Flagrant Foul

Some types of bias are so flagrant that most reporters have learned to avoid them, but Scott Wong seems to have gone completely over the edge concerning gun bills.  Here's a classic example of bias that any intern would be smart enough to avoid. 

To get her gun bill through the first legislative skirmish, state Sen. Karen Johnson needed to scratch language that would have let people carry concealed weapons on public K-12 campuses in Arizona.

Now, the Mesa Republican says she will have to give up more ground in the battle over her divisive proposal if it has any chance of surviving in the state Legislature.

Divisive?  Johnson's bill is "divisive."  Wong may not like it, it may be controversial, but describing it as "divisive" is simply an amateur mistake that means the reporter doesn't like it. 

Comments

[SonoranSam]

I think "divisive" would apply to a bill that is opposed by R and D legislators, and faces significant opposition within Sen. Johnson's own caucus.

Given that definition, I think the description is apt.

[Longtime fan]

Gee, isn't the legislature itself "divided" into a House and a Senate? That makes the constitution itself "divisive." But that's not what the reporter is saying. He's using the term pejoratively, like saying Sen Johnson is "not cool" for generating some discussion about a life and death issue.

[blackbird03]

Come on! Divisive? The State provides an effective process for obtaining a CCW permit. It has for some time. I happen to have one. Why do I need to go home and stow my weapon before I drive through the university campus or onto the indian reservation to shop or on to a school campus to pick up my child. They need to fix the statute to clarify these things. The Republic is just a mouthpiece for all the anti-gun crowd who wants to render the CCW program impractical and useless.

[SonoranSam]

blackbird:

Let me run a scenario by you.

You're a police officer called out to respond to reports of shots in a classroom.

You enter the classroom in question and see two people holding guns and trading shots. As you come into the room, both turn toward you, weapons in hand.

What do you do? Who's the shooter? Who's the "good citizen" trying to stop the bad guy?

How do you know? What do you do?

This is why some of us think that law enforcement must be left in the hands of professionals.

And, back to the point of the moment, this is why Sen. Johnson's proposal HAS divided the Legislature, with people from both parties lining up on different sides of the issue.

[Matt]

I am not an expert on the state legislature although I have voted for the odd member now and again. Don't legislators from both parties normally line up on both sides of an issue? Isn't that their job?

Schools are public property. State law generally prohibits banning of weapons from public property. Schools should be no different. "It's a safety" issue is crap since more and more campuses are arming their officers when ALL the students/faculty are unarmed. If the unarmed schools are so totally safe, how come campus police have to be armed?

When was the last time the police in your area showed up in the middle of a shootout? Assuming it wasn't aimed at them? In my city they always manage to show up after it is over, collect shell-casings, statements and tsk-tsk over the damage.

[Les]

Sonoran Sam,

Your scenario is bogus. The shooting has stopped by the time the cops show up.

If we entertain your scenario for a minute though, I would conclude that a classroom full of living kids with two armed men and an officer that is put in a bad situation of decision making is better than a schoolroom full of dead kids and one bad guy holding a gun that kills the officer as he walks through the door. In your scenario the armed individual saved the lives of the kids and possibly the officer.

By the way that uniformed officer wouldn't know the difference if it were an armed citizen or an undercover fellow officer holding the gun. So should off duty officers not be able to carry because a uniformed officer can't tell the difference?

When seconds count the Police are only minutes away. This is reality!

[Longtime fan]

I am disappointed in Sonoran Sam. What a joke of a scenario. And that's not the purpose of self-defense with a deadly weapon anyway. I carry to protect me, not a room full of people. If that WERE my job, I'd be better prepared. Yeah, we all know about the rare, but violent stuff in the classroom. If you have ever been on the Tempe campus at ASU, at night, and outside, you'd probably like to have some tools handy in the event you need them.

People carrying guns on campus aren't likely to prevent the VA tech massacre or something like Columbine. Were I to hear shots from my seat in the classroom, I probably wouldn't exactly go out in the hall and chase down a guy with an AK-47 while armed with a 6-shot pistol, not matter how loud the screams. I am not a professional hero My gun is there to protect me, not anyone else. Think it through. Exactly what crime are YOU most likely to be a victim of, and how do YOU prepare to prevent it?

[benson]

Have you had the opportunity to see Wong on Horizon during Friday's Journalist Roundtable? Wow - he was bad.
In my humble opinion, law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry firearms anywhere (except airplanes because of the tight
quarters).
After the stabbing incident at Mesa's Fiesta Mall I was waiting for the debate on knife control. How can we allow a mentally ill person to walk into a store and purchase a deadly weapon and walk out and kill people! Shouldn't we require knife stores to check with a federal database? A 24 hour wait before someone can purchase a knife? It would have been even more horrible if - God forbid - one of the victims or shoppers had a firearm and tried to ward off the attack.
Come on. Where is the outcry for tighter knife control laws?

[keithjonesblog]

That whole thing about the constitution and the right to bear arms.

Those founding fathers.

So divisive!