guess who the Democrats are. (Helpful hint: there are four of them.

SUV goes on murderous rampage.

The LAPD on the FN FiveseveN:

Authorities have noticed an increase in high-caliber weapons in Los Angeles. One of the most startling incidents was when a Fabrique National 57, an assault pistol used to kill big game, was found in a victim’s car by detectives investigating a double-homicide last year in North Hollywood.

“You use it on large lions, tigers and bears,” said LAPD Deputy Chief Michel Moore, commander of the Valley Bureau.

The FiveseveN, coincidentally, is banned in California.

Yeah, the 13 year old caught with a machine gun in England? It looks like an airsoft.

Via Mike, we learn that the press is suddenly concerned about state sovereignty:

Concealed-weapons measure shoots holes in state sovereignty.

Go on.

It makes no sense to make cities such as Los Angeles and Boston, which have significant urban crime, to conform to the politics of rural places. Nor is there much sense in forcing urban police officers to make instant decisions on the legitimacy of pieces of paper handed to them by menacing looking people packing heat.

Yet, the same press is usually willing to support forcing rural areas to comply with urban policies.

Also, the article is called Our view on fighting crime, equating lawful handgun carry permit holders with criminals.

The I-team discovers that, yes, public officials are above the law but I-team reporters are not.

According to a poll, the most trusted news anchor is Jon Stewart. I’m not surprised. Hell, I agree. At least I know where his biases lie.

Shocking: More media time given to anti-gunners.

There’s a bill to propose just that. Sebastian has a look at it. Anti-gunners and editorial boards (but I repeat myself) are already soiling themselves. Sensibly Progressive:

I did not imagine the day when we could get such a bill out for a full vote in either house, particularly with the current make-up of Congress, was already here. Even if it doesn’t pass, we seem to be doing very well at the moment — which could change at any moment, of course.

Schumer is threatening a filibuster.

The NYT: If you live in public housing, your civil rights should be revoked.

I’m not sure if it’s dry wit or the continued love fest either.

Cops catch more criminals with guns. Tennessean blames it on legal gun purchases and carry laws that haven’t gone into effect yet.

TN Governor Bredesen May 2009:

to carry a concealed weapon into a crowded bar at midnight on a Saturday night defies common sense.

Guns and alcohol don’t mix

He vetoed the bill that allowed those with handgun carry permits to carry in places that serve alcohol as long as they didn’t drink. But last week, he signed into law a bill that allows off duty police to carry concealed weapons into places that serve alcohol. I guess police have magical powers to ward off booze that they kept trying to tell us permit holders would drink while carrying, even though that’s still illegal.

Also, note the press coverage. When it’s for police they refer to establishments that serve alcohol. When it’s for handgun carry permit holders, they’re all bars.

No, Tom, it was not the Year of the Gun. It was the year Naifeh lost power.

R. Lee Ermey has a new show coming out called Lock N Load. As I said before, this is one of the reasons why we win.

I guess I should say something about Palin’s resignation. Not really sure what to say. I will note that I have only seen the press try to destroy one other person as quickly as they tried to destroy her and that was Joe the plumber. It was really amazing to watch the press on Palin. Rumors about her grandson, her daughter, picking on her husband, misrepresenting her position on creationism in school, press digging through her trash in Alaska. And on and on and on. I mean, it’s not like she had a close associate who was bombing police stations or anything. Amazing. And they attempted this with rabid speculation. At the same time, she said some pretty dumb things on occasion. The press could have run with that stuff but opted for personal destruction through rumor and speculation. I wonder why that is?

Anyway, I’m not sure if she’s done with politics but I’d say politics ain’t done with her.

Even in Cali:

When even gun banners and their enablers cannot defend a bad gun control law you know enemy surrender is eminent. Faster, please.

Let’s Screw Up the Entire Internet to Save Newspapers

We had heard rumors of this before on gun boards. And also a mention in the press a bit back. Now, the Houston Chronicle is in on it:

Success on the front lines of a government blitz on gunrunners supplying Mexican drug cartels with Houston weaponry hinges on logging heavy miles and knocking on countless doors. Dozens of agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — sent here from around the country — are needed to follow what ATF acting director Kenneth Melson described as a “massive number of investigative leads.”

All told, Mexican officials in 2008 asked federal agents to trace the origins of more than 7,500 firearms recovered at crime scenes in Mexico. Most of them were traced back to Texas, California and Arizona.

Among other things, the agents are combing neighborhoods and asking people about suspicious purchases as well as seeking explanations as to how their guns ended up used in murders, kidnappings and other crimes in Mexico.

I note that the Chronicle’s example is one designed to make you sympathetic to the authorities. Note that it doesn’t lead with the reports from many, many law-abiding people who have also had to endure such questioning.

WizardPC in comments on John Harris being named lobbyist of the year:

Activist: Someone who gets involved.

Unregistered Lobbyist: Someone who gets involved with something the MSM doesn’t approve of.

Michael Jackson has died. Everyone in Iran says that sucks.

Bob Herbert over at the Paper of Making Up The Record says we gun owners are just paranoid that Obama was going to enact gun control. So, obviously, his solution is to say we need gun control. Yeah, makes no sense.

Cities’ gun restrictions begin to topple:

Since last June, when the US Supreme Court struck down key parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control ordinance, cities have seen the 20,000 local gun regulations enacted over the years begin to slip from their grip, one by one.

Good.

Via SIH, who notes past interactions with the author.

Bob Krumm: 52 professional media outlets have asked to attend an arraignment hearing for some singer accused of beating his girlfriend . . . meanwhile the world depends on amateur footage to get honest reporting from Iran.

Bitter says not to write the press off so readily. I know, it’s hard since they do, basically, take dictation from the anti-gun groups. But you do find the occasional gem in the pile.

Gunblogger interviewed by local paper.

In this post here on alleged extensive legal research, Les comments:

The problem with the analysis Rau cites is that the analysis in no way matches the premise. Here’s the first paragraph of Rau’s article:

“So, do 37 other states have laws similar to the one Tennessee’s legislature passed this month allowing guns in establishments that serve alcohol?”

The analysis he cites only considers states that have shall-issue concealed carry permits.

Here’s why the analysis fails. There are states (like California) that are may-issue but that allow guns to be conceal carried in restaurants that serve alcohol. Likewise, there are states (like Montana) that allow guns in restaurants that serve alcohol if the guns are carried openly, rather than concealed.

Also, Pol says:

I have only looked at the laws that pertain to restaurants that serve alcohol, not bars, in other states, and there are 41 that currently allow carry. I would suspect that many of those states have ‘bars’ defines under law and prohibit carry there.

So, yeah, this story is almost certainly bogus.

Tom Humphrey says the bill is on hold. Meanwhile, NewsChannel 5 Investigates (and by investigates, they mean makes stuff up) says that the TFA has changed its mind on the bill, and refers to them as the gun industry. Trouble is, they’re lying.

Heh

State ends high-powered weapons program after media ask exactly why it is that the police need grenade launchers?

The piece at the NYT that I linked earlier was headlined: Tennessee Gun Bills Poke at Democrats, Washington

Now, it’s entitled: Tennessee Expands Gun Rights

I did a quick google and found out why.

This year, your mom gave you $100 per year with which to rent movies. Which of the following is a budget cut?

a – Next year, you get $90.

b – You tell your mom the cost of movies went up, so you’ll need $110. She gives you $105.

If you picked a, congratulations. You understand basic math and home economics. If you answered b, you should apply for a job on the Knoxville News Sentinels’ editorial board:

We are in difficult times, but the budget cuts the Republicans made had less to do with the economy than with political power, and it showed a callous unwillingness to invest in the future of this great state.

Current budget is $27.8B. The governor proposed $30B. An increase is a bit odd given that revenues for the state are declining. No worries, says the governor, we’ll just run up the charge card. If my income is less, I spend less. Not more. The state should do the same. Those evil legislators want to cut $200M from it.

Chattanoogan notes the Democrat Party Chairman Asks Local Action To Keep Guns From Parks, Restaurants. Good thing we have preemption in the state. Letters to the editor here.

It’s something I’ve discussed before. In recent years, both houses of congress, justice department, SCOTUS, etc. affirmed the second amendment. More states have concealed carry than don’t. AWB not renewed. And quite a few other pro-gun victories. People seem more friendly to gun owners. And people who have never shot before want to go shooting. Issuance of handgun carry permits is at a record high.

I’ve often attributed it to grassroots activists who, with Al Gore’s internets, seem to have gained a knack for working together. But I’ve also realized something else is having an influence. Cable/satellite TeeVee. In a recent episode of Mythbusters (posted earlier about some safety concerns), Jamie was pulling out a .50 caliber and made a comment about how if you were a gun enthusiast, the 50 caliber was awesome. Then, the show Timewarp did an episode on automatic weapons.

All kinds of educational programs on cable TeeVee deal with weapons and guns. Mail Call, Timewarp, Mythbusters, Tales of the Gun, and there are even hour long shows devoted to the history of a particular gun. People didn’t have this stuff piped into their homes 30 years ago. Now, they do. People became acclimated to guns instead of afraid of them. And people see them and realize what gun nuts knew all along: guns are fucking cool. And when handled appropriately, they’re safe.

I caught the Mythbusters episode this weekend wherein they test if you can bend the trajectory of a bullet after it was done in some Angelina Jolie flick. Seemed quite unsafe to me, even though they did take additional steps. But more importantly, Kari don’t go shooting when you’re six months pregnant. Lead, noise, and other things that likely aren’t good for baby.

That’s the headline. Except that the gun in the pic is actually a Streetsweeper.

The NYT cries in its beer over the fact that gun rights activists keep winning.

According to Chris Matthews on Hardball tonight, it’s easier to “get a gun” than it is to get someone “to make you a waffle”.

A look at the Virginia primary:

Here in the cold light of dawn (or mid afternoon) following the Democratic triumph of Creigh Deeds, I’ve been reading what some outlanders think of our little scrum. AP moved an analysis of the race, as has the New York Times and The Atlantic.

What’s striking about all three is just how wrong they are.

LA Times cool with incorporation, except for that whole second amendment part:

It’s tempting for supporters of gun control — including this page — to hope that the high court will rule that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the states. That would be a mistake and would give aid and comfort to conservative legal thinkers, among them Justice Clarence Thomas, who have questioned the incorporation doctrine.

We were disappointed last year when the Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, giving short shrift to the first part of the amendment, which refers to “a well-regulated militia.” But we also believe the court has been right to use the doctrine of incorporation to bind states to the most important protections of the Bill of Rights. If those vital provisions are to be incorporated in the 14th Amendment, so should the right to keep and bear arms.

Wanting civil rights for everyone and not just those people in flyover country.

Jack Lail: Gee, you think a network effect would work on the Internet

Les Jones: There is no “official handgun permit badge” in TN

Should be banned, for the children. And what the hell is a military-style backpack?

Scott North: a Bushmaster XM-15-E2s, an assault-style rifle capable of fully automatic fire, court papers said.

Well, I guess if you have a milling machine and some M16 parts laying around it could be.

Drink up. It’s easier than thinking.

Jeff Woods looks at politicos blaming that dastardly media for misrepresenting the guns in restaurants bill. And wonders where, oh where, they would have gotten the idea that maybe the press had an agenda. I mean, with all those loaded poll questions, calling it the ‘guns in bars’ bill, and quoting every one who reacted with a bit of hysteria to it; it is puzzling that lawmakers would draw that conclusion. Aside from using every anti-gun PSH-inducing cliche, he then implies that a few crazies dictated state policy. He seems shocked that we crazy gun nuts are politically active and, you know, successful. Drink up.

Kool-Aid graphic provided by Robb.

That shotgun looks suspiciously unlike a shotgun. They usually calls those AK-47s so I guess it’s an improvement.

A good letter to the editor refuting gun controllers.

Nutjob kills a doctor who performs abortions. Another nutjob kills a military recruiter. In the press, speculation followed by inundation of the first nutjob’s ties to extremist groups. No speculation about that latter’s potential ties to extremist groups. Note that as of now, the latter may not be tied to such a group but the lack of speculation about it in the press is indicative of, well, you’ll figure it out.

Similarly.

I often wonder how a news paper can publish something so wrong and stupid.

Some gun rights folks hosted free handgun carry permit training for reporters in Utah.

Robert:

I read the Dallas Morning News often. It’s kind of like dropping by the tarpit to take a look at the last Mastadon before it goes under.

Trespassing = outstaying your welcome. If you’re an anti-gunner doing it.

Like say the disconnect between the headline and the story? Headline:

Memphians debate guns in parks

Only by debate they mean interviews with people who oppose the bill.

Bruce Krafft:

It is sad that the old media is so used to ‘astroturf’ that they can’t even recognize true grass-roots activism in action.

Heh: Defenders of Democracy Fail, Yet Again, to Convince the Polity

In MA, a man is pulled over. He’s reportedly violating several of MA’s onerous gun laws. And the press and police focus on the fact he owns 30,000 rounds of ammunition. Well, people are stockpiling. But Todd Jarrett would call him a piker.

The Christian Science Monitor is istorically anti-gun and not bashful lying about gun issues. There was that time they told us, for instance, that Obama’s views on guns lined up with yours and that time they lied about Florida’s gun laws and that time they advocated the gun industry create it’s own licensing and registration system. In fact, here’s a whole list of mentions of their anti-gun hackery on this blog. The list is long.

Anyway, I was a bit odd to see they were at the NRA convention. And writing about gun bloggers:

But here’s the real news: In the press box, bloggers outnumbered national reporters by a good margin. And officially, nearly 50 bloggers — compared to 100 mainstream print journalists — were accredited by the NRA press office to attend the 138th annual convention.

Excellent. But, really, there is no need for the press to show up? They’ll take dictation from the Brady Campaign or just reprint their documents as news items.

Who’s a sad clown:

“If you compare the pro-gun activity in the blogosphere versus the pro-gun-control activity, the scales have just tipped tremendously in their favor,” says Josh Sugarmann, founder of the Violence Policy Center in Washington, which advocates for more gun control in the US. “There’s much more engagement, more involvement, and they clearly have more free time than people on our side of the issue do.”

And you know what’s amazing? We do it on our own time. Josh Sugarmann is a reasonably well paid shill for an anti-gun group. And the only results from his efforts I see are a Huffington blog and google searches passed off as studies. What’s even more amazing is if you look at the list of goofs the VPC has made, you have to wonder how the press can lend them any credibility. I mean, assuming they don’t have an agenda.

It seems that Reasoned Discourse^tm could be in play.

Update: Comments are showing up now. Blog software approval.

We joke about the press taking dictation from the anti-gun lobby. We shouldn’t:

SENT AS A COURTESY OF THE BRADY CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE

I’m sure they’ll print something sent as a courtesy from the NRA, right?

But here’s a poll you may be interested in.

The other biased Washington paper says Obama should step up the gun control. Meanwhile, the White House dances around the assault weapons ban issue.

David Hardy: Now this is the media I’m accustomed to!

MKS: Is the public being misled on economic news?

Well, the press has been taking dictation from the anti-gun lobby for years. Why not take dictation from the administration? They’re both paid for by the Joyce Foundation.

Obama To Fire His First Gay Arabic Linguist

Vote fraud by ACORN? No way.

Looks like the Boston Globe is about to go Tango Uniform. Doesn’t break my heart much. One less anti-gun editorial board.

I guess they won’t be paying their reporters to break the law now?

Via Bruce, who notes:

Lifetime job guarantees for people who work the printing presses for a newspaper??? Who’s the business genius up in management who signed off on that?

Well, who thought up lifetime job guarantees to begin with?

The Knoxville News Sentinel has an editorial that advocates TN not pass a law restricting access to handgun carry permit data. Well, if newspapers such the KNS’ sister paper The Commercial Appeal weren’t publishing lists, this would have never come up. If the press showed better judgment, this would not be an issue.

Volokh notes that the 9th circuits recent decision on the second amendment isn’t quite making the news.

Yeah, if you didn’t read blogs, you probably wouldn’t know that happened.

The Commercial Appeal has started pooing its collective pants over the new bill to allow cities to decide if they want to prohibit guns in parks. This, even though nearly 80% of their readers support the measure (wonder how that happened?). I’d address their 1) disingenuousness, 2) hysteria, and 3) outright lies but Linoge already did. And more from Rusty.

Via Jeff, comes Ted Diadiun, Reader Representative (whatever that is) trying to answer that question. He’s wrong. Trouble for Ted is he starts off using the term assault rifle. An assault rifle differs from an assault weapon in that an assault rifle is a medium-powered, select-fire rifle. Since it is select-fire, it is a machine gun in the legal sense. The term assault weapon is made up. It’s propaganda from anti-gun people. It used to have a legal definition but no longer does. The anti-gun Violence Policy Center summed it up best:

The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.

Ted continues with unsourced claims:

The pro-gun people say that an “assault weapon” is a term that applies only to a fully automatic weapon (one that keeps firing as long as you hold the trigger back). They say it’s inaccurate to use the term for a semi-automatic weapon (one that fires a single round each time you pull the trigger). They say the only difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an “assault rifle” is cosmetic: Take an ordinary hunting rifle, switch out the stock, slap on a banana clip, put a flash suppressor over the barrel, give it a camouflage paint job, and presto — it’s an assault weapon.

Well . . . yes, says the ATF, which defines it like this: “In general, assault weapons are semi-automatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use.”

Note that Ted uses assault rifle but says ATF defines assault weapon. It’s interesting. Because the ATF is a law enforcement agency. As part of enforcing laws, there would have to be one with respect to assault weapons for them to have a definition for one. And they have such a definition written in past tense because the term no longer applies since the ban expired. So, I’d be curious to see where Ted gets his alleged ATF definition. It likely does not exist.

Next Ted breaks out the AP playbook err style book:

Taking its cue from that, the Associated Press Stylebook defines assault weapons as “firearms that feature two or more accessories such as a detachable magazine, folding or telescopic stock, silencer, pistol grip, bayonet mount or a device to suppress the flash emitted while shooting in the dark.”

Again, the term assault weapon is used. Not assault rifle, as Ted as used before. Now, that AP definition is, pretty much, verbatim what ATF said the law was. Which is that ergonomic features define what an assault weapon is. Now, it’s been a bit since I’ve seen the AP playbook err I mean stylebook. But last I looked assault weapon wasn’t in it. The term assault-style weapon was and the definition was exactly the one ol’ Teddy gave us. And that is unusual because the AP never actually follows its own stylebook with respect to reporting assault weapons. If they did, they would have been accurate. Five years ago. Now, they’re just taking dictation from the Violence Policy Center.

SIH:

What does it means when you have an editorial in the US News and World Report that says gun control is unconstitutional, period, and the Baltimore Sun runs an article about the ineffectiveness of the gun control movement?

Seems the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported that violent crime has drastically decreased in the city. It’s a shocker to them and the local authorities as to why that is as everyone lines up to take credit. But it seems that it correlates strongly to the passage of concealed carry laws:

The peak for murder and violence in Minneapolis was 2005. And what happened in 2005? Why, the Minnesota Personal Protection Act took effect.

Yup: Here is how bad the media is when it comes to guns: a Washington Post reporter writing a piece on gun policy literally *does not recognize a felony when it is committed in front of him.*

Boomershoot to be featured on a TeeVee pilot.

Eugene Volokh notes the infamous VPC quote on assault weapons. Yeah, that’s been known and reported for a while. Well, except in the press.

Buckeye firearms reports on ABC’s recent hit piece on guns:

The “Jan” listed as a gun-owning father in this story is Jan Nickels – an old friend from grade/high school, who still currently lives only about 5 miles from me. He is an ex-Marine and is well-schooled in firearms and firearm safety. We are fellow members of the same local shooting club.

I called Jan as soon as I read the story. As it turns out, ABC News tricked Jan and others to participate in what was obviously always been intended to be an anti-gun attack. In fact, this story starts with a false premise and goes quickly downhill. At this point I will let Jan tell the rest of his story:

I periodically get requests to talk to the press about guns. And this is why I typically don’t. And I’ve mentioned before why I do not.

Investors Business Daily calls it bogus.

Wayne LaPierre: They’re trying to piggyback this whole phony issue on the back of the tragedy in Mexico

Drug control breeds gun control. The ever evolving Mexican Gun Canard goes through another iteration.

After pledging support for international gun control, Obama was asked about the ban on politically incorrect self-loading rifles. The press says that Obama won’t seek a ban on the most popular rifles in the country. But did he really say that? No, he did not:

Now, having said that, I think none of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy.

He wants the ban but realizes it would cost the Democrats. And, of course, a lot of the Democrats will not sign on anyway. Obama rambled on about tracing. I’m not sure what he was trying to get at there but it seems to be a reference to the Tiahrt amendment. And, of course, he misrepresents what it does.

The Wall Street Journal notes that gun sales are up. Everyone knows that. What is odd is that a paper that caters to the financial crowd says:

No one knows exactly what is behind the gun-buying craze.

Only those not paying attention. Curt notes:

This is perfectly acceptable behavior for investors…but for those who invest in guns for the same purposes, it’s all the sudden “greed?”

JOHN LOTT: ABC’s Shameful ‘20/20′ Experiment

It opens with an interesting bit. Lott notes that gun control activists appear desperate. After all, why else would they fabricate a piece such as the 20/20 bit? Or, for that matter, bitterly cling to the Mexican Gun Canard?

I thought reporters were supposed to report. Not interrogate.

Or pantalones mierda histeria

Despite being thoroughly debunked, the Mexican Gun Canard continues:

Fox News already debunked the claim that 90% of the guns involved in Mexico’s drug war come from the United States. Facts aside, the press onslaught continues in a new push for gun control.

The fact is that out of 29,000 firearms picked up in Mexico over the last two-year period for which data is available, 5,114 of the 6,000 traced guns came from the United States. While that is 90% of traced guns, it means that only 17% of recovered guns come from the United States civilian market.

UPI and the Departement of Homeland Security are still parroting the line.

The Paper of making up the Record chimes in too.

The Washington Post blames the gun lobby. Water still wet.

Mass shooting avoided:

A man who tried to rob people at an Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting is dead after being shot.

So, by now, everyone has read the various comments on the 20/20 hit piece on guns. But the more interesting bit is that the game is rigged. The did a scenario to prove that a gun wouldn’t help in a mass shooting. Despite evidence to the contrary. The scenario is that they put a bunch of non-CCW holders in a room, the had less than adequate training, and it’s clear that the shooter knew who was strapped. The game was rigged. Watch it here. As Sebastian notes:

Raise you hand if you carry a retention holster concealed at 1:00?

Now, let’s replay the scenario with real equipment. The mass shooter doesn’t know who is strapped. Or, hell, we’ll let him know who is strapped only the armed citizen is played by Todd Jarrett. We can rig the game too.

More realistically, any CCW holder would have a better advantage if the mass muderer didn’t know who was packing. In a mass shooting, some one is going to die. It’s just a question of how quickly they are stopped.

Update: more here: Active Shooters don’t tend to be trained firearms instructors.

True and they don’t usually do dynamic entries.

Even our local paper is falling for the lies:

The permitting process is clearly flawed. A study last month by the Commercial Appeal in Memphis found as many as 70 Shelby County residents were issued permits despite criminal histories, including arrests for robbery, assault and domestic violence.

Now we learn that Jiverly Wong, the Binghampton shooter, was also a qualified handgun owner. He mailed a copy of his gun permit to a television station before going on his killing spree.

This was in between gratuitous references to Columbine. Like the hacks in the AP, Jack is conflating a permit to carry (like we have in TN) with a permit required to own (like they have in NY but do not require in TN).

In Memphis, Firearms Experts Offer Advice for First Time Gun Buyers.

Now, you or I may take issue with the advice. But it is more important to note that something pro-gun is running in the press.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Ted Novin emails:

STAYING OUT OF THE CROSS HAIRS . . . ABC’s 20/20 ran a hit piece on firearms and firearms’ owners on Friday evening. NSSF was asked numerous times by 20/20 Senior Producer Muriel Pearson to participate in the story, but understanding the piece was a set-up we refused. “After pointing out to Ms. Pearson that our refusal to participate in the program did not absolve her team of their responsibility to ask hard-hitting questions of those supporting gun control, we supplied 20/20 with information on the more than 20,000 gun laws on the books and data from the Department of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics related to firearms,” said NSSF Director of Public Affairs Ted Novin. “Unfortunately, given 20/20’s refusal to disclose any of the information we provided — information that interfered with their already pre-established and desired anti-gun conclusion — it has become all too clear that journalistic impartiality on firearms issues at 20/20 is limited to John Stossel.”

What media bias against guns?

A lot more on 20/20’s hit piece on guns from David Rittgers:

Picking people without concealed carry permits to represent the armed citizen and rigging the scenario to ensure that they don’t defeat your narrative is propaganda, not journalism.

Meanwhile, Sensibly Progressive on the hatchet job:

Ms. Sawyer set out to do an anti-gun piece, the real central question of which was “why don’t we have stricter gun laws” (asked repeatedly), and she succeeded.

You know, ABC is cranking up its ZOMG BE SCARED OF GUNS meme. So, where is token Libertarian John Stossel? He’s done pro-gun pieces before. Perhaps the only pro-gun pieces on ABC. Just curious where he’s been.

ABC news continues its assault on guns and gun owners: Before Arranging Playdates, Ask About Guns

They are telling people to be afraid of gun owners. And try to make gun owners look like lunatics ready to snap at any moment. More at Newsbusters.

Update: What she said.

It starts. The press is pretty much working overtime to crank out the PSH. Everywhere you look, it’s all guns violence all the time. The press has taken to reporting multiple murders to mass shootings. So let’s round some up:

A good review of the 20/20 hit piece here. All you need to know:

Some pro-gun guy I don’t recognize, who is not identified (Via Matt in comments, I have learned that this is Philip Van Cleave, head of the Virginia Citizens Defense League), cites studies which show the presence or more law-abiding gun owners reduces crime, not increases it. (ed. – This is the last we will see of any pro-gun viewpoints in the show.)

And that’s how it will go. David Hardy and John Lott weigh in on ABC’s reporting of active shooters.

A play by play of the 60 minutes piece here.

Any way, despite the assault, they’er not getting traction. Newsweek bemoan(ing) the fact that the Dems are terrified of gun control. And Obama supposedly throwing in the towel on gun control.

Expect more.

20/20 feels the need to go undercover to engage in lawful commerce. Seems they sent a reporter to a gun show with money. And he could exchange that money for goods. It’s like there was capitalism going on or something. And, gasp, it was lawful.

Seems the guy bought ten guns in an hour with $5K. A good start, no doubt.

Heh: I bought 12 cans of beer in 30 seconds, what the big deal?

The Yankee: What I really want to know from ABC’s Kates is just how much a massacre is supposed to cost.

Speaking of those bias polls, CNN did one too. Also concludes support for gun control is down.

Ok, we’ve gone from blaming guns, to NRA, to conservative radio, to 911 operators, to the economy. Now, ammo. If only ammunition was more expensive, people wouldn’t be committing these mass shootings:

The man who gunned down 13 people at an upstate New York immigration center fired 98 shots from two handguns in a little more than a minute, police said Wednesday, a gunslinging feat one expert said would make him a “new Rambo.”

Gun control advocates said if a man who complained about not getting enough in unemployment benefits could afford enough ammunition to repeatedly practice shooting and go into his killing zone with a satchel of bullets around his neck, new ways are needed to stem gun violence, including raising the price of ammunition.

Ballistics reports showed Jiverly Wong fired 87 times from a 9mm Beretta and 11 times from a .45-caliber handgun. If he bought the ammunition online, he could have paid as little as $40 for the rounds he fired.

Has the AP paid attention to the ammo price situation? Why, yes, they have.

ACK has an article in The Nashville City Paper about TN Gubernatorial Candidate Bill Haslam leaving Mayors Against Guns:

Haslam has had plenty of opportunities, had the group truly offended his sensibilities on guns, to withdraw from the group before now.

He neglected to do so.

Therefore, it is not a stretch to imagine that had Mayor Haslam not announced his intention to seek the office of Governor he would still be a member of the group today.

So, what Haslam did here may very well be pandering but, in the end, it had to be done.

I still say good for the mayor for leaving the group. But I find a few things interesting. I’m the person who first mentioned Haslam’s membership in the group back in 2006. Back then, not a single newspaper or media outlet in TN covered it. Now, after it’s concluded, the press is covering the issue. I question the timing.

First, this uptick in violence was blamed on guns. Then the NRA. Then right wing radio. Then a 911 operator. Now, it’s the economy.

Yesterday, I mentioned the bit by Deb. It was, of course, complete wrong and probably fabricated out of whole cloth. I mean, the press can’t speak factually about guns or gun laws or that would be editorializing. Making stuff up, though, that’s just good journalism. Any way, some others chime in on Debbie:

Jennifer: Yep, they were all legally entitled to waltz into a gun free zone and start picking off the innocent and defenseless people there. I had no idea that being able to own a gun made me immune to the laws against assault and murder.

David: Ah, that’s the media I remember, with an agenda to push! The agenda here being that permit systems, even that of NY, are not functioning — because they’re just too liberal.

David: Gee, a bit of manipulative wordsmithing going on there, eh MSNBC?

It’s kinda funny how the press pushes this gun owners are paranoid mantra but the same press consistently cannot report the issue even close to accurately.

Astroturf organization says gun violence costs Chicago $2.5B per year. A Joyce Foundation funded study saying that gun violence costs all that money where guns are banned.