Ignoring McCain and White House, LA Times claimed gun rights advocates "generally kept their heads down" following VA Tech shooting
In an April 17 article headlined "Gun control debate resumes, on one side," the Los Angeles Times asserted that "Monday's deadly rampage at Virginia Tech sparked a largely one-sided response in the long-running debate over guns." The article continued: "Gun control advocates said the shootings pointed to the need for tougher laws, while supporters of gun rights generally kept their heads down." As evidence, the Times simply reported that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) "added a political note to her statement of sympathy. 'The unfortunate situation in Virginia could have been avoided if congressional leaders stood up to the gun lobby.' " But, in fact, gun rights supporters hardly "kept their heads down." In the aftermath of the mass shooting, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino, and various conservatives reiterated their belief in a "right to bear arms."
For instance, as Salon.com's Tim Grieve noted on the website's War Room weblog, according to an April 16 Associated Press report, McCain said that "the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech does not change his view that the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to carry a weapon." The AP quoted McCain as saying: "We have to look at what happened here, but it doesn't change my views on the Second Amendment, except to make sure that these kinds of weapons don't fall into the hands of bad people. ... I do believe in the constitutional right that everyone has, in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, to carry a weapon. ... Obviously we have to keep guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens."
Similarly, while the Los Angeles Times reported that President Bush "said nothing about the gun control debate," during the April 16 White House press briefing, Perino stated: "As far as policy, the President believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed. And certainly bringing a gun into a school dormitory and shooting" is illegal. She added: "[I]f there are changes to the President's policy we will let you know. But we've had a consistent policy of ensuring that the Justice Department is enforcing all of the gun laws that we have on the books and making sure that they're prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
Also, as Media Matters for America noted, on the April 16 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, host John Gibson asked: "So, theoretically, in this lecture hall where all 31 were killed, there could have been someone with a carry permit carrying their gun to shoot the shooter?" Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano replied: "No," adding, "Virginia lets you carry a gun at a gas station or a bank or a stadium, but not on a college campus, where you may protect kids."
Napolitano's and Gibson's comments echo those of right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin, who, citing a September 5, 2006, op-ed written by a Virginia Tech spokesperson, noted on her weblog that the university prohibits handguns. She then quoted a weblog post from "Andrew's Dad," who wrote: "Just imagine if students were armed. We no longer need to imag[in]e what will happen when they are not armed." Malkin also quoted an email from a reader who claimed: "Imagine if sensible CCW [Concealed Carry Weapon] laws allowed people to defend themselves, this tragedy could have been avoided."
In addition, as freelance writer Sonia Smith documented in an April 16 Slate article, several other conservative bloggers used the Virginia Tech shooting to discuss gun laws:
The conservative at Snapped Shot tells those liberals calling for gun control to simmer down, as Virginia Tech had already banned guns on campus. "In short, don't start blaming this on our 'gun culture.' I can assure you that our very liberal colleges have no such thing. This is the action of someone who's clearly got criminal intent, nothing more." Conservative Steve at Hog on Ice blames that gun ban for the high death toll: "This lunatic knew he could shoot until the police arrived. In a sane world, he would only have been able to shoot until a student or university employee produced a firearm. ... The beauty of privately owned guns is that they work while the cops are still across town," he opines.
From the April 17 Los Angeles Times article:
Monday's deadly rampage at Virginia Tech sparked a largely one-sided response in the long-running debate over guns.
Gun control advocates said the shootings pointed to the need for tougher laws, while supporters of gun rights generally kept their heads down.
And leaders of both major political parties expressed sympathy for victims and their families, while avoiding comment on gun control.
[...]
Bush, a longtime champion of the right to bear arms, said nothing about the gun control debate.
[...]
However, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y), whose husband was among six people killed by a gunman who opened fire on a Long Island Rail Road train in 1993, added a political note to her statement of sympathy. "The unfortunate situation in Virginia could have been avoided if congressional leaders stood up to the gun lobby."
Beyond politics, one reason for the restrained reactions may be the lack of firm information about what happened, including the identity of the gunman or gunmen and how the guns were obtained.
Virginia's gun laws make it easy to buy and own firearms, including handguns, and the state often has been criticized as the source of guns used in crimes in the Washington area and other East Coast cities. But it is not known what role, if any, state laws may have played in the Blacksburg killings.
The National Rifle Assn., the nation's leading gun lobby, expressed its condolences but said, "We will not have further comment until all the facts are known."
Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, sounded an equally cautious note. "I can't say how this will play into the debate until we know how old the shooter was and how he got his guns."
i think the la times was referring to ACTIVISTS in general. plus msnbc has ALREADY been parading advocates for gun control AND advocates for concealed weapons being allowed on campus, so both sides are guilty here.
see what i mean? mmfa(g) takes themselves so seriously and make these STUPID posts that are FALSE and MISLEADING.
plus a lot of misinformation in the media comes from sloppy fact checking, not from some big con-spiracy
idiots.
Shame on anyone who uses this tragedy in it's still bleeding infancy to push any political agenda. The corpses are barely cold.
Fox News and Limbaugh favorite Debbie Schlussel...
It took her less than 4 hours.
Ah! Another one!
Young-Earth creationist, Ken Ham:
Apparently Darwin is to blame for the VT shootings...
They just keep coming.
Republican anti-video-game activist Jack Thompson has blamed the VT shootings on violent video games.
McCain has proved himself nearly beyond description! Almost before the smoke had cleared he was out there pandering to the gun nuts! Here is something I'd like McCain to answer: why did you wait so long? Why not immediately call a news conference AS the bullets were flying to proudly proclaim Cho Seung Hui's "right" to buy guns?!?! Or would that have seemed too premature? And for ANYBODY to say the murderous rampage would never have occured had the students been armed I answer this: ARE FRIGGING INSANE?! How safe would ANY of us be if you armed every screwed up, Holden Caufield-esque, co-ed undergrad in the country? Talk about your girls gone wild!!!
Almost before the smoke cleared, Bryan Williams stuck a microphone in the President's face and asked him what he was gonna do about guns.
Outa line and strange, considering how the Right controls the media...
Answer to that: a grand total of nothing!!!
Knowing the way the goon squad in the NRA works they will blame everyone except their promotion of the myths of self defense. The fact is that the killer was able to buy a Glock pistol, virtually no questions asked, from a gun dealer in Virginia (who moaned that he had "no idea that the gun was going to be used for this." What the Hell did he think it was going to be used for....tilling the soil to plant flowers?) The NRA's insistence on killing the assault rifle ban meant that the shooter was able to to buy a clip of 33 rounds instead of the ten that were allowed from 1994 to 2004. We are the only nation on the planet that dispenses this type of weaponry in such an irresponsible and outlandish fashion and this is why over 22,000 Americans die every year due to gun violenec and over a quarter of a million are sent to hospitals with injuries. The National Riot Association insists that guns in the home are a valid self defense mechanism. Most robberies of the home occur...THAT'S RIGHT, FOLKS...when people aren't home. Over 300,000 handguns are looted from Americans' yearly. MMFA points out the worst kept secret in the world. Until the media in this nation moves away from parroting the NRA's phoney and dangerous arguments against firearms controls we will continue to suffer in this great nation.
Can I shed some light on this Issue as a non-gun-owner.
No Government or school can stop a person on a suicide mission.
No gun-control-law can stop a determined person from getting a gun. (You honestly think the crips and bloods will stop having guns if there were laws preventing them??)
Moreover, it is hard not to notice that all the massacres similar to this took place in gun-free-zones.
Several instances like these in the last two decades, however, were prevented by people who went to their cars, got their guns and apprehended the suspect before the police arrived.
Gun-free-zones are simply "forced helplessness."
The police are citizens themselves. They want to go home at night. They can't protect everyone at all times.
But, if someone were to attack me, I should have the right to defend myself.
Now, to dispell the argument that Only trained police and Gov't officials can have guns. You really need to look at history to see that the ALL of the genocides of the last 100 years were caused by Armed Gov'ts or mobs against unarmed citizenry. (Pol Pot, Europe WWII, Kosovo, Uganda, etc.)
Pol Pot told his people that they didn't need guns, b/c the gov't was going to protect them. Then the next month, after taking away all guns, he massacred hundreds of thousands of people.
The holocaust couldn't have happend if the Jews were allowed to own guns (guns were banned almost throughout Europe).
In fact, several jews in Polland were able to find weapons and stagged an insurgency. Not one of those people ever saw a gas chamber.
Rawanda - The Hutus were able to use machetees b/c the Tutsi's couldn't have guns.
Regardless of your concern about Guns, they are necessary for a free society.
No they arent. Look, you can make the argument if you wish how effective gun control laws are, or whether they are a good idea. I dont care enough to argue those points. I am not an advocate of people not having guns but the argument that guns are necessary for a free society is absurd. Is Britian free? Japan? Australia? Yes they are free societies by any reasonable standards and all of them have very strict gun control laws. That assertion simply cannot be supported in any meaningful way.
>>No gun-control-law can stop a determined person from getting a gun. (You honestly think the crips and bloods will stop having guns if there were laws preventing them??)
Why not apply that logic to drugs or abortion?
Because the right to take and sell drugs, and the right to kill a developing human being are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, as is the right to bear arms.
The right to bear arms is enumerated a lot more specifically than you imagine.
I think you need to read the 2nd Amendment again.
Uhhhh........ what?
Could we please be more clear about exactly what we're trying to say?
I was talking about the difficulty of enforcing the law, but spin away.
I think MMFA is again (probably knowingly and deceptively) operating under a false assumption here. While there are certainly some pundits proactively (and IMHO correctly) commenting on this tragedy from the perspective that it wouldn't likely have happened if the shooter wasn't sure nobody would be able to shoot back at him, I think the vast majority of pro-gun opinion being expressed is in response to a question, or a challenge to their beliefs. (for example, Brian Williams' challenge to Bush mentioned in a comment above) The White House didn't just come out and use this to stress their position on guns; their statements were in response to a question or a challenge from the press:
The NRA - the mother of all pro-gun organizations - is not even commenting.
The impression given is that all these people leapt at the chance to get on and talk about gun rights. I don't think that's a true picture, and therefore I think the general tone of the LA Times article is accurate. Gun control folks are largely taking the initiative and using the event to support their view, and gun rights folks are largely being more reserved and are commenting mostly from a defensive posture.
But if someone is bent on mass murder, there are numerous other options open to them should guns somehow become unavailable. Some of those alternatives just might make guns seem pretty darn tame.
You make a week argument when you say 'the impression given'. The CLAIM they are disputing is that gun advocates kept their heads down and MMFA is disputing that with examples that arent really advocates keeping their heads down. MMFA is not responsible for whatever IMPRESSIONS you get from what they said. I find the argument that people can FIND ways to kill mass amounts of people without guns I think is also weak. How much EASIER is it because of the easy availability of guns? How many of these mass killings are either impulse killings or done by people so disturbed the much more rigorous planning it would take to do it another way would preclude it from happening? I am not advocating that people shouldnt have guns but lets be honest about the price we pay FOR that freedom.
No, in fact I find MM's "argument" to be weak. In fact, as I read further, it's evident that the other prime example MM uses, John McCain, also made his comments in response to a question:
Now, I guess if McCain and the White House had proactively come out and used the event to make a statement about how the "no gun zone" on the campus was key to the shooter having confidence he wouldn't be stopped, and the LA Times had still said they were "keeping their heads down", then MM would have a very valid point about misreporting. But if these people hadn't been asked questions about it, they probably wouldn't have said anything, beyond expressing sympathy and support. This fits well with how the Times described the pro-gun side's response.
You'll notice that MM doesn't make that little detail - about the comments being in response to a question - known in their article. They don't highlight the fact that the NRA is not commenting, except to lower down reproduce the Times article saying it. I think these are important distinctions, which add much to the context. To their credit, MM does provide links that allow you to find these things out.
For someone purportedly trying to "set the record straight", MM is not being straight with their readers here. In fact, they're attempting to falsely characterize, by omission, the response of the pro-gun side to this tragic event.
Were the Democrats going to ask Jim Webb Virginia Senator packing heat about this same gun control?
A couple questions for everyone here.
Who here today believes the victims in the VA Tech shootings are better off today because of the school's no-guns policy?
Who here is comforted by the demonstration of the police's ability to protect you in a situation like this.
I guess given the liberal's culture of helplessness, I shouldn't expect too many people here to believe that their personal safety is their OWN responsiblilty.
I guess given the liberal's culture of helplessness, I shouldn't expect too many people here to believe that their personal safety is their OWN responsiblilty.
================================================
More right-wing crap on a stick, huh?
Maybe if you and the rest of the right-wingnuts weren't so in love with guns, we could keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.