Anti-gun Media Reporting

O

OJ

New member
As the world knows, we had a woman - private citizen - place herself in harm's way to shoot a deranged nut intent on mass murder. She was noted to be some sort of unofficial security person but she saved many lives by her very brave actions.

The press reported that but also lost no time in reporting she was a former law enforcement officer who had been fired for "untruthful" statements she made under some kind of undefined circumstances. None of that story was relevant to her heroic actions and today's paper had three strong letters to the editor pointing out the irrelevant reports of her past were "despicable" and had absolutely no place in the story.

The anti-gun media doesn't give up easily, though. Front page stories today reported how easily the shooter had been able to purchase the five firearms he had (passed the background checks) and even named the stores that sold him the guns - sort of suggesting those stores were some kind of co-conspirators with the would be mass killer.

Of course, none of those stories were relevant to a private citizen saving lives at her own risk but just provided fuel for those anti-gun types who maintain our laws make it too easy to purchase weapons and kill people with those guns.

But then, the media in general, are well known for this kind of sleazy reporting - it's not new.

:mad:
 
Last edited:
Gun control doesn't work. I'll just state that right now. I'm sure most of the members here, including you, OJ, would agree with me. Thanks, by the way, for the post. I wasn't aware of what the news has been saying about the heroic lady that stopped the shooter.

The liberals think that everytime you have a problem, you can fix it with a law. We have laws against murder--we still have murders. We have laws against drugs--we still have drugs. The list goes on and on. Am I proposing that we get rid of laws? Of course not, laws give us the right to punish people for breaking them. However, we can't rely on laws to defend us as the liberals want us to believe. Laws allow us to punish offenders, they don't stop crimes, anymore than a restraining order keeps an ex-husband away from his ex-wife.

Every offender was at one time a first-time offender, and before an offense anybody will pass a background check. It's only after the offense that they no longer pass.

Most guns used to commit crimes were stolen. The shooter in the Nebraska mall this week stole his stepfather's AK. Gun control, background checks, and waiting periods wouldn't stop him. He stole the gun. Why do the liberals not understand this? That's just my little soap-box speech. See my sig line...
 
What troubles me about such reports is that even if a media piece is favorable to firearms, they often add the tag line, "But many people disagree."

I doubt that those same people would understand if an article on global warming, gay marriages or Hillary had the same tag line.

Just who are these "people" they interviewed?
 
We must watch/read/listen to different news stories.
I have yet to see a story that didn't portray this woman as heroic.
Her past is relevant because it is part of what makes her who she is. We're talking movie of the week stuff here.
The actions of the gunboy up to his timely demise are also relevant to the story. Just as it was relevant that the Omaha shooter stole his gun.
That this was Ted Haggard's church is also relevant.
That gunboy was a devote Christian, raised in a wealthy Christian family is relevant.

People love this kind of stuff and millions of dollars are made every year in the "true crime" industry. Books, movies, magazines all testify to that fact.
There is nothing out of bounds as far as covering the facts. The only real problem is when the media doesn't cover all the facts.
 
I wouldn't want my life history broadcast with every historical nuance. Heck, people evolve, they improve. They are not the same people at 50 that they were at 20.

As I have noted before citing discussions with former LEOs and bikers, the press would barbeque us and investigate every motive and word we spoke in the past.

They destroyed Mark Fuhrman's career and integrity on national news to free Simpson.

They'll do it to you.
 
questions over private citizen status

Ms Assum was referred to as a private security guard by the pastor of the church. "New Life Pastor Brady Boyd called Assam, who is normally his personal security guard, a "hero" whose actions averted further bloodshed." http://www.startribune.com/12302716.html.

There is no doubt as to the courageous act she performed. But the claim she was just a normal church goes who happened to be carrying is a bit erroneous. If in fact she is a private security guard it does change the situation a bit.

Is Ms Assum a private citizen of an off duty private security guard?

IMHO She is a professional and not a concerned citizen.
 
If you take into account that the Media neglects to mention cases where guns save lives- ever read the 'Armed Citizen' in American Rifleman? How many of those stories are on the news? I haven't seen too many. I don't know how they figure what the figure, but they figure it.

Movies with gratuitous violence and depressing and/or violent music are all the rage. Wonder if that doesn't have a bit to do with this? I figure if somebody snaps, there are usually some precursors which have to do with culture, family, etc.

I also figure that this kind of thing has been happening a whole lot longer than we think. Just check out some of the violence in the Bible. Of course back then, things got reported by word of mouth, selling advertisements was not the reason sensational violence got reported. I figure it was either for a lesson, or they took care of it and kept it on the down low.

I figure when we commercialize violence that we really only make it more prevalent. I figure that when we make such a big stink out of this that we are only encouraging the probability of it happening and or being grossly over-reported (not to say it is not a tragedy, but he only killed four people and there is genocide in Africa that is being conveniently forgotten...).

All in all, it is sad, but what can we do? I'm a member of the NRA. I devote a lot of my time trying to be a good upstanding citizen and a good representative of a responsible firearms owner. I figure that's the best I can do...
 
Ms Assum was referred to as a private security guard by the pastor of the church. "New Life Pastor Brady Boyd called Assam, who is normally his personal security guard, a "hero" whose actions averted further bloodshed." http://www.startribune.com/12302716.html.

There is no doubt as to the courageous act she performed. But the claim she was just a normal church goes who happened to be carrying is a bit erroneous. If in fact she is a private security guard it does change the situation a bit.

Is Ms Assum a private citizen of an off duty private security guard?

IMHO She is a professional and not a concerned citizen.
Today 01:10 PM
Click to expand...

It looks like some things get lost in translation half way across the country. Below is the local report in Colorado Springs and from what we read here, her status was something of a volunteer acting as a security guard for the church and not a member of any organized security guard business - our local source, in fact, pointed out they were "15 -20 volunteer church members working regularly as security guards" at the church. That's a far distance from a professional "security guard".

Boyd said the security guard who killed the shooter was a “hero” whose actions had averted further bloodshed. He said she is normally his personal security guard, but on Sunday was stationed in the middle of a church rotunda, on the lookout for danger following reports of a shooting at a Christian ministry near Denver earlier in the day that left two dead. He said she is “highly trained” and has a background in law enforcement but is not currently a law enforcement officer.

Boyd said 15-20 volunteer church members regularly work as security guards on New Life’s 38-acre campus. The church has had a emergency response and evacuation plan in place for several years, he said
Click to expand...

This is from the paper in Grand Junction - half way across the state -

"Thank God Jean Assam, directly or indirectly, took this advice when she stopped the malevolent attack at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. The former police officer and volunteer security guard who made the suggestion to beef up security at the church without question saved the lives of perhaps dozens of people.

And this from a paper in San Antonio,TX-

"Now someone has shot back, probably saving many lives. All of the gun-control laws that have been passed and are still being contemplated could not have had the effect of one armed, trained and law-abiding citizen on the scene like 42-year-old Jeanne Assam, a volunteer security guard at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs."

She is not a professional security guard.



:D
 
Colorado shooter and media bias

Because of my work schedule and the denial of internet access at work, most of my news comes from those "indepth and all inclusive" 5 minute news breaks (with two commercials) on AM radio first, with the ability to (most days) see the local paper a couple of hours later. I get to see (usually) the late evening TV news, and can use the "net" a few times at home during the week, so I know quite well how the stories can change, and get "spun".

The spin on the Colorado church shooting (on the ABC radio news) was very blatant, after the ME report that the shooter killed himself. Apparently after being stopped by the armed citizen, the killer inflicted a fatal wound to himself. Referring to the armed citizen as a "security guard" constantly implied that she was a professional, and not a congregation member who provided security, ok I expected that. What surprised me was the fact that on the day they reported that services were being held for those murdered that they reported that the gunman killed X people and himself. NO MENTION OF THE KILLER BEING STOPPED BY ANYONE EXCEPT HIMSELF! Apparently the "hero security guard" was no longer worthy of mention, as she only stopped the killer, and her bullets didn't actually kill him!

How is it that these people maintain any credibility with any of us at all? We all know they shape the news about guns to their views as much as they can, I wonder how much of that they do with the rest of what they SELL us?

I don't know for certain, but I have my suspicions......
 
Anti-gun Media Reporting
________________________________________
As the world knows, we had a woman - private citizen - place herself in harm's way to shoot a deranged nut intent on mass murder. She was noted to be some sort of unofficial security person but she saved many lives by her very brave actions.

The press reported that but also lost no time in reporting she was a former law enforcement officer who had been fired for "untruthful" statements she made under some kind of undefined circumstances. None of that story was relevant to her heroic actions and today's paper had three strong letters to the editor pointing out the irrelevant reports of her past were "despicable" and had absolutely no place in the story.

The anti-gun media doesn't give up easily, though. Front page stories today reported how easily the shooter had been able to purchase the five firearms he had (passed the background checks) and even named the stores that sold him the guns - sort of suggesting those stores were some kind of co-conspirators with the would be mass killer.
Of course, none of those stories were relevant to a private citizen saving lives at her own risk but just provided fuel for those anti-gun types who maintain our laws make it too easy to purchase weapons and kill people with those guns.

But then, the media in general, are well known for this kind of sleazy reporting - it's not new.

Today the Denver Post had a large op-ed column demanding the "assault weapon ban" be brought up from the dead to prevent such shootings.

:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top