Indianapolis Star: “Young people might become violent criminals only because of easy access to deadly weapons”

U.S. gun rights advocates are ascendent. While this summer’s Supreme Court ruling incorporating the Second Amendment didn’t settle the question—“reasonable restrictions” this you rat-fink robed reprobates–the Tea Party-strengthened regulatory roll-back continues. Needless to say, this does not please the media gatekeepers. Once upon a time, this predominantly white college-educated liberal elite could say “Shutupayouface” to gun rights readers, knowing their newspaper (remember newspapers?) was the only game in town. With the advent of the internet, mainstream media mavens have to respect their readers’ opinions. The resulting tension—between what the writers “know” to be right and the groundswell of opinion against that presumption—makes for some unintentional hilarity. To wit this from indystar.com:

The man who loves to sell guns says it’s Indiana law we ought to hate, and he has a point.

That would not be to exonerate Don Davis for making it to the number three spot in the nation for sales of firearms that are later used in crimes — no fewer than 1,910 guns in the past four years.

But there’s no question state law bears some blame for the heavy role Don’s Guns plays in so-called straw purchases — made by customers with clean records who resell them on the street. In Indiana, there’s no limit on the number of guns anyone can buy at a time.

This particular strain of media misegos arose after the Washington Post launched its series The Secret Life of Guns, naming and not-at-all shaming gun dealers with a large number of ATF traces.

Local papers saw the misleading data (many of the ATF “trace guns” were not tied to gun crimes) as a news peg, a chance to punch their “we care about crime” liberal ticket by going after their hometown gun dealer. That’s an idea that sounds great over a soy mocha half caf frappucino in the editorial board room, but doesn’t please people who really like their local gun dealer. Which, in most cases, would be all of the dealer’s customers.

So the Indianapolis Star’s editorial board blames Don’s Guns for its spot on the misleading gun trace hit parade. But not really. But a little. It gets worse.

Citing his success and his multimillionaire status, Davis makes no apologies for his lofty ranking in a recent Washington Post survey, which follows a gun-control organization’s study from the 1990s that placed him second in the country. “The problem is with Indiana law,” he told The Star’s John Tuohy. “Once people leave here, they can sell to anyone they want.”

That’s true enough. What is contested by gun-control advocates — and by some academic experts and law enforcement officials — is his contention that straw purchasers don’t bring their illegitimate cohorts into the store but instead come in alone and then resell their guns out in the world where he can’t detect them.

Sorry guys, you lost me. First, no, a person who buys a firearm at Don’s Guns can leave the store and sell it to anyone he or she wants. It is illegal, for example, to sell or even give a gun to a felon. Deflect all you want big guy (if Don did indeed duck and dive using this argument), but methinks Don knows that. As should the editorialist. True enough my tuchus.

As for the “debate” over whether or not straw purchasers bring their illegitimate cohorts into a gun store, that’s a new one on me. Has anyone ever suggested doing a criminal background check on people walking into a gun store? Is there any state where felons are prohibited from darkening the dealer’s door? It gets worse.

It’s extremely difficult to catch stores abetting straw purchases in any case, an expert told The Star. And the argument would be less relevant if Indiana restricted quantities sold at one time.

To do so would not violate Second Amendment rights to possess firearms for hunting and self-defense. It would discourage the flow of guns into the hands of criminals and of young people who might become violent criminals only because of easy access to deadly weapons.

Whenever the press cites “an expert” you know they’re making shit up. In this case, they’re making shit up and diving down the rabbit hole. Young people become violent criminals ONLY because of easy access to deadly weapons?

He was a good boy. A hard-working student and model citizen. He never touched alcohol or drugs. Helped out at the church. And then . . . someone offered him a gun. Is it me or does that seriously screwy scenario smack of both condescension and racism? Never mind. The paper has some more suggestions for ameliorating Don’s ill-gotten gains.

So would background checks for buyers from private dealers at gun shows, now not required. So would waiting periods for rifles, shotguns and most assault-style weapons, also not a state mandate.

“I don’t want to make any money, folks; I just love to sell guns,” Davis says in TV commercials that have made him nationally known. He has, in fact, made a lot of money in a business that has exacted a great cost. Would it hurt to make his home state a bit less lovable?

Personally, I don’t think anyone on the Indianapolis Star’s editorial board should be able to purchase or own a firearm. They are patently, willfully insane. I dealt with the unconstitutionality of the waiting period problem yesterday. Suffice it to say, any writer who asks readers to help make their state less lovable, even metaphorically, is on a hiding to nowhere. Thank God.