Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/18/2003 11:02:02 AM EDT
I may just be an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about but it seems like the reason there are so many anti gunners is that the media only talks about murders, suicides etc involving guns. If they would talk about the times when someone saves a family or themselves with a gun and have a balance between the bad gun stories and the good ones there would be less people ready to support a ban. It makes me wonder how many letters it would take to get some TV or radio stations to start finding the stories in which a gun was used to save someone or something. If we not only sent letters to the president and other government officials but also to news channels I wonder if that would help somewhat?
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 11:07:17 AM EDT
The problem is: The DGU story is a nonstory. How many times will you sit and listen through "A homeowner's house was not broken into today, his wife wasn't raped and killed, and none of his belongings got stolen" before you turn off the TV or put the newspaper down?
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 11:07:39 AM EDT
Guns saving lives aren't newsworthy. I hope I cleared that up for you. News stories feed on societal fears. Guns are fear worthy. Do you think there's such thing as a "feel good" story about a guy that thwarted a home invasion with his shotgun? Not according to the media.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 11:18:44 AM EDT
Journalists are usually activists of some type. This is what draws them to the occupation. The don't really want to report, as much as they want to expose. You always hear things like: "Tragically, X happened today. Last year, congress pulled the funding for the prevention of X." They are too often self appointed safetycrats practicing a modern form of 'Remember the Maine' yellow journalisim. The journalist MUST always portray the image that he/she is working for the good of society. When this is added to the market factors of ratings, things that scare and anger drive the stories. Objectivity is long gone. Take the term 'high powered rifle'. 'High powered' is a free adjective, when used in the context it's always used. Technically, the term is relative, so any rifle is high powered compared to no rifle. There is no longer any reason not to use it. Take the two stories: 1) DriftPunch got up this morning, drank some water, got into his 4Runner, and drove to work. 2) DriftPunch, like most Americans, woke after too little sleep. He then drank some water from the tap he always gets it from, in his case from a well with far too much Iron and Calcium. He drove to work today in a rollover prone fuel inefficent SUV, over highways plagued with potholes due to an underfunded transportation system. #1 screams the truth, #2 makes me a victim needing government protection from the evils of the world.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 11:19:59 AM EDT
John R. Lott Jr. has written a book which explains a good deal of this. [u]The Bias Against Guns[/u]
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 11:25:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Balzac72: Do you think there's such thing as a "feel good" story about a guy that thwarted a home invasion with his shotgun? Not according to the media.
View Quote
Way true. In fact if the homeowner shot the home invader with said shotgun, the media would call the home invader the "victim"![whacko]
Top Top