We’ve talked a few times about how members of the media can really hurt American civilians partially because of their own ignorance, and partially out of a drive to misinform the public — where individual reporters fall tends to be based on their own understanding of the firearms community and the Second Amendment.
We share instances of these messes so that not only you can see it, but share it with friends and family who need to see how damaging bad reporting can be.
Of all the ones I have ever seen, the following editorial/report of an older instance published in the San Francisco Bay Chronicle might be the worst.
Christine Lavin works in the media circles, and has done so for some time. She actually was the editor of the Oakland Tribune until she was fired for having a relationship with a city councilman in the city she was working, according to the Editor & Publisher.
In her recent piece reflecting on the Capital Gazette shooting, she recounted a story of her own which is exactly that: a story. Her ignorance on firearms is so severe she proved unable to publish a piece without being so full of holes I could put it on a sandwich with salami and roast beef.
Initially, I couldn’t figure out why she would publish such crap — until I got to the end and saw she was using the lies as a vehicle to blame President Donald Trump for the Capital Gazette shooting.
Let’s break this down, bit by bit:
“When I was the editor of the Oakland Tribune back in the 1990s, I kept a loaded Glock in my top drawer.,” Lavin opened.
Already, doubtful. California has never been super quick to throw out the handgun permits, but in fairness, I can’t say she definitely didn’t have one.
If she did, however, the argument she makes for keeping one as a journalist is pretty sound.
“Newspapers and reporters — even photographers — receive threats all the time. Every day, there is someone out there unhappy with the coverage, either about an issue for which they have passion, or coverage of themselves or someone in their family. Newspapers get letters, phone calls. Nowadays, the threats come through social media.”
That argument would hold a lot more water if she didn’t say “I am not a huge fan of gun ownership” a few paragraphs later.
But she did.
Why did she allegedly carry a gun to work every day? According to Lavin, she came to California from Texas, where obviously gun culture was a lot more strong.
Naturally, she bought a firearm.
“I bought mine at a gun show, with no background check, just cash on the barrel, so to speak. I took a gun safety class and started to target-shoot for a hobby. I got pretty good. Eventually, I became an instructor in gun safety and taught classes on weekends.”
Either Lavin purchased a handgun from a private owner, or she underwent a background check. What she’s describing is a made-up anti-gunner talking point, the famous “gun show loophole.” The vast majority of gun show transactions happen with an FFL, and I’d bet money she’s lying here, too.
She reportedly needs her firearm before long, however. According to her, she kept an “Anita Hill for President” on the back of her car and was rammed by a pickup truck over it.
Then she does this:
I opened my glove compartment, took out my Glock 17, and flipped off the safety. It was the first time it had ever come out of the glove compartment for any reason other than target practice. I rolled down the driver’s window and held the gun in front of my chest in both hands, as I’d been taught. I was the first to speak.
“May I help you gentlemen with anything?” I asked.
This was not what they had expected. They paused, then they saw the gun. I’ve not seen many men run faster since.
Anyone else have a safety on their Glock? No?
I didn’t think so, and don’t tell me there’s such thing as a customizable Glock with a manual safety, because we all know that’s not what happened here.
Later on, she reflects on being in the media and owning a firearm, and her point become perfectly clear:
“President Trump started fanning the flames against the media before he even stepped into office, and I can’t help but suspect that his rhetoric might have goaded Jarrod Ramos into walking into the Gazette’s offices with a pump-action shotgun. I certainly would have tried.”
It’s hard to hate a pro-gun piece with a personal story, as a general rule, but Lavin makes it easy.
This is fear-mongering, hateful nonsense, and the San Francisco Chronicle should be ashamed for publishing it.
Please share this on Facebook and Twitter and tag your friends. We demand accountability.