Gun rights in the news

I have two stories today.  The stories themselves are related only by the fact that they are gun related stories.

First up is a story at the American Thinker entitled There's A Very Good Reason The Media Is Silent About The Milwaukee Mass Shooting by Andrea Widburg. So you don't have to read the whole post, I'll give you a hint: the shooter doesn't fit the narrative.

On Wednesday, an angry ex-employee got a gun, put a silencer on it, went to the MillersCoors facility where he had once worked, and shot five people to death before shooting himself. One would expect to have a barrage of news stories about America's gun violence problem and the need to ban guns. After all, on Tuesday, before the shooting happened, the Democrat candidates were all over each other trying to explain why each would be more effective at destroying the Second Amendment. Instead, we got crickets.

The reason for the media's silence became apparent when the media identified the shooter: 51-year-old Anthony Ferrill was black. This meant that the media couldn't use its white supremacist narrative to justify grabbing guns.

The narrative broke down even further when social media posts revealed that Ferrill may well have been an Elizabeth Warren–supporter, an assumption arising from the fact that his wife proudly posted a selfie last year at an Elizabeth Warren rally

Oh, well, of course, so we'll just bury this one, shall we?

When we complain about the media's leftist bias, it is this sort of thing that is often the source or our charge.  It's not that they slant the news they report, which they often do, but how often news that doesn't fit the so called "narrative" is ignored.  Then, to make matters worse, when a columnist jumps on the gun control bandwagon, he often reports that good guys with guns don't stop the crimes. or that all shooters are somehow white skinheads.

Next up is a story from Townhall.com by Matt Vespa entitled The Debate Is Over Concerning This Part of the Second Amendment?:

The Left has long lost this debate, but they keep trying to relitigate it on the campaign stump. The Second Amendment grants the individual right to keep and bear arms. That was the landmark D.C. vs. Heller decision, though it applied only to federal enclaves. The McDonald v. Chicago decision extended this right to the states proper. But the Left is obsessed with the militia portion of the amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

The Left never admits defeat. They just don't have the right messaging, or something. In any case, what they are doing is not debating, but instead spouting talking points and hurling insults. The debate has raged since before I was born, but intensified in the 1960s. It seemed that the Left had won with the Gun Control Act of 1968. But there followed a number of scholarly works by familiar names such as Alan Korwin, David Koppel, David Hardy, of course David Codrea and Mike Vanderboeg, as well as John Lott and Gary Kleck. There were others of course. These scholars found that what many believed to be true was actually so, namely that guns were used many more times for defensive purposes than were used in crime. That criminal use of guns, far from being an epidemic, was concentrated in a few urban centers. In fact, if we take these major urban centers out of the statisics, America is a pretty safe place.

Please read both articles, which are short.  Got to get going now.  Bye!