We on this side of the firearm debate tend to argue that more guns are a good thing. We figure that if more people are armed, more people can defend themselves from criminals that remain undeterred by restrictions on firearm ownership.
It’s pretty straightforward.
However, most in the media don’t see it that way. The Associated Press doesn’t, apparently. That’s obvious from a story from over the weekend lamenting more guns on American streets.
As Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted in two killings that he said were self-defense, armed civilians patrolled the streets near the Wisconsin courthouse with guns in plain view.
In Georgia, testimony in the trial of Ahmaud Arbery’s killers showed that armed patrols were commonplace in the neighborhood where Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man, was chased down by three white men and shot.
The two proceedings sent startling new signals about the boundaries of self-defense as more guns emerge from homes amid political and racial tensions and the advance of laws that ease permitting requirements and expand the allowable use of force.
Across much of the nation, it has become increasingly acceptable for Americans to walk the streets with firearms, either carried openly or legally concealed. In places that still forbid such behavior, prohibitions on possessing guns in public could soon change if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a New York law.
Again, they say this like it’s a bad thing.
Unsurprisingly, they decided to find a Fudd to bolster their arguments, too.
Ryan Busse, a former firearms-industry executive who now supports moderate gun control as an author and consultant, said the case reinforced the normalization of military-style weapons on city and suburban streets.
“Reasonable gun owners are freaked out by this,” he said. “How is it that we see this and people are just like, ‘There’s a guy with an AR-15.’ That happens in third-world countries.”
No, it doesn’t.
These are private citizens who are exercising a right that simply doesn’t exist in those third-world countries. You may see people walking around with guns in those nations, but they’re not private citizens complying with the law. They’re either part of some government-sanctioned paramilitary group or they’re part of some criminal organization.
Almost all of those countries, however, have strict gun control laws that keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding private citizens.
Which is precisely the kind of thing people like Busse want to happen here, apparently.
Busse added:
“There’s a facet of Wisconsin law that allows kids to take their hunting rifle out with their dad or uncle,” Busse said. “Well he’s not hunting. … The old gun culture is being used to cover up for this new, dangerous firearms culture.”
By “the old gun culture,” what he means are those who were fine with gun control so long as it didn’t interfere with their pastime and screw anyone who actually held to the Second Amendment.
Yet what’s interesting is that the supposedly unbiased AP doesn’t include a single quote from anyone who is actually pro-gun. The story mentions people supporting Rittenhouse or applauding the verdict, but they didn’t actually talk to anyone from any gun-rights group.
They did speak to someone who was carrying a firearm to “defend” speakers who were anti-Rittenhouse and who spoke on self-defense briefly, but he didn’t talk about the right to keep and bear arms. He didn’t address the crux of the AP’s gripes. He was framing and little else.
What we have here isn’t a news story. It’s a propaganda piece masquerading as news.
I’d say I expect better from the AP, but I really don’t. This is what we get from the American media in this day and age, then we get to hear from them how awful it is that no one trusts the news anymore. Apparently, the reason why is an absolutely mystery to them.
