EDITORIAL: The forgotten virtue of firearms ...

[spin]

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.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/05/the-forgotten-virtue-of-firearms/?feat=home_editorials

[Arctic Dave]

1. Not sure if this a good example of gun use.

Might not have received a lot of attention because it was a marine that went bonkers while on leave. Maybe the military wanted to keep it hush-hush.

[tburnsten]

10. Military does not run local papers

Or local news stations, or regional, or national journalism institutions. The military in this country does not have any say at all in what a news organization does, with the sole exception of times when a journalist is granted special permission to do something like embed with a unit in a combat zone, and even then the only influence the military will exert is for safety reasons, i.e. don't go wandering off alone, don't draw maps of our positions and broadcast them, don't broadcast sensitive information.

[Arctic Dave]

12. Wow, you don't know much about how the military controls the media.

Not that what I posted was meant in that way, is was snark "tinfoil hat". Have fun.

PS
Google military and media relations.

[tburnsten]

16. I'm a Public Affairs Specialist

I am well aware of how we interact with media. I've graduated three courses at the Defense Information School, and have been working in this field for three years. At best we can have friendly working relationships with civilian journalists, but we have absolutely no influence on what they choose to write or broadcast. I'll humor you though and google military and media relations.

[eqfan592]

2. Great article.

I just wish the folks in the comments section understood that not all liberals/progressives are of the same mindset as REPUBLICAN organizations like the Brady Campaign.

And not to get off track, but one of the people in the comments section is of the opinion that somehow a public option for health care is an affront to our civil liberties. How the fuck does that even make sense? *sigh*

[spin]

3. Without the public option we will pay three times what other countries pay...

for healthcare rather then merely two times.



To top that off, we still will not have universal heathcare or for that matter high quality healthcare for all.

But the heathcare industry will continue to make profit off of illness. They are bloodsuckers that look at the bottom line as far more important then suffering and death.

The media fails to tell the American public how badly they are being screwed. True, many nations have problems with their universal healthcare system, but if we used the most successful systems as a example, we could build the best system in the world for the money we currently pay.

But no, the big corporations will win once again. The conservatives will yell SOCIALISM and the basically illiterate American public will panic and oppose what could ultimately result in a superior system for everybody in our country.

We have several failures here.

(1) The media is failing their responsibility to the first Amendment. If they reported fairly, our citizens would
demand, at the minimum, a public option. But they are owned by the big corporations.

(2) The Democrats we elected have failed to make the effort necessary to convince the American public that the current healthcare system sucks and we need a major overhaul. But them it appears that they also are owned by the big corporations.

(3) Obama, with all his ability to communicate, has failed to step up to the podium and his teleprompters and fight for a total overhaul of the heathcare system or at least a public option. I can only hope that he is not owned by the big corporations. I realize that he has a lot on his plate, but leaving healthcare to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid was a stupid decision.

*sigh*

[eqfan592]

4. You summed it up nicely.

I post similar information on my facebook page for my family at times, but usually the conservative members can only come up with "stupid universal health care is stupid!" (that's an honest to doG direct quote right there, sadly).

And the fact that the media and our elected officials are doing such a horrible job at getting the facts on there on this issue simply isn't helping. This issue, to me, has been a total pooch screw from the top on down as far as the Democratic party is concerned.

But this is the guns forum, so I think it's best we leave it at that. ;)

[spin]

5. A good point ...

Plus discussing heathcare in the U.S. just elevates my blood pressure.

[spin]

6. Gee, the anti-gun contingent is quiet ...

No surprise.

[tucsonlib]

7. As A Gun-Owner Who Ironically Has Been Labeled

"anti-gun" by a tiny fringe here in the gungeon, perhaps I can explain:

Could it be they consider an editorial printed in Reverend Moon's Washington Times unworthy to comment upon?


And please, can't you at least be literate enough to call them/me "the anti-gun rights contingent"? Or something similar?
As I've pointed out ad nauseam, it makes no sense to be anti-, or to be pro-, an inanimate object.

Thanks. And HAPPY NEW YEAR!:party: :toast:

[rd_kent]

9. I am using the term anti-second amendment......because really, thats what this is about.

[tucsonlib]

13. A Lot Better n/t

[tburnsten]

11. "unworthy"? wow, I would say any national news outlet is 'worth' discussing

regardless of who the owner is.


Way to chicken out of a productive debate via religious intolerance.

[tucsonlib]

15. News Is One Thing

An editorial is another matter. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, but with the owner's (and by extension the paper's) well-known and self-admitted extreme right-wing bias.


Besides, I didn't say that was my opinion - Just suggesting a possible explanation for the question that was raised.

[tburnsten]

18. Gotcha, but editorials are generally fair game

the fact that the owner is right wing or left wing shouldn't make any difference in whether or not we run it through our grinder. All the more reason to if the owner and potentially the paper has a right wing bias, it's good to keep on top of what the other half of the political spectrum is thinking. And even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile, it is a bad idea to shut out any communication that might challenge our own views purely because it comes from someone we don't agree with on the bulk of issues.


I'm all about lack of villainization, keeping discourse open, will make us all better in the long run.

[spin]

17. An interesting comment ...

politely worded and worthy of consideration.

You do not fall into the category of posters I was referring to as you own firearms. I'm sorry you took offense.

Firearm owners often disagree on approaches to addressing gun violence.

But still you make a valid point. Guns are, indeed, inanimate objects. However, a large group of posters here totally oppose gun ownership. Some deny this, but they believe in incremental steps to ban firearms totally. These posters are often very insulting to gun owners and insinuate that they suffer from a short penis synonym, "the Irish disease", or are racist illiterate rednecks and basically evil. This was the group I was referring to.

Since I'm posting on the home field of a very progressive website rather than a conservative pro-gun site, I can expect a lot of cat calls and harassment from the fans. Such is life. If it bothered me, I would merely post elsewhere.

I also wish you a Happy New Year. :toast:

[oneshooter]

19. Typical, burn the messenger, ignore the message. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

20. That's too much typing.

the anti-gun rights contingent is just too much to type every time I want to talk about them. Anti-gun is a convenient shorthand. Don't be offended, as I refer to myself as a "gunnie".

As regard the source, so what? Logically, one should respond to the argument themselves. The fact that you don't suggests that you can't.

[tucsonlib]

21. Why Stop There?

You can profess your support for 1A by calling yourself "Pro-Speech". And "Pro-Religion"! Who cares if it makes no sense - It's convenient!

As for your last point, I was responding to comment #6, not to the OP. The "fact" that I didn't respond to the OP "suggests" that I "can't"? Can't what? Can't respond?

Okay, how's this: "Interesting OP!"

See? I knew I could do it.....

[GreenStormCloud]

24. Do you enjoy distorting what others have said?

I said, "As regard the source, so what? Logically, one should respond to the argument themselves. The fact that you don't suggests that you can't."

You did not resond to the argument, but instead griped about the source. I think you did that because you can't counter the argument.

[tucsonlib]

29. One Last Time

My comment was in response to #6, entitled "Gee, the anti-gun contingent is quiet ..."

I was suggesting one possible reason why this may be so, and what their rationale might be.


And just what "argument" are you referring to? That there are positive aspects to gun ownership? If I didn't agree with that, I wouldn't own guns.


Do you enjoy trying to find conflicts where none exist? Maybe I "can't counter the argument" because I find nothing argumentative about the OP.


Conflict isn't always necessary or called for. And if you reread the thread with unbiased eyes, you will see that your personal attacks are unjustified and irrational.

[GreenStormCloud]

30. And you said:

Could it be they consider an editorial printed in Reverend Moon's Washington Times unworthy to comment upon?

So instead of discussing the article itself, you consider that an attack on the source is sufficient. I am not a fan of the Moonie paper either, but I still consider that items in it should be discussed on their merits.

[tucsonlib]

31. Read It Again

I said, "Could it be they consider...." THEY being the operative word.

Then you come up with your own interpretation - "So instead of discussing the article itself, you consider...."
You haven't the first clue what I "consider".


I wasn't "attacking" the source, and I didn't "discuss" the article because my comment wasn't addressed to the OP.


I've said all I intend to say on the matter. If you still don't get it, you never will, and I'd just be flogging a dead horse.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. Not "they" - YOU. You put words in "their" mouths, but the attack on the source...

still came from you, not from anybody else. It was YOUR attempt to dodge discussing the article on the merits of the article.

[tucsonlib]

33. Only Inside Your Mind n/t

[eqfan592]

22. It may not make sense to be anti- an inanimate object...

..but that doesn't stop people on these boards from being just that, such as sharesunited.

[tucsonlib]

23. Of Course, It Cuts Both Ways

It's just as nonsensical to profess to being "pro-gun". And it doesn't only apply to objects. Would it make sense for a first amendment proponent to describe himself as "pro-speech"? Or "pro-religion"?

I wasn't familiar with "sharesunited", so I tracked down some of his/her comments. And you're right - He/she appears to actually despise guns themselves.
Outraged by the fact that they exist at all! It's like if you or I hated microwave ovens and demanded they be outlawed.
But sharesunited represents a fringe so extreme as to be almost comical. Can you name any others here so truly "anti-gun"? And, be honest now, there are extremists on the both sides of the issue.

[GreenStormCloud]

25. There are several regular posters here who despise guns.

DU has rules against calling out other members so I shall refrain from naming them.

[oneshooter]

26. There are two that come to mind

Both cabludem and katandmoon are drive by posters. Most of what they have to say deals with penis envy and banning/destroying firearms.
Usually in the same one sentence posting!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[eqfan592]

27. No, I'm not denying that you have a valid point.

And you're indeed correct that there truly are extremists on both sides of the issue, though the extremism on the pro-gun rights side tends to be about a combination of firearms rights and trying to paint liberals (and especially Obama) as trying to take over the world under the banner of a single world government. Such people are very damaging to the gun rights movement, and I've butted heads with them from time to time on other forums.

Shares really does seem to be the only person that truly fits the bill of hating an inanimate object. There's a couple more that do drive by postings that seem to fit the bill, though their names escape me. Iverglas and Katandmoon might also be in the running. But shares really holds the crown in this case.

[oneshooter]

28. I forgot about our local? Canuk. nt

[rd_kent]

8. Eerily quiet....by now the usual suspects have hit and run......

[east texas lib]

14. No doubt they are scouring the internet for more "bad old guns" stories...

Gathering ammo for the next anti RKBA broadside.