Bias in the media

It really bothers me to see blatant bias and ignorance in the news. I just read this short article from reuters:

OAKLAND, California (Reuters) - An Oakland, California man killed three police officers and wounded two others on Saturday in two separate shootings that began with a traffic stop and ended with a gun battle, police said.

Lovelle Mixon, 26, was pulled over during a traffic stop in the early afternoon. Mixon, who was wanted for violating parole on a charge of assault with a deadly weapon, opened fire on two officers, one of whom later died, and fled.

Officers found the suspect later that afternoon in an apartment.

When a Special Weapons and Tactics team forced their way in, he opened fire with an assault rifle, hitting three officers, including two who died from the wounds, according to a statement by police in the San Francisco Bay area city.

Mixon was killed in the gun fight, and the officer wounded in the traffic stop is in critical condition.

(Reporting by Peter Henderson, Editing by Sandra Maler)

Ok, now some may read this and think the best thing to do would be more gun control. While it's not stated, there are many phrases that clue you into this. "Gun battle," "opened fire," "assault with a deadly weapon," "assault rifle." Now if after reading this you think there should be tighter gun laws, let's think again.

First the criminal was "violating parole on charges of assault with a deadly weapon." I don't care what state you are from, it's illegal for him to posses a gun. He shot at two police officers, do you still think at this point he cares about breaking yet another law? Do you really think he got his gun legally?

But let's not forget that he opened fire with a rifle at the Special Weapons and Tactics team. I abhor the term assault rifle because really, if you are shooting at someone, any rifle is an assault rifle. The assault weapons ban was based on meaningless components and really seemed to focus on appearance rather than some sort of increased capacity for violence. And while we're on the subject of words and phrases, let's also look at "assault with a deadly weapon." Ummm... aren't all weapons deadly? I mean I think that's part of the definition of weapon. But it sounds so much more horrific than just assault with a weapon.

So how are more gun laws going to affect people like this man from getting guns? There not, just look at prohibition and the war on drugs. People still get drugs despite them being completely illegal. If something has value to someone, they will find a way to get it. In the case of guns, I really think the best defense is to arm as many "good guys" as possible. Then maybe the bad guys will think twice before using a gun for evil.

Gun Free Zones

Are "gun free zones" really safe? This article has some food for thought and finally got me to start blogging again. I've been thinking about this issue for a little while now and have some thoughts on it. It doesn't matter if you read the article first or read my comments below first, they are related but not dependent on one another.

A number of states have concealed carry permits (often abreviated CCW) available to law-abiding citizens. There are different requirements and it varies by state to state but some form of concealed carry is currently available in about 48 states. (As of Feb 2008 according to wikipedia) Vermont and Alaska don't even require a permit, any non-felon can legally carry a concealed firearm.

But what about the shootings in the street? Complete mayhem I tell you... Some opponents of CCW tell you that there will be more violence than before but that hasn't been the case. One reason is that if you mis-use your firearm in any way, you can have your CCW taken away. And let's face it, those who are going to follow the law (by getting their CCW to carry in the first place) are more than likely going to continue following the law by not using it in an illegal manner. Those that ignore the law anyway (by carrying without a CCW) are the ones you really have to worry about.

Imagine how different Columbine or Virginia Tech would be if one teacher had a concealed firearm. Or, since Virginia Tech is a college with students eligible for CCW, one student who could have stopped the mentally ill students who felt the need to go on a killing spree. In fact at Virginia Tech, there were students who had their CCW but were not allowed to take their weapons on campus.

I'm not saying everyone should be armed, there are people out there who are mentally unstable who if they had a firearm would most certainly be a danger to themselves and others. There are also criminal types who are going to ignore the laws anyway and then there are those who are just uncomfortable with the idea of having a gun. That's fine, I can completely understand, firearms are not to be treated lightly. In the wrong hands they can be very dangerous and if you are uncomfortable handling one, I don't think you should be forced to. On the flip side, if I am comfortable in carrying a firearm to protect myself and my family, I should be able to.

But don't take my word for it, go out and do your own research. There is a lot of information on this from both sides of the argument. Keep in mind that a lot of studies (from both sides) have certain agendas they are trying to push. Look at the studies, look at the stats and come up with your own opinion.