming? The fact is our opponents have no credibility on this. We know better. When they feel emboldened, they are quite willing to speak their true views. Â From the comments:

“Totally agree: Let’s ban guns. It will never happen, but what a nice idea. Otherwise, Isla Vista will keep happening over & over & over again.”

“Awwww, you’re making the gun nutters cry …Â KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!”

“The author doesn’t go far enough. Repeal the Second Amendment.”

“Where did he say, “Ban all guns?” He said ban all handguns. But that’s alright, twist his words to suit your own predilections.” [Glad he cleared that up. I was worried for a second.]

“In virtually every other civilized country in the world, this would not be a particularly controversial proposal. But in America it will never be taken seriously, as evidenced by all the ridiculing comments below. For whatever reasons, Americans consider it vitally important — essential, in fact — that they be able to shoot other people. And so life goes on. Except for all the people who get shot.” [Very few countries ban handguns, actually.]

“What we need is legislation to stop people from killing other people with handguns and assault weapons that were designed specifically for that purpose – to kill people. Sporting rifles and shotguns are not made for that purpose, so leave them be. If you want to handle assault weapons, join the police or military where they are both appropriate and well-regulated.” [Jeez, you’d think shotguns and rifles weren’t extremely effective at killing people. If it can take down an Elk effectively with one shot, it’ll take down a person just fine.]

Granted, most of the comments are pro-gun, but that’s to be expected. Nonetheless, you can find this opinion to be common if you look among people who don”t like firearms.

Quite an Audacious Editorial on Smart Guns

Most days I feel like I’ve seen about everything from the media that’s worth even commenting on, but sometimes they outdo themselves. Such an example can be found in this editorialÂ from the Middletown Press:

Yet gun-rights activists have successfully intimidated stores in Maryland and California into not selling the iP1.

The gun-rights movement is treating the expansion of consumer choice not as free enterprise, but as treason.

It takes quite a lot of gall to suggest we’re fighting “the expansion of consumer choice.” We’re fighting smart gun mandates which would essentially create a sweeping gun ban across a large percentage of the population of the United States. This could have been about consumer choice, but people like the Editorial board of the Middletown Press, Bryan Miller, and other anti-gun nitwits made another choice.

Few industries need innovation as desperately as the gun trade. As Mauch writes in his essay, which appeared in the Washington Post, â€œFirearm safety has not meaningfully advanced in the past century.â€ Automobile safety, by contrast, has progressed so significantly in that same period that guns are poised to pass auto accidents as a cause of death.

And what do you idiots know about innovation in the gun trade? I’m always amazed at the arrogance of journalists willing to opine about topics they know absolutely nothing about. That seems to go double when the topic is firearms. Come to SHOT one year, and then argue there’s no innovation.Â There has been a lot of innovation. There has even been a lot of SAFETY innovation. Virtually all modern firearms are drop safe. That wasn’t the case even a few decades ago.

So maybe a compromise is in order: If New Jersey allows the marketplace to dictate the fate of smart guns, will the NRA and its followers be willing to do the same? Thatâ€™s a deal worth making.

You put your cards on the table already. No deal. We fight the technology because we know what will be coming next. We simply do not trust you not to mandate the technology once it hits the market and you, the people who know nothing about firearms or firearms safety, decide it’s working well enough to impose on those people who do know about those things. Sorry, not accepting the firearm market being controlled by clueless journalists, sniveling politicians, and pearl clutching ninnies. That’s what we’re inviting if we give in to the smart gun technology.