Monday, March 1, 2010

What Do You Think About This?

I was replying to my friend MK from Down Under On the Right Side last night on this post of mine about a teacher being shot in Tacoma, Washington. His remark got me thinking.

The blog was about a teacher that was shot to death and it had one of my pet peeves in it, the author for the AP mentioned that the man was in the military. My take is this fact is irrelevant and so why would they mention it. My point was it was anti-military. MK mentioned guns also, in that it was also anti-gun.

So, this is what I am wondering. Why don't we usually hear of an incident when someone is beaten to death, or stabbed, etc? Why does it seem that most of the murders reported, and there are a lot of them, are the result of a firearm? Is it a deliberate anti-gun stance? Is it because the use of a gun is more sensational? What are your thoughts?


Miss T.C. Shore said...

That's a good question. I think there is something of an anti-military bias in reporting that someone is a member of the military when he/she kills someone, yet I think it would also be reported if he/she was an employee of the Post Office or the VA. Is it anti-military (or anti-Post office or anti-VA) or simply an interesting side point?

I suspect most people who are murdered are probably murdered with a gun. I also suspect that the reason for that would be that a gun is designed to be an efficient killing tool. So, then is reporting the murder weapon being anti-gun?

I think only when the reporting is deliberate does it become anti-whatever, and we may really never know when that is the case.

Of course, statistically, it's still safer to own a gun than it is to ride in Ted Kennedy's car.

cube said...

Many reporters and liberal politicians are personally anti-gun and their writing and speeches reflect an anti-gun stance. Until, that is, you probe more deeply and find that they have guns for their protection.

Many of them also have an anti-military bias and this stance is
exacerbated when a republican is
running the war.

Ideally, a journalist should report the facts, but many just can't get past their ideological bent.

Z said...

That reportage is definitely anti military.
As far as only airing deaths by gun, I'm not sure that's really the case, is it? Stabbings, beatings, don't get into the news?
Well, we all know that guns are the DEVIL to the LEFT and so's the military, let's face it, so I HATE it when they mention that, you're right.
As I hate it when somebody kills someone and the article will mention some Christian association even if he only taught Sunday School for one year 30 years ago!!! "Sunday School Teacher kills friend!" ARGH!

AGENDA, who, what, when and where and why!!! HA!!

Anonymous said...

FBI statistics do tend to support the contention that firearms cause most murders; but knives kill a large number of people too, and blunt instruments, or pushing someone out of a window. The beautiful thing about statistics is that you can make them tell you what you want to hear. Just take overall murder, for example. The trends tend to indicate more murders during democratic administrations, even though we know that the White House does not have much to do with murdering people. Beyond that, we ought to wonder … of the total number of people murdered in California in 2008, how many of those victims deserved it? In other words, how murder victims were criminals, wife beaters, or douche-bags breaking in to a home in the middle of the night?

I agree with TC … I have knives, swords, and firearms in my house. If someone breaks in to my home, I am more likely to shoot than stab or skewer them. Also, statistics tend to indicate that most murders are perpetrated by people whom the victims didn’t know … so this business about spouses killing each other, while true, are often made to look worse than they actually are.

Great post, Chuck …

Mustang out

MK said...

I can assure you and your readers that there is a deeply entrenched anti-gun bias in the MSM, they report gun crimes deliberately to ensure that people out there see guns as bad and nothing else.

Whenever there is a mass shooting over in your country, you can bet your house and your life savings the MSM report the shooting but never once mention that it occurred in a stupid gun-free zone.

And from personal experience i've heard of numerous self-defense stories using guns coming out of the USA that are never reported in the MSM out here.

You have to ask yourself, why.

Out here in Australia, people are regularly beaten, bashed and stabbed to death, there are shootings as well, but you can bet your bottom dollar that no one in the media will ever report the story and mention that we have strict gun & weapons control.

I've even seen stories of people being stalked and preyed upon for years and years and had to buy an illegal gun to protect themselves, but the media never once mention that the victim is not allowed to defend themselves with a weapon.

Part of it is intentional, part of it is simple stupidity, either way the people are never given both sides of the story.

It's a similar story with socialized healthcare, your CNN, MSNBC, CBS etc never tell you about the absolute crap that passes for healthcare in countries like Britain and Australia.

Karen Howes said...

Excellent question, Chuck.

Yeah, first, it's always mentioned when someone who goes nuts is military.

And it does make me wonder, with the left's rabid hatred of gun rights, whether killings via other means are under reported.

Chuck said...

All, I have no real evidence one way or another on how deaths are reported. I have an anecdotal belief gun deaths are reported more but again don't know if this is due to a bias (which I do suspect is often the case) or simple sensationalism. It's not as sexy to report a man was killed by getting whacked in the head by a table leg or something.

I have personally seen men assaulted with car shock absorbers and refrigerator racks, though neither died fortunately.

I wanted to pose the question to see what your thoughts were. Thanks for replying.

TC, the thing that caught me was there was no point to it, they just mentioned it

Cube the lib politicians are pro-military every 2-4 years

Z, same as only religious people molest children

Mustang, guns are certainly a weapon of choice for murder but I have seen a lot of people die from blunt trauma assaults. Lots of head injuries. I see the gun deaths in the paper but not the blunt trauma deaths

MK, good points. Except we all know the health care in Britain is excellent because Michael Moore has told us it is.

Karen, thanks

LomaAlta said...

Yes, Chuck it is biased and selective. For example when the lefties decided SUV's were bad, the word went out and every news story with an SUV was something like "2 kiled in SUV accident." The purpose is so that future database searches (lexis-nexis, etc.) will forever associate traffic deaths with SUV's.
The same is true for murder and guns (but not murder and knives).

So thousands of searchable databases will thereby associate guns and murders, SUVs and auto accident deaths, etc.

As in 1984, they are working for furture revisions to history.

Always On Watch said...

Why don't we usually hear of an incident when someone is beaten to death, or stabbed, etc?

The media's agenda (anti-gun and anti-military) AND the sensationalist aspect.

Chuck said...

LomaAlta, very good point

AOW, your right. The answer is probably D: all of the above