PDA

View Full Version : Liberal media oversights


smf
02-05-2002, 02:20 AM
Hmmm, why didn't we hear this version (truth) before? It w/b nice to have honest journalism for a change. Nowhere on any network news did I see the fact that an **armed** student stopped the killer.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/38115.htm

THE MISSING GUN

By JOHN R. LOTT, JR.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



January 25, 2002 -- ANOTHER school shooting occurred last week and the headlines were everywhere the same, from Australia to Nigeria. This time the shooting occurred at a university, the Appalachian Law School. As usual, there were calls for more gun control.
Yet in this age of "gun-free school zones," one fact was missing from virtually all the news coverage: The attack was stopped by two students who had guns in their cars.

The fast responses of two male students, Mikael Gross, 34, and Tracy Bridges, 25, undoubtedly saved multiple lives.

Mikael was outside the law school and just returning from lunch when Peter Odighizuwa started his attack. Tracy was in a classroom waiting for class to start.

When the shots rang out, utter chaos erupted. Mikael said, "People were running everywhere. They were jumping behind cars, running out in front of traffic, trying to get away."

Mikael and Tracy did something quite different: Both immediately ran to their cars and got their guns. Mikael had to run about 100 yards to get to his car. Along with Ted Besen (who was unarmed), they approached Peter from different sides.

As Tracy explained it, "I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun down. Ted approached Peter, and Peter hit Ted in the jaw. Ted pushed him back and we all jumped on."

What is so remarkable is that out of 280 separate news stories (from a computerized Nexis-Lexis search) in the week after the event, just four stories mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns.

Only two local newspapers (the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Charlotte Observer) mentioned that the students actually pointed their guns at the attacker.

Much more typical was the scenario described by the Washington Post, where the heroes had simply "helped subdue" the killer. The New York Times noted only that the attacker was "tackled by fellow students."

Most in the media who discussed how the attack was stopped said: "students overpowered a gunman," "students ended the rampage by tackling him," "the gunman was tackled by four male students before being arrested," or "Students ended the rampage by confronting and then tackling the gunman, who dropped his weapon."

In all, 72, stories described how the attacker was stopped without mentioning that the student heroes had guns.

Unfortunately, the coverage in this case was not unusual. In the other public school shootings where citizens with guns have stopped attacks, rarely do more than one percent of the news stories mention that citizens with guns stopped the attacks.

Many people find it hard to believe that research shows that there are 2 million defensive gun uses each year. After all, if these events were really happening, wouldn't we hear about them on the news? But when was the last time you saw a story on the national evening news (or even the local news) about a citizen using his gun to stop a crime?

This misreporting actually endangers people's lives. By selectively reporting the news and turning a defensive gun use story into one where students merely "overpowered a gunman" the media gives misleading impressions of what works when people are confronted by violence.

Research consistently shows that having a gun is the safest way to respond to any type of criminal attack, especially these multiple victim shootings.

boxcar
02-05-2002, 09:42 AM
Nothing like fair and balanced and, above all, _truthful_ reporting of the _facts_is there?

SMF, Alan Keyes last week on one of his shows revealed this little tidbit of info. I would have posted someting about it, but since I didn't have anything in writing, I didn't bother. Thanks for posting this article.

It just goes to demonstrate that when some facts of a news story don't fit in with the liberal political agenda of the mainstream media, they just conveniently ignore them. I guess all these reporters, in their journalism classes, weren't taught that there is such an animal as _lying_ by omission.

Boxcar

hurrikane
02-05-2002, 09:48 AM
Like Archie Bunker said back in days of airplane hijacking. Give everyone a gun when they get on the plane..take it back when they get off. There won't be any more hijackings after that

boxcar
02-05-2002, 11:04 AM
Well, Bunker had it half right. But why give the guns back? Logic would seem to dictate that if the presence all those guns and bullets would deter the crime of hijacking high up in the clouds, they should, likewise, deter crimes on the ground. And studies have shown that this is indeed the case!

Boxcar

hurrikane
02-06-2002, 04:16 PM
I don't think Archie could have stomached blacks and latinos with guns. :D

Tom
02-06-2002, 06:02 PM
1. Why on earth would anyone watch network news if they wanted to hear/see the truth? Just call Commie Ted Kennedy and he will tell you what to think

2. If everyone carried a gun on airplanes, 9-1-1 would never heave happened. Why is that such a hard concept for liberals to understand?

3. Why does everyone foeget that every single time America grew, expanded, settled an area, freed the oppresed, etc, etc, it was by using a gun. I am hard pressed to think of anything we have ever done as a nation (other than give away our hard money to every damn country in the world) the didn't involve a gun of some kind. Look at Dubya's approval rating - and how did he get it? By dropping bombs. And how are we getting other nations to line up behind us in the war on terrorism? By the thtreat that if they don't they will be our next targets.

4. Peace only works if you have gun in your pocket. How many free nations don't have an army?

5. What were Johnny Bin Walker's lawyers thinking, asking for bail????? For a terrorist???? For a man who joined a foreign army and was ready to take arms against the U.S.???
hey said he wasn't a flight risk??? Wasn't a threat to society???
Question: Is there no depths to low for limeball lawyers to sink to?

6. Why didn't we just shoot Bin Walker in the cave where we found him and be done with him? Does anyone really care if he gets justice? Or if he has any rights? I don't. I want him dead, Now. I don't want my taxes wasted on a trial for a scum bucket we found in a Taliban hole in the ground.


Tom
:mad: :mad:

boxcar
02-06-2002, 08:38 PM
Posted by Tom:

Sheesh, Tom, calm down will ya? Those two red heads in your post indicate you're ready to blow
a few gaskets. :)

>>
Why on earth would anyone watch network news if they wanted to hear/see the truth? Just call Commie Ted Kennedy and he will tell you what to think
>>

Kennedy and most other left-wingers would be all too willing to tell us how to think and what to believe.

>>
2. If everyone carried a gun on airplanes, 9-1-1 would never heave happened. Why is that such a hard concept for liberals to understand?
>>

Because the simple common-sense truth of a matter can be a bitter pill to swallow?

>>
4. Peace only works if you have gun in your pocket. How many free nations don't have an army?
>>

What's scary, though, are all the freedom-hating nations that do.

Not only this, but Limbaugh hits the nail squarely on the head with his proposotion for a _lasting_ peace in the Middle East. Either Israel or the Palestanians have to wage war to the point where one adversary is totally _incapable_ of making war against the other. Then and only then will their be a lasting peace in that region. One side beats the other into submission! Period.

>>
5. What were Johnny Bin Walker's lawyers thinking, asking for bail????? For a terrorist???? threat to society??? Question: Is there no depths to low for limeball lawyers to sink to?
>>

Absolutely not! In this day and age, if one doesn't choose to beocome a bottom-feeding, scum-slurpin' sucker fish, passing the bar exams becomes next to impossible, never mind actually practicing law successfully.

And besides, those lawyers have to look like they're earning their big bucks someway,so they make a motion for bail. Hahahah.

Boxcar

Dick Schmidt
02-07-2002, 03:09 AM
It seems that hatred for lawyers is universal. Even Shakespeare said "First, we kill all the lawyers."

But it is also said: "No one loves a lawyer until he needs one." Think about a world without them. You want to go into a court and argue your own case? Want to face the IRS or your x-wife without help? Want to live in a society without laws, where the strong take and the rest beg to be allowed to live? Careful what you wish for, you might get it.

I know several lawyers, and find them to be moral, decent people. True, they are paid to represent other people, but if it was you who was tangled in the law, wouldn't that be a comforting thought? It is for me.

Dick

boxcar
02-07-2002, 07:05 AM
I have known _plenty_ of lawyers throughout my lifetime. Not only can I say that I can count the decent, ethical ones on one hand -- but how 'bout on fewer than half the fingers on one hand!?

And moreover, if this country went back to its judicial roots of "common law", things would be far simpler, and the waters of society would be a lot safer because we wouldn't have to swim with nearly as many sharks. The "common" person would be able to defend himself in many cases.

And why do you think the government is in the shape in its in? And why the perception of so many in this country of its politicians isn't any better than that of its lawyers? I have to think that at least 80% of all politicians have a law degree. I rest my case (bad pun intended).

Boxcar

Lefty
02-07-2002, 01:06 PM
Remember when the Republicans wanted Tort reform and the Democrats cried it would hurt the little guy? Well because of all the malpractice law suits we have surgeons leaving UMC hospital here and people needing transplants and such may actually die!
UMC is our County hospital. Malpractice insurance is over a million a yr here now and these Doctors say they can't afford it and are fleeing the state.
Thank you Democrats and lawyers. You really helped the"poor people" this time.

boxcar
02-07-2002, 05:37 PM
You misunderstand the DemRats Party, Lefty. What counts the most with them are good intentions, not actual resutls.

Boxcar

Tom
02-07-2002, 07:39 PM
The reason we need lawyers is that lawyers write the laws so that they make no sense and no one can understand what they me. Take for example the 10 commandments....
Thou shalt no kill...pretty simple, easy to understand, what's to discuss?
Same with the tax code. Has to be complicated so that the average Amercian can't understand it and therefore can't fight it.
This is why scum-sucking low life waste -of- life inspects like Tom Dash-ole thrive and manipulate the system. He and his lobbyist
wife have done more harm to this country than Osama Bin-Laden - and we aren't shooting at him. We should be. He is an enemy of freedom and a traitor to this country. We should try him, find him guilty , then hang the SOB on PBS.
I will dance on his grave when he finally takes a dirt nap.
He is the government-level version of a looter. He is absolutely evil and no good. I rank him with Bin Laden and Arafat.

Tom :mad: :mad: :mad:

Lefty
02-07-2002, 09:23 PM
Boxcar, you are 100% correct. More than 5 Trillion sprnt on poverty prgms so far; we have more poor people than ever and the Demos want more money.