One of the appallingly dishonest things about the position of those advocating for gun control is the inherent dishonesty. For gun control to be worthwhile, it has to provide a better situation than the current reality in areas that allow private gun ownership. In other words, for gun control to make sense, it has to make the world safer than a world which allows private gun ownership.
But that just isn’t the case.
And the way that anti-gunners push their dishonest narrative is, usually, to completely ignore defensive gun use in America. Why do they do this? Because the real world statistics blow apart any rational support for gun control (hat tip to here for the lead). John R. Lott Jr. writes,
Americans who look only at the daily headlines would be surprised to learn that, according to academic estimates, defensive gun uses — including instances when guns are simply shown to deter a crime — are four to five times more common than gun crimes, and far more frequent than the roughly 20,000 murders or fewer each year, with or without a gun. But even when they prevent mass public shootings, defensive uses rarely get national news coverage. Those living in major news markets such as New York City, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles are unlikely to hear of such stories.
As of Aug. 10 , America’s five largest newspapers — the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal — have published a combined total of 10 news stories this year reporting a civilian using a gun to successfully stop a crime, according to a search of the Nexis database of news stories. By contrast, those same newspapers had a total of 1,743 news stories containing the keywords “murder” or “murdered” or “murders” and “gunfire,” “shot,” or “shots.” Including articles with the word “wounded,” the total rises to 2,764.
Now, some may argue that mainstream media “news” outlets focus on the horrible incidences of gun violence because horrible things tend to attract the attention of more readers than positive stories such as the much more common successful defensive use of firearms. No doubt, that is certainly one thing that influences what is presented in those outlets, but that doesn’t change the fact that those outlets rarely even try to give a balancing viewpoint in their articles to give readers and viewers perspective by giving them context.
And, as you know, statistics without context can be easily twisted to be dishonest, which is certainly what we’ve seen from the mainstream media.
This information is what we need,if we can get people to read it. Thanks you.
Thanks to the Editors
The media and gun grabbers will never tell about DEFENSIVE GUN USES , it defeats their narrative that guns are bad and do things all by themselves …
DEFENSIVE GUN USES outshines the criminal use of them …
Mr. Trier makes a good point. The crux of the problem is that the pressure to be politically correct has pushed common sense out of the way in the media and in many subcultures in the US. When a city defunds law enforcement, in whole or in part, criminals get the message. The message sometimes comes in the media. Oftentimes criminals learn of cities, or neighborhoods in cities, where police protection is spotty, if not downright nonexistent, in jail or other places where criminals congregate. When some in government proudly proclaim that they have “gun free zones,” the message they send criminals is that this is a good place to commit crimes using guns, since they are not likely to encounter a good citizen with a gun.
While this is good info to know, where does a person go to find the academic estimates or info that can give a person the defensive gun use evidence to counter the anti-gunner you are talking to. Telling someone there is academic evidence of defensive gun use that outweighs the gun violence statistics doesn’t do much good unless one can be specific.
Ray – check out any of the books by John Lott for a starting point.
NOTE to the writer of the article – PLEASE stop using the antis ‘favorite’ term – “gun violence” – There Ia No Such Thing since guns are inanimate objects and have no will of their own. Using their terms only gives a degree of ‘legitimacy’ to their claims. Thank you.
THE PEOPLLE THAT ARE AGAINST GUNS FOR SELF DEFENSE. HAVEN’T HAD TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST A GANG OR INDIVIVUAL THAT IS ARMED. THERE IS NOTHING BIGGER THAN A BARREL POINTED ON YOU WHEN YOU ARE UNARMED. I HAVE BEEN IN THE MILITARY IN THE INFANTRY AND HAVE BEEN AROUND GUNS ALL MY LIFE. I HAVE NOT SEEN ONE OF THEM JUMP UP AND SHOOT ANYBODY YET. WHERE ARE THESE GUN GRABBERS GETTING ALL THEIR INFORMATION FROM, THE MEDIA? WHAT A JOKE THAT IS. I TRAINED MY DAUGHTERS AND SON WHEN THEY WERE VERY YOUNG WHAT THEY WERE FOR, AND WHAT THEY CAN DO, AND WHEN TO USE ONE. THAT’S MISSING IN AMERICA TODAY. THAT’S WHAT’S WRONG!!!!
I was skimming through news headlines yesterday morning, with article after article about criminal activity using a firearm to injure people or toddlers who recently shot themselves after finding their parents’ firearm, and I was thinking the very thing that this article brings up. There isn’t any coverage of the benefit that private firearms has provided in protecting our citizens. The new outlets only report on the tragedy of “successful” criminal activity and the even more rare residential accidents involving children. The reporting is fully one-sided against the 2nd Amendment.
Comments are closed.