Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Media Bias against Defensive Gun Uses?

I know, I know, you would like me to say that things which don't exist just happen to exist, but unlike an certain intellectually dishonest person (or is he just a pretentious, ignorant fool?), I will not say things I have not found to be true are true.

There is no proof for the 2.5 million defensive gun uses that are claimed by the pro-gun side, which is no surprise since scrutiny usually shows that their arguments are specious.

That said.  The York (PA) Daily Record ran the following editorial about this topic:
Here's another in a series of occasional editorials pointing out that "the media" (or at least this media) do, in fact, report on "defensive gun uses."

Many Second Amendment enthusiasts and letter-to-the-editor writers believe that news organizations refuse to publish stories about people who use their firearms to protect themselves. Some researchers estimate there are more than 2 million defensive gun uses annually in United States, the vast majority of which go unreported.

Other scholars say such uses are far more infrequent. Much depends upon how you define a defensive gun use and whether or not a person who, say, flashes a gun at someone who appears to be a threat reports such incidents to police.

But the bottom line is that when such incidents are reported to police, and police share such information with reporters, it's very likely to be printed in newspapers and online.

Such was the case with a story that appeared in page D5 in last Sunday's edition.

Southwestern Regional Police said a 31-year-old Glenville resident used a gun to greet a man who allegedly kicked in her front door at 7:45 a.m. March 26.

According to the story: "When the man entered her home in the 770 block of Glenville Road, the woman pointed her gun at him and told him not to come any closer. He allegedly obeyed her order and left the residence."

According to police, the man apparently stepped out of a neighboring home, became disoriented and believed he was returning to the same house — and his friend had locked him out.

He was charged with criminal mischief, a minor infraction. Police and the homeowner believed his story of disorientation.

If the story as reported is accurate, the alleged intruder might be lucky to be alive because, according to the Castle Doctrine, the woman might have been within her rights to shoot first and ask questions later.

This seems like an appropriate use of a gun for self-defense — and you might even argue the woman used admirable restraint.

That, of course, is not to say that defensive gun uses can't go horribly wrong.

We've all heard stories of people who shoot and kill friends or family members, thinking they are intruders. See: Oscar Pistorius, the South African track star who claims such a scenario in the shooting death of his girlfriend — though the jury in his ongoing trial will determine the veracity of his story. Also see a recent case in Fayetteville, Franklin County, where a man allegedly took the gun of an armed intruder and hunted him down, shooting him.

These kinds of cases should make all well-intentioned gun owners think twice about whether it's a good idea to keep a loaded weapon under the mattress or in a bedside table.

We think gun owners should keep their weapons locked up and unloaded to avoid mishaps — perhaps even tragic mishaps where a child finds such a weapon. We've all heard many of those kinds of stories too.

Gun storage is an issue that gives rise to reasonable debate.

What's not reasonable, however, is the conspiracy that some Second Amendment enthusiasts believe exists to keep gun-related self-defense stories out of the news.

It's just not accurate.

When we hear about such stories from official sources such as police, we report them.

They're usually interesting stories. They bring high reader interest. There would be no logical reason not to report them.

That doesn't necessarily mean they belong on the front page. But they do have a place in print and online.

There's no need to fan the flames of antipathy between the First and Second Amendments.

They're both important freedoms. They can both be used for good or ill — and most news organizations do their best to report both.
In other words, even the media admit that they would report these if they were as common as is claimed by the "pro-gun" side.

So, my answer to the people who keep repeating that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution covers a personal right is that I have looked into it and found that is not the case.

I will not take the word of someone on the internet who I don't know and will not provide his credentials and qualifications for his "opinion".

Not all opinions carry the same weight, and from what I have seen of this person's knowledge and expertise, his is not worth paying attention to.  In fact, I'm not sure why I am mentioning him other than I find him ignorant and intellectually dishonest.  I sincerely doubt he has the qualifications he claims as well.

If he were intellectually honest, he would not be  "pro-gun".


  1. This is going to be too easy:

    1. Laci insists on getting into a credentials measuring contest, rather than addressing facts and logic presented against his argument. Instead of addressing the statements, he abuses the person speaking.

    Ad hominem

    2. The claim of 2.5 million has been acknowledged as the high end of estimates by those of us on the gun rights side here. The low end is 108,000, as given by the CDC. The National Academies of Science put that low end in the hundreds of thousands. Instead of addressing the actual claim being made, Laci goes after the extreme end, since that appears easier to attack.


    3. Laci expresses doubt about cases where a good person shows a gun to an attacker, though he won't commit to a definitive statement on that subject, then goes on to quote an article where the good person did exactly that. The homeowner showed a gun to the man who kicked in her door.

    This is the fallacy of being just plain silly, since he denies the validity of evidence that he then uses to support his case.

    4. Laci has looked into the matter and found gun rights to be nonexistent. Are we to take his word for it?

    Faulty appeal to authority

    Or are we to accept that because he doesn't get it, he must be right?

    Fallacy of personal incredulity

    Or are we to accept what he claims because he claimed it?

    Begging the question

    5. Given the list of fallacies committed in this article, the person who we must doubt as being intellectually honest is Laci.

  2. Interesting closer. Nice Catch-22 you have there--I won't discuss the issue unless you're honest, and you can't be honest and be opposed to me...

    We don't know you or your qualifications either, other than having your word for it. Meanwhile, we DO have your writings in which you twist the truth, twist precedent, misstate case law, etc. in order to try to support your groundless interpretation of the Second Amendment.

    Even if opposed by another attorney you merely fling accusations and refuse to respond with anything but facebook quizzes.

    Sorry, Laci, but even some folks on your side of the issue can see what you are.

    1. I don't know. I kinda agree about intellectually honesty being incompatible with the pro-gun position. Just today I read that even ss, our most reasonable thinks that Piers is worse than Ted. That one really floored me. If the most reasonable one among you could come up with something like that, I'd say Laci has a point.

    2. Of course you can't see the pro-gun position as intellectually honest, Mikeb. To your kind, anyone who disagrees with your doctrine is a heretic.

    3. GC,
      You keep saying anyone that holds an anti gun opinion hates America and American values. To your kind free speech means nothing. It's your way, or they are an idiot.