The Ek’s Files

I’m shocked and amazed. The liberal media (well, one person, anyway) has spoken out against gun control.

John Stossel, an ABC News correspondent and co-anchor of ABC’s 20/20, wrote in the Appeal-Democrat that people still die in a ‘gunless utopia’, and that we shouldn’t confuse gun control for crime control. Stossel cites studies that show that various gun laws around the country have completely failed to dent the gun crime rate, and points out that violent crime has actually risen since Washington, DC completely banned handgun ownership. To John Stossel I say, “Bravo!”

John goes on to point out the obvious–that gun laws are only obeyed by law-abiding citizens. And those law-abiding citizens are therefore put at a disadvantage to criminals who have no regard for those laws. There are many reasons why gun control laws should never have been enacted. First, they’re unenforceable. That’s demonstrated every day by the fact that criminals continue to use guns to commit crimes. The police will never be able to take guns out of the hands of those criminals, no matter how many stupid gun laws are passed.

Second, the right of self-defense is universally considered to be a fundamental human right, even more fundamental than those rights enumerated in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. And in a world where criminals have guns, a citizen concerned with his or her own safety may want one, too. Citizens also cannot rely on the police to prevent crimes. As much as I respect our police forces, violent crimes still occur every day, and there’s no way that the police can change that. After all, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

But fundamentally, our founding fathers chose to protect the right to own guns in the Bill of Rights. They certainly did this so that citizens could be formed into an armed militia and would possess both the arms and the necessary know-how. But the founding fathers also believed that power should rest ultimately with the people themselves, and not with the government, and they chose to ensure that the people would always have the means to rise up against tyrannical government. It was Jefferson that said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Not that I’m advocating bloodshed, but Jefferson made the point that it is the government that should be fearful of the people, and not the other way around. It seems unthinkable here in America, but armed revolution occurs with alarming frequency in other parts of the world. The founding fathers wanted to ensure that the people could never be disarmed.

Now, the only thing remaining for me is to reconcile this pro-gun stance with my opinions of liberal media. Those who know me would tell you that I intensely distrust the news media. News stories are rarely presented from a neutral viewpoint, and they are chosen not for their importance to the people but rather for their ratings power. Truth takes a back seat in most news stories. And frankly, how often do the reporters actually get the facts right? In most cases where I’ve had first-hand knowledge of an event that was reported in the news, the reporting contained factual errors. It’s especially bad when the report concerns technical issues. So I don’t watch shows like 60 Minutes, 20/20, or Dateline. I read the newspaper and watch the evening news, but I look at everything with a critical eye.

So thanks, John Stossel, for putting my opinion of liberal media on its ear. I think I’ll just write this one off as an anomaly, though–at least until Mika Brzezinski goes pro-gun.