Florida good guy put down would be mass casualty shooter

[Alexx1401]

That guy was only national news for a short time. Does anyone remember the mother who shot Dennis Butler before he could shoot up a children's party within a day or two of the Uvalde shooting? Anyone even read that story? Even Snopes was forced to admit it was mostly ignored. Stories like that don't get the same attention from the press.

Anyone trying to pretend the legacy news does not ignore these things either just does not want to see facts, or they are trolling. Often probably a little of both.

 

[Camelfilter]

The nightly news is one hour. How many individual DGU or whatever stories do you expect to make it in to that hour, even though they might be uninteresting stories?

I expect all of them to be on the news, because they are news.

Back to the model railroad guy - why isn't he getting all the stories he wants?

Model railroading, although interesting, is not a constitutional rite. Any media "stories" in regards to hobbies are simply filler pieces. They are not news.

Hence why we no longer have news. We have infotainment. Most times barely such.

 

[Will_White]

You know the saying "just because you're paranoid that doesn't mean that people aren't after you".

The media is biased and at the same time, unless there is something exceptional about it, "person does the right thing" isn't a national newsworthy event. Mainstream news pedals in Death, Destruction, Disaster, and Division, with the occasional fluff piece for comic relief. If nobody innocent died, even if the potential was there, then it is not "news." It does create a bias of omission but even conservative news outlets don't report on DGUs often. Colion Noir whose whole thing is gun rights doesn't report everything, just what is exceptional, because DGU by itself isn't exceptional and doesn't attract clicks and eyeballs. The media machine runs on attention and outrage, DGU doesn't activate either of those and that's a good thing it means they are common and we have the statistics to back that up.

With the mall shooting it didn't get massive air time because the body count wasn't high enough, 3 dead is just another Tuesday in a big city. That it was stopped by a good guy with a gun isn't why it went away, the talking heads used that to push gun free zones further even though it directly contradicted what happened, it just wasn't exceptional enough and couldn't be used to push their agenda because of that.

To those saying fall in line with the group think or go away, you are no better then the cancel culture. 2A Rights are not a partisan political issue, if you make it one you only aid in the degradation of our rights.

 

[RX-79G]

as many "uninteresting" stories they share about criminal acts with guns.

The national news doesn't share many individual stories about criminal acts with guns. Just like DGUs, they share dramatic ones.

 

[RX-79G]

I expect all of them to be on the news, because they are news.

DGUs run between 55,000 and 4.7 million times a year. And you want all of them on the news? There wouldn't be any other news.

 

[Koda]

To those saying fall in line with the group think or go away, you are no better then the cancel culture. 2A Rights are not a partisan political issue, if you make it one you only aid in the degradation of our rights.

If there's one takeaway from this discussion its this.

 

[Camelfilter]

DGUs run between 55,000 and 4.7 million times a year. And you want all of them on the news? There wouldn't be any other news.

You asked what I expect, I replied.

Now you are arguing what I expect...

 

[Will_White]

You asked, I replied.

Now you are arguing my answer...

That is how a discussion works.

 

[Koda]

The national news doesn't share many individual stories about criminal acts with guns. Just like DGUs, they share dramatic ones.

DGUs run between 55,000 and 4.7 million times a year. And you want all of them on the news? There wouldn't be any other news.

I get how sensationalism plays into whats reported but like we mentioned last night the media could include statistical DGU data but they typically dont. Even low end estimates like 55K would completely offset their "guns kill people" narrative.

 

[Camelfilter]

That is how a discussion works.

See my edited reply.

 

[Alexx1401]

I get how sensationalism plays into whats reported but like we mentioned last night the media could include statistical DGU data but they typically dont. Even low end estimates like 55K would completely offset their "guns kill people" narrative.

Another thing the legacy news LOVES. Places run by one party, that are crap holes, are ignored. Chi town, DC, Baltimore, have daily death tolls of minority young people. News ignores it. They also ignore the people who are caught, then let go in these places. Now let a Cop shoot one of the scum, who is holding a gun? Legacy media goes wall to wall with it. Trying to drum up hate on the Cop for shooting the poor misunderstood, just getting his life together, on his way to college "victim". Yet we don't have any such thing as bias in the press, just ask a lot of people who want to pretend its not there.

 

[RX-79G]

I get how sensationalism plays into whats reported but like we mentioned last night the media could include statistical DGU data but they typically dont. Even low end estimates like 55K would completely offset their "guns kill people" narrative.

Maybe, but then we get into the my study vs your study game:

A follow-up study in 1998 by Arthur Kellermann analyzed 626 shootings in three cities. The study found that "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides."[40]​

I don't agree with that statistic, but I don't have a better one because the DGU estimates vary so widely. And people's personal experience vary so much, coloring their perception of statistics. I have lived all over the US, and the only criminal act with a gun I have ever witnessed was a negligent shooting at a gun show. Other forum members say they have been attacked multiple times in their lives, and used handguns defensively every time. Who's experience is more typical among voters?

 

[RX-79G]

Yet we don't have any such thing as bias in the press, just ask a lot of people who want to pretend its not there.

You realize no one in this thread suggested there isn't media bias, right? I said it myself.

 

[Koda]

Maybe, but then we get into the my study vs your study game:

I agree it gets muddy once statistics get cited, this is why I avoid citing them in any debate but its hard when the anti gunners regularly and freely cite statistics like the [biased] one you gave an example of, but then they quickly claim any DGU statistic is faulty if only because it supports gun rights... (hypocrisy). Somewhere there is a truth in all statistics but its near impossible to dig that nugget up.

 

[Capn Jack]

You have to remember this is a "common theme". Some scum grabs a gun and gets dropped, here come the crying. The what if he really was not going to shoot, and other BS. Yet those making these inane comments suddenly change if some loved one of theirs is killed while no one stopped that kook. No different than the anti Cop people who scream for Cops to come save them when they are in trouble. It really is a mental disorder with a lot of these people.

"A Liberal is someone who hasn't been mugged yet."

 

[RX-79G]

I agree it gets muddy once statistics get cited, this is why I avoid citing them in any debate but its hard when the anti gunners regularly and freely cite statistics like the [biased] one you gave an example of, but then they quickly claim any DGU statistic is faulty if only because it supports gun rights... (hypocrisy). Somewhere there is a truth in all statistics but its near impossible to dig that nugget up.

I think the big problem is not how often news agencies decide to cite statistics, it is how often different groups make press releases that contain statistics.

One of the inequities in the US is that the conservatives are suspicious of and tend to avoid academia. So instead of an army of people designing good studies, we have a tiny handful of people - Lott, Kleck, a few others. The NRA or other groups certainly aren't funding statistical research. So the CDC and other anti-gun groups have an outsized voice because they are doing the work.

 

[Koda]

I think the big problem is not how often news agencies decide to cite statistics, it is how often different groups make press releases that contain statistics.

One of the inequities in the US is that the conservatives are suspicious of and tend to avoid academia. So instead of an army of people designing good studies, we have a tiny handful of people - Lott, Kleck, a few others. The NRA or other groups certainly aren't funding statistical research. So the CDC and other anti-gun groups have an outsized voice because they are doing the work.

One thing I noticed is the media will often cite sources from Everytown or some other clearly biased source. Ive fact checked Everytowns stats a few times and easily found blatant flaws (eg: calling an accidental discharge by a cop a school shooting just because on school grounds. Or a drug deal gone bad after hours in a school parking lot, is not a "school shooting") . Lott, Kleck etc are likewise pro gun biased but anti gunners refuse to accept their studies on their bias along but widely accept Everytowns.
Ive read some acedemia studies like from universities that actually had some stats that supported both sides but I cant recall that one right now. The one thing I note about acedemic studies is still a slight anti gun lean I suspect due to the groups unintentional bias is typically left leaning in colleges.

 

[RX-79G]

Lott, Kleck etc are likewise pro gun biased but anti gunners refuse to accept their studies on their bias along but widely accept Everytowns.

To be fair, pro gun people like yourself refuse to accept anti-gun studies on their bias.

The one thing I note about acedemic studies is still a slight anti gun lean I suspect due to the groups unintentional bias is typically left leaning in colleges.

Yes, people who decide to go into the social sciences are liberal, and may not even see their bias when they are designing a study. That's why peer review is important - but all their peers are also not pro gun. That's the problem with the conservative ethos.

 

[Koda]

To be fair, pro gun people like yourself refuse to accept anti-gun studies on their bias.

not true. Ive already stated studies that I recognized supported both sides, obviously one of those points isnt my personal bias. Eg. Im well aware that guns available in a society increases access for criminals. I have no problem identifying facts that dont support my personal bias, but the problem with the gun control debate is both sides are based on philosophical ideologies (armed vs unarmed society). My personal ideology of self sufficiency in life is not wrong but I will contend being dependant on the govt for ones personal protection has some serious flaws (need I cite Ulvade)... My opinions on todays "common sense" gun control laws would be way different if there wasnt a movement to force me to be unarmed and dependant on the govt. for my personal safety. The only thing I need to do is be careful not to argue apologetics for my positions instead of unbiased facts, though Im human and not perfect I try.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]