CBS Devotes More Time to Those Opposing New Gun Rights Law Than Supporters

  • Bookmark and Share

Tuesday's CBS Evening News gave attention to a proposed new gun law that would strengthen the right of gun owners who hold a concealed weapon permit to carry a weapon across state lines into states with more restrictive gun laws than where the permit was obtained. As he presented arguments both for and against passage of the law, while Orr presented two soundbites opposing the law and only one from a supporter of the law, the report also devoted twice as much time – 35 seconds versus 17 seconds – to the anti-gun arguments opposing the law compared to pro-gun arguments supporting it.

Orr began his report by relaying that supporters of the new law "call it a crime fighting tool," and by showing a clip of Republican Senator John Thune arguing that potential hate crimes victims could protect themselves more effectively if the law were passed.

The CBS correspondent then touted the views of "450 U.S. mayors who signed this full-page ad in USA Today," and showed two soundbites opposing the law -- one from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the other from Democratic Senator Charles Schumer -- as both argued that the new law would increase crime:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

BOB ORR: But opponents, including 450 U.S. mayors who signed this full-page ad in USA Today, say the bill, if passed, will put police and citizens in greater danger.

MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (I-NEW YORK CITY): This is about as anti-police, pro-gun trafficker piece of legislation that has ever come before the United States Senate.

ORR: And opponents note the timing is terrible. Violent crime is plunging, with big city murders nearing 30-year lows.

SENATOR CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY): It could reverse the dramatic success we've had in reducing crime in most parts of America.

Despite the mountains of evidence that higher rates of gun ownership lead to less crime while excessively restrictive gun laws can increase crime rates, Orr did not take time to cite any such supporting statistics for the argument that the law would help people protect themselves. Statistics were also ignored showing that those who take the time to apply for concealed carry permits are much less likely to ever commit crimes with firearms than criminals who simply ignore gun laws and carry their weapons anyway.

And as Orr passed on the anti-gun argument that the timing is "terrible" because crime rates have dropped to historic lows, the CBS correspondent seemed to accept the assertion as fact as he used the word "note" while relaying that "opponents note the timing is terrible," rather than using a word like "argue" or "claim," which would have acknowledged the possibility that the argument may be incorrect.

But when Orr later passed on the NRA’s pro-self defense argument, the CBS correspondent used the word "argues." Orr: "But the National Rifle Association argues the right of self-defense should not stop at the state line, a point that resonates with conservatives and Democrats from pro-gun states." But on the bright side, Orr did at least acknowledge that even some Democrats are pro-gun.

By contrast, in June 2007, when a new gun control law was passed in response to the Virginia Tech massacre, Couric blatantly touted passage of the new law, without any attention to the argument that the law may have little practical effect, and even interviewed gun control advocate Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign. Katie Couric began the June 13, 2007, CBS Evening News:

Hello, everyone. Congress is trying to prevent another Virginia Tech. The House voted today to close the loophole that allowed Seung-Hui Cho to buy the guns he used in the April massacre despite his history of mental illness. It's the first major new gun control legislation in more than a decade and it has the backing of the NRA. House passage came on the day a federal report was released on the Virginia Tech shootings. Among the key findings: Information states have about people prohibited from buying guns is not making it into the national registry. That's exactly what this new law addresses. So we'll begin on Capitol Hill with Sharyl Attkisson.

Below is a complete transcript of the story from the Tuesday, June 21, CBS Evening News:

KATIE COURIC: Here in Washington, you'd be hard pressed to find an issue that generates as much emotion as gun control. Tomorrow, Bob Orr tells us the Senate votes on an amendment that would mean big changes for gun owners.

BOB ORR: The pro-gun amendment, tacked on to a critical defense funding bill, would allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons across state lines. Sponsors call it a crime fighting tool.

SENATOR JOHN THUNE (R-SD): One of the best ways to help prevent hate crimes against potential victims of hate crimes is to allow them to defend themselves.

ORR: But opponents, including 450 U.S. mayors who signed this full-page ad in USA Today, say the bill, if passed, will put police and citizens in greater danger.

MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (I-NEW YORK CITY): This is about as anti-police, pro-gun trafficker piece of legislation that has ever come before the United States Senate.

ORR: And opponents note the timing is terrible. Violent crime is plunging, with big city murders nearing 30-year lows.

SENATOR CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY): It could reverse the dramatic success we've had in reducing crime in most parts of America.

ORR: Under the new law, gun buyers could obtain permits in states with weak regulations and then carry the weapons unchecked virtually anywhere. But the National Rifle Association argues the right of self-defense should not stop at the state line, a point that resonates with conservatives and Democrats from pro-gun states. Opponents are still trying to find a way to kill the gun measure without putting defense funding in jeopardy. But Harry Reid, the Senate's top Democrat, says he'll vote to approve it when the roll is called tomorrow. Bob Orr, CBS News, Washington.

—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yes, such a law would make

Yes, such a law would make it too convenient for citizens to drive across a state border without having to have Googled ahead of time whether or not State X will honor your state's concealed permit.

I'm all for state's rights as long as it doesn't interfere with the Bill of Rights of the Constitution in particular.

How about just allowing all citizens plain old, open carry wherever in public?  It would give ne'er-do-wells second thoughts about doing stuff if they could plainly see a lot of armed people around them...and wonder about the others who might have concealed weapons whose weapons they can't see.

I also think having to have a permit for a concealed weapon is bull.  A thug with a concealed weapon and no permit is astronomically more dangerous than a law-abiding citizen that has one.  These permits don't stop crime at all.  Just being armed in public should not be a crime.  I'm not even that concerned if crooks have them unless they've been convicted of a violent crime and are on parole.

Oh, and use a few billion of this "stimulus money" to build more prisons and hire more guards-haven't heard jack about doing this.

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).

Where do they grow these people???

MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (I-NEW YORK CITY): This is about as anti-police, pro-gun trafficker piece of legislation that has ever come before the United States Senate.        Yes Mr Mayor, because it's the people that passed background checks that are traffing the guns.

SENATOR CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY): It could reverse the dramatic success we've had in reducing crime in most parts of America.     Oh your so right Chucky, freeing up the restrictions on the good guys will most likely cause the downward spiral of the country.

 

Sometimes funny in spite of himself, but always an idiot

SENATOR CHARLES “THE MOUTH” SCHUMER (D-NY): It could reverse the dramatic success we've had in reducing crime in most parts of America

LOL! Yeah, chucklehead, like DC where you live ... in an essentially gated community! 

- Relying upon the MSM for your information is like relying upon an embezzler to manage your portfolio.

Dissent

The ability to oppose the will of the lord, thy god, barack, must be stopped. Such blasphemy shall not be permitted. Salam Aleikam. Sark off.

It's all about making the government supreme over the people

If people are not able to keep and bear arms, then the government is in a more powerful position and can more easily oppress the population (or certain segments). The crime aspect and the self-deffense aspect is purely secondary.

P.S. Senator Schumer...you might want to check your facts before pulling a "Biden" again. The areas that allow concealed carry of weapons have lower crime rates than those that try and heavily restrict or even ban personal weapons.

Throw 'da bums out!

no one re-elected who voted for socialism or debt

www.loyaltoliberty.com

The old adage

There is an old saying: "I carry a gun, becuase a cop won't fit on my hip."

You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?

Got to love them Dems. They

Got to love them Dems. They say that having someone who has passed the background checks taken the classes and passed the shoot text as someone that is going to increase the crime rate. How do ya get that I have no clue. They must believe in lies to justify there existence. Let’s try the facts, not overblown over heated lies. People who have a permit to carry a concealed weapon (I am one) are not out committing crimes. They are a deterrent. Don’t think so then try this on for size. Albuquerque New Mexico is registering as many permits as it can. Why?? Crime here is out of control. The crime is not being carried out buy permit holders it is gangs that have invaded the USA from our southern border. We have had 3 shootings by permit holders in the last year. Everyone of them was justified and none of them even made it to the grand jury. 3 shootings 3 dead gang bangers. Dem’s can’t have an armed citizen defending themselves. That would make them independent of a government program. Can’t have that.

Missing the point...

Shall not be infringed.

in·fringe play_w2("I0136400") (n-frnj)

v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

v.tr.

1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.

2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

v.intr.

To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

This is the federal government overstepping its mandate once again.  It has NO business even visiting this issue.  None.  Zero.  Zip.  Nadda. 

You don't understand how

You don't understand how the MSM works. If they present both sides of the story, that's fairness. It doesn't matter if one side gets 2.4 minutes and the other 2.4 seconds.

And when the MSM doesn't present both sides, it's because they're smarter than we are and know what not to include:

“I don’t think fairness means that you give equal time to every point of view no matter how marginal. You weigh the sides, you do some truth-testing, you apply judgment to them.” (Bill Keller, New York Times executive editor)

            The

            The govt. won't close up the traffic across the border. The govt. allows gangs to do as they please. Now, if I'm not mistaken, they want to take guns away from the citizens. Why not take out the gangs & close the borders, then talk to US about "gun control". WE won't have it, but WE will talk about it.

They keep ignoring the Constitution.

Why do so many public officials, like the 450 Mayors noted in the article, keep ignoring the Constitution?  Do they believe that the Constitution is the highest law in the land, or not?

The first part of my signature line says it all.   The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.  This means that things like gun permits (a license) must be honored in EVERY state, city, and municipality in the US, just like they do with driving and marriage licenses, no matter where they are issued. 

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court

FYI: 

That's OK. I already carry a firearm anywhere, anytime.

Gun control laws are invalid under the Second Amendment, as reaffirmed by SCOTUS in Heller.

Therefore I am not constrained by any restrictions on concealed carry by any State.

Let Congress play their games.

I'm going to reserve the right to protect myself and my wife whatever they decide.

Nationalized Healthcare is a DEATH SENTENCE.

I have just about had it with the pro-criminal left

And that is exactly what they are.

-Dave

Just exactly who is Barack Hussein Obama?

My Old KY Home

This is why I will never move out of KY.  We have open carry, concealed carry (CCDW) permits which are not hard to obtain as long as you pass the test and the range evealuation, and a State Consititution that outlaws restriction of carry and ownership.  Nor why I will ever go to NY, CA or DC since they will not allow me to protect myself. 

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security."

I Wish I Was Registered For A Gun Permit When I Was Mugged...

Last week, I had saved up enoguh money to upgrade to a new laptop computer. I went to the Best Buy by bus, bought the computer, and took it home with me by bus. It never occurred to me that someone would try to rob me on the bus since I had taken it numerous times for the last six years. Yet, all of sudden, some black kid tapped me on the shoulder, I turned toward him, nad he went yoink and stole the computer next to me on ther bus. I ran after him and yelled every obsceneity and epithet I could muster and to no avail. I asked people who were standing in his way where he went and they pointed north, yet they didn't do anything to help stop him.

If I had a gun permit to carry a concealed weapon (I suppose a skeet shooter would have sufficed), I could have aimed at the perp's foot and disable him from running any further. I'm sure that's legal since it's in self-defense, am I right? I mean I would have to stay next to him, contact the police and an ambulance to take care of his injury, but isn't that what I should have done? As long as I was not aiming to kill but to disable his mobility, that's perfectly legal, right?

Then again, maybe not, but I can dream, can't I? I guess I'll justhave to stick with the police detectives for now.

Hate to break the news to you...

...but you can't shoot a fleeing kid in the back for theft.

'Deadly Force' is a 'science' and an 'art' at the same time. It's a subject for a hundred books, a thousand gunwriter columns, and ten thousand court cases.

Using deadly force is a lot like running across a minefield.

Depending on where you are, who you are, what you own and even the political persuasion of the media and/or district attorney, a justifiable use of deadly force may be treated as a routine matter or twisted into the vicious act of a vigilante who 'cut down' a 'troubled young man' (who just happened to be waving an eight inch knife as he demanded your 'motherf*cking' wallet).

I'd strongly recommend that anyone seriously considering carrying a firearm or any other deadly weapon read every single book by noted defense attorney, gunwriter and police
officer Massad Ayoob.

In my view, Ayoob is the number one source for the rules, laws, philosophy and many, many cases of deadly force use gone right and gone wrong, based on what happens before, during and especially after a shooting.

Nationalized Healthcare is a DEATH SENTENCE.

→ Sticks RU serious?

For your sake I'm glad you didn't have a firearm, or you'd likely be spending some time in prison.  Ignorance of the law and such.

I don't know of any States that allow a private citizen (or a cop for that matter) to shoot a fleeing thief.

But if you had taken a concealed carry class, you'd have learned a couple of things.

Don't draw your weapon unless you intend to use it

If somebody is fleeing, you're not considered to be in a position of self defense.

Tempting as it may seem, you'd have a tough time with a jury when the star witness against you is missing a foot.

Lie

 7sicks made up the entire story. His only source of income was from his mom's crack dealing. And she died in prison.

 He could not save up enough money to buy a Menudo CD right now.