Well now, stuff is happening.
We have our rainwater collection system up and ready for today’s forecast gullywasher and the living roof garden topping the News24/680 Bunker is perking up and ready for the precip.
Indoors, we’re spanking the Breville this morning in a carnival of do-it-ourselves coffee making and we’re circling the remnants of last night’s skillet pizza, also a do-it-yourself effort that turned out rather well if we do say so ourselves.
All this pales, of course, with the joyous celebrations going on in Israel as the surviving hostages abducted by Hamas 737 days ago return to their families. And while that is indeed reason for celebration, we can’t help but remember those killed on October 7 and over the intervening years. For now, at least, it’s a day to savor the return of a loved one, the remains of others to be mourned and buried, and of an apparent return to a condition where people who have suffered near constant bombing are given a reprieve and the chance of a future peace. We surely hope so.
In California, the pistol-packing set of gun owners and fanciers known as “ammosexuals” to those who prefer to roam the state unarmed are in an uproar over our governor’s move to ban Glock pistols from the smorgasbord of lethality available to Californians with the money and patience to wait out state’s 10-day “are you sure?” period.
At issue are the Austrian/Smyrna-made pistol’s cruciform trigger bar – a religious-sounding name for a configuration which any savvy kitchen table gunsmith can modify with a converter to make the gun capable of firing in full Audie Murphy-mode.
Now, we’re slightly more comfortable with weaponry than our effete and Chardonnay-swilling dinner party companions waiting for those non-lethal Star Trek phasers to go into production and we’ve been hearing from gun owners who cling to the belief that civility and lawfulness will return to the streets the day everyone is armed – a model that didn’t work for Tombstone and won’t work in Pasadena. Trust us.
Because as those who have seen the, well, impact of gun violence up close and personally we can say the only surefire result of a universally armed populace will be multi-casualty incidents you’ll be able to set your watch to. None of that will quell the current unrest among the Second Amendment Set, who are promising lawsuits and other enjoining actions to roll back California laws they see working against them. For now, we’re filing it all under “wait and see.”
Lastly, we take note of a recent trend of closedmouthedness we must assume has come about as a result of recent changes in our landscape. We’ve already noted the decision of a Joint Powers Authority to ban public access to information civilians have utilized for decades but that shark has continued to jump and land in the private sector as business owners and crime victims adopt a “don’t tell, don’t tell” policy that has become almost comical.
Being die-hard firsthand information freaks we’re often on the scene of events – some of them not so nice – with the intent to gather as much information as reasonably possible only to have the shop manager sweeping up broken glass from a very recent break-in deny that anything at all has happened. “They don’t want us to say anything,” one worker told us, leaving us to wonder who “they” were. A similarly posed question about a recent fatality was met with silence from a representative of the responsible agency – to our amazement.
As more information windows and actual doors close to us we are left pondering if this is the New New, where data is subject to encryption and possible manipulation and news streams are controlled by agencies or corporations with a vested interest in making sure they are seen in the best possible light.
We’ll admit, the New New leaves us worried and wondering about our collective future as we push forward, determined to do more with less and perfecting our pizza and coffee-making skills in case “they” tell us it’s time to open a coffee shop.
I’m not a Glock guy, so the proposed ban wouldn’t directly affect me, but I will note a couple of counterpoints to the editorial positions expressed here.
First, the full-auto modification that can be performed on those weapons can also be performed on homebrew pistols with a Glock-based design — which themselves are already illegal in California unless the owner registers/serializes it with the state DOJ, otherwise it’s what’s commonly referred to as a “ghost gun.” Now, I haven’t seen any stats on how many of the full-auto-modified pistols used in crimes or seized by police in the state have been legally owned (but for the illegal modification) vs. stolen, straw-purchased, or “ghost”; but I would bet good money that the “legally owned” part of that pie chart is sliver-thin.
Second, although I don’t see myself purchasing a Glock, the proposal seems to me like yet another piecemeal chipping-away at the options available for California residents. Due to the state handgun roster law (which is currently being challenged in the courts), the “smorgasbord” of CA-compliant pistols is quite limited compared to what the rest of the country can buy. Fans of the Glock design have their reasons for liking it — it’s apparently quite reliable, durable, easy to operate, safe, and budget-friendly — and those who purchase and own them legally are unlikely to criminally misuse them.
Third, new gun legislation in California has been overly weighted towards “point of sale” gun control, which primarily places annoying and expensive restrictions on, and limits the options for, law-abiding citizens. Meanwhile, the state de-emphasizes “point-of-use” gun control (which targets the people who actually criminally misuse firearms) by attempts to limit police traffic stops that often uncover unlawfully-possessed weapons, allowing “use-of-firearm” sentencing enhancements to be dropped in plea bargains, and de-prioritizing the investigation and prosecution of straw purchasers. I submit that more “point-of-use” gun control would be more effective in reducing gun crime than placing additional burdens on those gun owners who are least likely to misuse them.
And finally, it’s been three years since the Supreme Court decision that made licenses to carry concealed firearms in public more available to those of us living in counties that were formerly extremely stingy in doling out those licenses. Thousands upon thousands of new permits have been issued in Bay Area counties since then; and if there had been even a small surge in irresponsible or criminal “multi-casualty incidents” by permit holders under the new permissive structure, that doesn’t seem like the kind of thing our news media would neglect to cover. The absence of such reporting, despite the large increase in lawfully-carried firearms on the street in the last couple years, suggests that some folks’ New-Wild-West fears may be overblown.
Well written post and we thank you for it.
Being fretting types and afraid of bullets in general (again because we’ve seen what they do), we expressed concern that the proliferation in permit issuance would lead to an increase in on-street gunfire, as it did recently in Seattle. While not the multi-casualty incident we feared, we will point out that a concealed weapons permit holder was held accountable in the death of one man and the wounding of a child after a road rage incident, supporting our belief that people carrying a firearm in public would be more likely to draw and use the weapon should circumstances arise.
Thanks again for a thoughtfully written post.
Ed.
The New not-News has worried me for a while. After all, it’s the billionaires who are largely tech bosses. When are they going to just kill email to or from anyone? You’re in the front lines, pals, and I wish you access and your accustomed excellence.
Hey, Linda! Definitely feeling like the front lines around here lately… great to hear from you.
News agencies have to take some responsibility for the closed mouthedness. The industry fails to police its own and credibility has been significantly lost over the last couple decades.
We’d be most interested in hearing an example of our transgression…
For one, there are many influencers/content creators calling themselves “press” or “journalists” that have no formal training and just a casual acquaintance with ethical standards. You see them all the time at rallies, protests, anywhere they can get in front of the camera. Their behavior dilutes the credibility of the press overall.
Also, there are more and more news organizations that orient their reporting to the audience they are trying to capture rather than remaining independent. One can see this in sensationalized headlines, content and delivery. Facts are often omitted or selected in a way to maximize viewership/readership/clicks etc.
Add in the fact that some in the press work to convince their targeted audience that only they can be trusted and you have some of that closed-mouthedness you refer to (i.e. some would open up to Fox News and clam up if legacy media came around and vice versa).
When I write that news agencies have to take some responsibility, what I mean is that they need to police their own and ensure basic standards of ethics, accountability and technical expertise are met.
Responsible news organizations cannot do anything about the influencers and other amateurs who sully the term ‘journalism.’ The greater responsibility here lies with the media consumer to vet sources and to review the varying coverage of any specific story before deciding on ‘truth’. Complete objectivity sounds like a worthy goal, yet it’s impossible to attain because humans with their own individual biases will never unanimously agree on everything.
Most professional organizations have means to ensure standards within their ranks through licensure, accountability, audits, review boards etc. I’m not aware of anything of the sort for journalists or news organizations. And if there is something that’s even more disturbing because it’s obviously not effective.
Do please enlighten us as to which “professional organizations” with watchdog/regulatory agencies in place have elevated themselves as a result of that governance. We take your statement “…and if there is something that’s even more disturbing because it’s obviously not effective” and turn it back on you because no organization or institution can say it is without fault.
We were discussing the tightening clampdown on public information we’re seeing locally and you said news organizations were partly to blame. We asked specifically what we (meaning us) had done to merit that action and you painted ALL media with a pretty broad brush. We saw nothing that related to us specifically in what you wrote.
News24-680,
Your organizations stands head and shoulders above the rest of our other local news providers. The rest, KTVU, KCBS, Mercury News, etc. have sold out to the liberal electorate and socialist politicians in providing a slanted prospective to every story. I own a printing press and may have to resort to “publishing” with ink and paper in the near future.
Firestone 11R
Let us know when type meets paper, we’d be interested in seeing what your broadsheet has to say…
Most news organizations are left leaning. This isn’t breaking news. I remember telling my parents at the age of 9 or 10 that Walter Cronkite “was a liberal.” My dad asked my mom how I knew what a liberal was at that age and she responded “She watches the news and reads the paper. There’s a war going on.”
What war was that?
The American Revolutionary War (1775-1783). I’m a cat and I have ” Nine Lives.” I possess special powers, including the ability to cheat death. The Vietnam war.
Clarification appreciated. But the Vietnam war doesn’t explain why a child identified Cronkite as a liberal unless of course your parents agreed which often shapes a child’s perspective.ive.your parents agreed, Cronkite was generally considered a balanced and trusted source. He was a careful not to expound on his own personal political opinions until after his retirement.
Right now ‘the war’ seems to be directed at responsible journalism by those who prefer sensationalism and propaganda.
Thanks for clarifying. Would be interested in knowing how you determine that *most* news organizations are left-leaning.
My parents were moderates/centrists and so am I. They kept an even-keel, and they didn’t talk politics, at least not around their four children. I had no idea what their leaning was until I was an adult. Cronkite was generally considered a balanced and trusted source (the most trusted man), and he was careful not to expound his own personal political opinions until after his retirement. I’m highly perceptive (it’s innate) and I think it was my own mindset that made me see through his political leanings (at a very young age) even if he tried to hide them.
As far as “most” news organizations being left leaning, journalism was a left leaning business for years, but it’s changing. FOX News gets higher ratings than all other cable news channels combined. It’s not because they’re any better (or worse). It’s because they offer an alternative to left leaning organizations (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) and the numbers add up.
Thanks for reading.
Accounting, , Legal, medical etc etc. there are many professional organizations that have processes in place to ensure a standard of performance and have actions they can take to censure or remove those that don’t meet those standards. I wasn’t implying that 24/680 had done anything to merit the clampdown on information, quite the contrary as my view is your team lives up to very high standards. I’m just expressing my opinion that the industry you’re in does not always share those standards and that contributes to the lack of transparency you are calling out.
Thanks for the follow up…
I don’t know anything about Glocks except that they are plastic, semi-automatic handguns. It sounds like they need a redesign.
But I do know that the Second Amendment was truly the No Kings Amendment. Arms could be kept primarily to fight against any future kings. Will there be Second Amendment signs at the No Kings rally?
We shall see, Love… getting a lot of offline interest in the rallies.
Those poor families. Hoping for peace and a chance for the people of the region to heal.
Curious if you’ve thought about starting to file PRA’s with San Ramon, Walnut Creek, Concord and the Sheriff’s office every morning at 12:01am for the full voice logging recorder of the previous 24 hours of their dispatch channels. Could be interesting to see how and how quickly they respond. A few weeks or months of that could be interesting.
And if they insist on redacting PII before releasing the files, the cost of the FTE that it takes to do that could quickly approach the extra dispatch staffing they claim they’d need to run an encrypted records channel while leaving dispatch in the clear.