Here's my most recent effort, of several failed efforts recently to get a quality counter point in print:
Dear Ms. Lipinski:
It's hard not to notice (and catalog at the individual article level) some distinct editorializing in the hard news associated with the recent killing of Starkesia Reed. An online search at the Tribune Web site netted 11 hard news articles covering the shooting. Of those, six were fairly neutral in the "who, what, when, where, why" sense. However, four of the other five mirrored the Tribune's stated editorial position by featuring anti-"assault weapon" quotations without any rebuttal. The one that did have a rebuttal, featured three anti-AW positions against a single, weak counter position. The coverage on the opinion page is fairly balanced numerically, however there has yet to be a pro-AW position anywhere near as extensive as the spin-laden piece submitted by Ronald S. Safer on March 10, 2006.
Further, I also have yet to see any basic journalism applied to what is an important, Constitutional rights issue. The spin from Daley and Blagojevich paints a picture of: "Mass Destruction." However, where is the basic reporting to determine what direct impact these weapons have on Chicago's murder toll? Is this a accidental oversight, or is the Tribune taking an active role in debate on your news pages? The death of Starkesia Reed was tragic. But, shortly after Starkesia's death, a youth was stabbed to death in Homewood. You are about eight times more likely to be killed by a knife as by an assault rifle. Yet, nobody is politicizing stabbing death of 17-year-old Maurice Hill. For that matter, you are more likely to be beaten to death by a baseball bat than killed by an AW. Has any Tribune reporter asked any of the following basic questions:
1. How many murders were committed by these weapons in 2005?
2. How many murders were committed the year before the 1994 federal ban? The murder review for 1993 (the year before the ban) is said to show that a Chicagoan was 67 times more likely to be stabbed or beaten to death than killed by an AW (I cannot locate the primary source).
3. Why are Daley and Blagojevich putting so much focus on a weapon that has such a minute impact on Chicago violent Crime?
According to the Chicago Police Murder Report 2004 (the latest year posted on the CPD Web site under statistics and reports) only four out of 313 firearm deaths were related to ANY type of rifle. Shootings involving these weapons were so rare, that you were nearly twice as likely to be beaten to death with a baseball bat than killed with what might be considered an AW. In 2003 it was six out of 442, and you were about as likely to be beaten to death by a baseball bat.
It's also disturbing that the Tribune's formal editorial position (Jan. 26) was pulled almost directly from the aggressive spin found on the Brady Campaign Web site -- point by point. For example, the Tribune noted that the "worst mass shootings in this country" have often involved semiautomatic weapons, and listed five incidents over a 22-year period that resulted in a total of 41 deaths. It is telling that the Brady Campaign had to dig back through 22 years to pump up the AW threat. While these terrible incidents grab tremendous media attention, they are, fortunately, few and far between and represent a statistically minute role in criminal homicide.
Even in the most extreme example cited by the Tribune, the San Ysidro attack where 21 people died, the most lethal of the three weapons used was an an ordinary hunting shotgun. Where mass killings are concerned (even leaving out 9/11 and the Oklahoma City Bombing), arson actually is the primary threat. A few major examples: An arsonist sets the Daegu subway fire in 2003, killing 198 people. Arson at the Happy Land Social Club killed 87 people in 1990. Three employees set the Dupont Plaza Hotel and Casino fire in 1986 killing 97 people. Philip Cline set a hotel Blaze in the Las Vegas Hilton in 1980 that killed eight people.
It is also hypocritical to focus so much on firearm deaths, when alcohol kills at a roughly comparable level. This includes numerous incidents that result in multiple homicide that are in the same general range as many of the Tribune's examples. More than a Columbine's worth of American youth die alcohol-related deaths every day (although, not in nearly as newsworthy a manner). More people under the age of 21 die from alcohol each day than people in the same age group die from all types of firearms. Where's the Tribune call to bring back prohibition? Where's the outrage from Daley and Blagojevich on this alcohol-related carnage?
And, where is the core analysis of the cost (in rights) vs. benefits. How does this regulation of legal gun owners (criminals do not obey gun laws) impact Chicago's rampant, inner-city drug crime? The suspect in the Starkesia Reed killing illegally purchased the weapon in another state. He then illegally converted it to automatic fire. Had a ban been in place it would have had absolutely no impact on Starkesia's death. Would a national ban have any more impact than the national ban on cocaine?
The editorial page is opinion, but one would expect at least some fairness in the news section on a Constitutional rights issue where clearly there are two sides of the story among both state residents and Tribune readers. Many of us own these firearms for collecting purposes, home defense, casual shooting, marksmanship shooting sports and even to hunt "pest" animals like coyotes. This particular right may not be important to the members of the Tribune editorial board (I would imagine there are few editorial voices present with an interest or background in firearms), but how about affording it at least some basic, honest journalistic analysis?
