Press Bias in Sutherland Springs Reporting

DNS said:
That is what I was alluding to in Post#18. When 80% or more of the 1-6% who can carry don't, you find out that just about everywhere is free of guns. This is why (bias coming) more guns less crime is so untrue no matter how many times you repeat it. "We need concealed carry because more guns means less crime." There is no causative relationship, certainly not at the levels that people are permitted/carrying.
Click to expand...

We can contest the causality present in any correlation, but if we assume that a criminal makes rational choices and assesses his risk, we have to assume that he weighs whether he will meet armed resistance. Unless part of an individual's rational calculation involves his desire to be shot, he will avoid that risk. The risk of meeting armed resistance in a GFZ should be reduced.

In terms of correlation, we do see higher assault and occupied home invasion rates in the UK and Canada. While the US, UK and Canada do not possess identical cultures, they may be a closer match than most.

In the US, occupied home invasion is rare. Even a burglar can figure out that his risk is reduced if no one is home. This appears less true in populations in which firearm ownership is rarer.
 
I am aware of the gunviolencearchive site, but because of their obvious bias I don't consider them to be a reliable or objective resource. Have I missed some mass murder events? Undoubtedly. In fact, a comment from another forum member early in this discussion thread gave me a couple more I had missed, to add to my tabulation.

That said, I'm not going to include gang shootouts in a tabulation of mass shootings, or mass murders. Are they violent? Yes. Do they involve guns? Yes. But are they what ordinary people need to worry about when going shopping or to church or to school? Generally not. For my purposes, they don't belong in the discussion.
 
zukiphile said:
In the US, occupied home invasion is rare. Even a burglar can figure out that his risk is reduced if no one is home. This appears less true in populations in which firearm ownership is rarer.
Click to expand...

Edit, I tried to google the article, I still couldn't find it - you guys just have to take my word for it


A few months back I stumbled on something and it was basically a study about home invasions in the UK vs the USA.

In the United Kingdom that rates of robber where the victims are home are apparently much, much higher. I got the impression, "double digit percentage points," higher. Because robbers in the UK do not expect their victims to be armed, don't much care if the victims are home.

In the USA it is proven that robbers watch the homes, and wait for the opportune time when obviously, "nobody is home." Guess people don't like to be shot at whatever...
 
Last edited:
I certainly am late to the party but I want to re-emphasis a couple of videos and articles that have already been mentioned:

Stephen Willeford, the citizen and NRA member with the AR 15 style rifle that shot and chased the Texax murderer tells his story in his own words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4HEchh0XD8

The hatchet job the NY Times does on Stephen Willeford:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/opinion/sutherland-springs-texas-church-shooting.html

The nasty Christians and Guns article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/opinion/sunday/christians-support-gun-control.html

For a pro-gun video from Louder with Crowder, the ones that did the interview with Stephen Willeford, they comment about the media lies and misrepresentations about the event.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ulpcv-xJpA

And for just out and out "HUH???" there is this video "Stephen Willeford: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know" where the TRUTH about the meaning of AR is revealed at minute 1:25 where I learned for the first time that it is:

"an Arkansas Assault Rifle"

as in "he armed himself with an Arkansas assault rifle"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGOBIMDxxBY
 
There was a pretty horrible shooting yesterday in California. Seems that it doesn’t fit the narrative so it has disappeared pretty quickly. Seems that the shooter violated several laws, neighbors had reported his high capacity magazines, one of the victims had a restraining order and the shooter shouldn’t have had a gun to start with. Basically, gun laws that the antis push were proved ineffectual in that incident, so it’s not in the news cycle anymore... one day later.
 
DaleA: The NYT opinion piece doesn't seem to say what you claim it says.

It is an opinion pieces which by their nature are biased.

The article you named the "nasty Christians and guns article" was written by a self proclaimed Christian and contains quite a few references to Christian and other religious ideologies. Its major theme is the Christian duty to protect the innocent.
While it is pro gun control it doesn't directly denigrate Christians.
 
2. Christians should not have guns (Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists and various other religions rejoice?)
Click to expand...

This was the original description of the article by Glenn Meyer. The NY Times headline was "Why Christians Must Support Gun Control". The nasty Christians and Guns tag was my own writing and I got that from reading the article and finding out that according to the NY Times author I wouldn't be much of a Christian unless I believed the way he believed. I think the NY Times author would label me a nasty Christian because I do not follow his reasoning.

The other article in the NY Times about Stephen Willeford and Johnnie Clay Langendorff, IMhO, really was a hatchet job on two people that tried, and did help out, in a bad situation.

Of course a religious discussion is NOT what we are about here and if I seem to have started one then of course this thread should be closed. My intent was to re-emphasis these two NY Times articles that I think represent a clear media bias against guns and people who do not support more gun control.

To emphasis my point again, I'm talking about media bias, not religion.
 
The article clearly states a religious duty to eliminate guns like AR-15s or AK-47s from the general public. Only low capacity hunting rifles are acceptable. To allow the former is to fail your faith and commit a sin. Protecting the innocent is mentioned but that is accomplished by not committing the sin of allowing such guns to the citizen.

We are not having a religious discussion of the merits of the position but just clearly pointing out that the author makes the claim that you are not a good Christian if you own or support the ownership of such guns.
 
The issue of gun ownership for self defense is one that can be very controversial in religious circles. Some view it as a lack of faith. Others object to the idea of taking a life, even in self defense.

I would also like to point out that, in my opinion, pointing to opinion pieces as proof of media bias falls short. They're just opinion pieces by people who are paid to give their opinions. They may even be "Letter to the editor" type pieces. They certainly aren't what I would consider to be news, so I take them with a grain of salt.

And the shooting in California hasn't disappeared either. In fact, I heard today that the death toll went up to five. I agree that it isn't getting constant days long coverage, but the sad reality is that, among all the shootings in the news over the last couple of years, one with five deaths ranks fairly low in shock value. It's almost as if we've become used to shootings with double digit death tolls, so single digit death tolls don't capture our attention like they used to.
 
DaleA said:
The other article in the NY Times about Stephen Willeford and Johnnie Clay Langendorff, IMhO, really was a hatchet job on two people that tried, and did help out, in a bad situation.
Click to expand...
I read that article when you posted the link and I am mystified as to how or why you consider it to be a "hatchet job" on Willeford and Langendorff.
 
Just a point to consider, some of the deciplies carried swords, Peter even used his in the garden the night Jesus was arrested.

I used to work security in a large Church and yes I carried.
 
Just a point to consider, some of the deciplies carried swords, Peter even used his in the garden the night Jesus was arrested.
Click to expand...

And in Luke 22:36 Christ instructed the disciples to provide themselves with swords. Assumedly for defense of themselves and others.

What I really can't wait to see is the full-circle fruition of media coverage regarding the California shooter. I understand it may not receive quite as much press as the death toll doesn't "sell" like media would like (how sad is this, BTW?). The fact that he was a prohibited person, had his firearms turned in, and somehow illegally acquired more doesn't fit the gun control narrative.
 
5whiskey said:
And in Luke 22:36 Christ instructed the disciples to provide themselves with swords. Assumedly for defense of themselves and others.

What I really can't wait to see is the full-circle fruition of media coverage regarding the California shooter. I understand it may not receive quite as much press as the death toll doesn't "sell" like media would like (how sad is this, BTW?). The fact that he was a prohibited person, had his firearms turned in, and somehow illegally acquired more doesn't fit the gun control narrative.
Click to expand...


I have largely tuned out the lamestream media and couldn't be happier :) Does this mean that I have completely tuned out the mainstream media? No but besides maybe the weather, I try and get the news elsewhere when I can...
 
The fact that he was a prohibited person, had his firearms turned in, and somehow illegally acquired more doesn't fit the gun control narrative.
Click to expand...

Heads up, a new article on MSN from the AP included this...

The man who went on a shooting rampage in Northern California this week found an easy way around a court order prohibiting him from having guns: He secretly built them at home.
Click to expand...

It says the two rifles the killer had with him when stopped were "ghost guns".

No real details other than they were "built from kits" that "anyone" can mail order...

Of course, this is going to set off an attempt to outlaw making your own firearms, but the reality is that it is a fine example of how NO LAW will stop a man determined to kill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top