The news story you don't hear about

[Danno 1,228]

The forgotten virtue of firearms

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

During Christmas week, a registered sex offender with a conviction for attempted murder used a gun to take three hostages at a Wytheville, Va., post office. Not too surprisingly, the national media gave the crime extensive news coverage. Such sensationalism leaves a distorted image about what happens with guns every day in the United States. When guns work to stop crime, there's not nearly as much drama to sensationalize and, as a result, that much less coverage.

In Oklahoma City the previous week, an armed citizen singlehandedly stopped an attack that surely would have resulted in a multiple-victim public shooting. The media gave the event scant attention. The scene went down when a Marine, who was on leave and came home for the holidays, started firing in an apartment parking lot. Before anyone was harmed, another man aimed his permitted concealed handgun at the attacker and ordered him to put down his weapon. The shooter dropped his gun and ran into his father's apartment, barricading himself in. Three-and-a-half hours later, the man surrendered to the police.

A Marine with a gun who wanted to cause harm would surely be able to maim or kill a lot of people. Those dead bodies would have attracted exhaustive coverage. Of course, corpses are newsworthy in our sensational culture, but when an armed citizen stops an attack, the heroism rates barely a blip on the national radar screen. In this case, a search found just one television news story on the incident, and it left out the identity of the man who saved the day. In our confused times, murderers, it seems, are more interesting than heroes.

An important detail that is neglected in news coverage is that all the multiple-victim public shootings in America - crimes in which more than three people were killed - happened where legal concealed handguns are banned. The Wytheville post office is such a gun-free zone, not to mention that the felon who committed the crime was banned from possessing a firearm anywhere. The Oklahoma City attack was stopped because the man who stopped it could carry a concealed handgun.

Often what's true and what makes good TV are two different things. But either way, news standards don't give people any idea about the costs and benefits of people owning guns. Police are extremely important in stopping crimes, but police understand that they almost always arrive on the scene after a crime has occurred. Heroic actions of citizens who stop attacks deserve a lot more attention.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Positive gun stories? Who-da-thunk?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I believe the adage is that bad news sells.

But perhaps its better to assume that an agenda exists merely by virtue of innuendo.

[Jasman0717 9]

John Wayne must be turning over in his grave, gun control-ugh

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yeesh. The furniture acted better than John Wayne

[lostinblue 1,989]

Yeesh. The furniture acted better than John Wayne

I think he did far better than your priest and lord Al Gore.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think he did far better than your priest and lord Al Gore.

I can honestly say that I have never had the slightest bit of interest in Al Gore whatsoever. I haven't seen his movie, nor do I follow anything he says or does.

I expect you feel a little silly right now.

[Peikko 1,575]

Speculating on the significance of why something doesn't catch the public imagination or even why it is not placed in front of the public for them to fantasize about is extraodinary, particulary if you think you can extrapolate something meaningful out of that. The media in industrialized nations is mostly privately owned and mostly exists to create profit for the parent company - it really is that simple.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When you have content analysis, there's no need for op-ed speculation.

[Pooky 3,844]

The forgotten virtue of firearms

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

During Christmas week, a registered sex offender with a conviction for attempted murder used a gun to take three hostages at a Wytheville, Va., post office. Not too surprisingly, the national media gave the crime extensive news coverage. Such sensationalism leaves a distorted image about what happens with guns every day in the United States. When guns work to stop crime, there's not nearly as much drama to sensationalize and, as a result, that much less coverage.

In Oklahoma City the previous week, an armed citizen singlehandedly stopped an attack that surely would have resulted in a multiple-victim public shooting. The media gave the event scant attention. The scene went down when a Marine, who was on leave and came home for the holidays, started firing in an apartment parking lot. Before anyone was harmed, another man aimed his permitted concealed handgun at the attacker and ordered him to put down his weapon. The shooter dropped his gun and ran into his father's apartment, barricading himself in. Three-and-a-half hours later, the man surrendered to the police.

A Marine with a gun who wanted to cause harm would surely be able to maim or kill a lot of people. Those dead bodies would have attracted exhaustive coverage. Of course, corpses are newsworthy in our sensational culture, but when an armed citizen stops an attack, the heroism rates barely a blip on the national radar screen. In this case, a search found just one television news story on the incident, and it left out the identity of the man who saved the day. In our confused times, murderers, it seems, are more interesting than heroes.

An important detail that is neglected in news coverage is that all the multiple-victim public shootings in America - crimes in which more than three people were killed - happened where legal concealed handguns are banned. The Wytheville post office is such a gun-free zone, not to mention that the felon who committed the crime was banned from possessing a firearm anywhere. The Oklahoma City attack was stopped because the man who stopped it could carry a concealed handgun.

Often what's true and what makes good TV are two different things. But either way, news standards don't give people any idea about the costs and benefits of people owning guns. Police are extremely important in stopping crimes, but police understand that they almost always arrive on the scene after a crime has occurred. Heroic actions of citizens who stop attacks deserve a lot more attention.

Now imagine both of these stories if the USA has, let's say, the UK's gun laws.

NEITHER EVENT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. No-one would have been taken hostage in Wytheville, VA, and no-one would have been put at risk from a rogue Marine in Oklahoma City. Which would you prefer, prevention, or reaction?

I prefer prevention, because there's a lot less risk of things going pear-shaped.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Pooky

[slim 1,533]

Now imagine both of these stories if the USA has, let's say, the UK's gun laws.

NEITHER EVENT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. No-one would have been taken hostage in Wytheville, VA, and no-one would have been put at risk from a rogue Marine in Oklahoma City. Which would you prefer, prevention, or reaction?

I prefer prevention, because there's a lot less risk of things going pear-shaped.

Are you sure they wouldn't have happened at all.... or would they just have happened with a knife instead?

[Pooky 3,844]

Are you sure they wouldn't have happened at all.... or would they just have happened with a knife instead?

It's pretty difficult to take 3 hostages with a knife. One, possibly, but you need to get up close and personal to do it, not stand 25 feet away and threaten, as you can with the smallest of firearms. Reasonably happy we got that one squared away.

And the marine? Without a gun, he can't start firing in an apartment building parking lot. No.2 sorted.

You see, it's a lot more effort to be a danger to a large number of people with a knife that it is with a gun. You have to get close, within a person's own reaction space for each intended victim. Bad guys are less willing to do that, as it puts them at risk, too. But with a gun you can stay clear of the other person, stay out of their reach. And you can shoot many more people than you can stab with a knife. That's why you never hear of stabbing rampages. It's just too much damned effort.

So no, they wouldn't have happened with a knife.

[john & jean 37]

Is it more humane to be killed with a rock???

[Pooky 3,844]

Is it more humane to be killed with a rock???

No, it just takes a lot more effort.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that because there are rocks, people should be allowed to have unrestricted access to firearms?

** Insert John McEnroe Quote here **

[Craneman 2]

It's pretty difficult to take 3 hostages with a knife. One, possibly, but you need to get up close and personal to do it, not stand 25 feet away and threaten, as you can with the smallest of firearms. Reasonably happy we got that one squared away.

And the marine? Without a gun, he can't start firing in an apartment building parking lot. No.2 sorted.

You see, it's a lot more effort to be a danger to a large number of people with a knife that it is with a gun. You have to get close, within a person's own reaction space for each intended victim. Bad guys are less willing to do that, as it puts them at risk, too. But with a gun you can stay clear of the other person, stay out of their reach. And you can shoot many more people than you can stab with a knife. That's why you never hear of stabbing rampages. It's just too much damned effort.

So no, they wouldn't have happened with a knife.

4(four) airliners were hijacked with nothing but small razor knives !