Why no Media About Good Uses of a Firearm!

[Shooterman]

Posted on Fri, Aug. 01, 2003
Lottery Numbers Why don't media cover the good-news stories about guns?
John R. Lott Jr.

People fear guns. And with so many horrific news stories about gun crimes, it is hard to expect them to feel otherwise. True, guns make it easier for bad things to happen, but they also make it easier for people to protect themselves.

Yet, with the seeming avalanche of bad news, it's no wonder people find it hard to believe that, according to some estimates, there are 2 million defensive gun uses each year and guns are used defensively four times more frequently than they are to commit crimes.

The normal reaction is: If defensive uses were really happening, wouldn't we hear about them on the news? There is a good reason for their confusion. In 2001 (the last year available), ABC, CBS and NBC ran 190,000 words' worth of gun-crime stories on their morning and evening national news broadcasts. But they ran not a single story mentioning a private citizen using a gun to stop a crime. The only network I could find that ran any defensive gun-use stories was the Fox News Channel.

The print media were almost as lopsided: The New York Times ran 50,745 words on gun crimes, but only one short (163-word) story on a retired police officer who used his gun to stop a robbery. For USA Today, the tally was 5,660 words on gun crimes versus zero on defensive uses.

Part of the reason defensive gun use isn't covered may be simple news judgment. If a news editor faces two stories, one with a dead body on the ground and another in which a woman brandished a gun and the attacker ran away, no shots fired, almost anyone would pick the first story as more newsworthy. It has been estimated that when people use guns defensively, 90 percent of the time they stop the criminals simply by brandishing the gun.

Few people know that citizens using guns help stop about a third of potential public-school shootings before uniformed police can arrive. They don't know this because only about one percent of the media stories on these cases mention it.

Take the widely covered attack last year at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia. The attack was stopped by two students who got guns from their cars. But only three news stories - out of 218 run in the week after the attack - mentioned that the students actually used their guns to halt the attack.

The unbalanced reporting is probably greatest in cases in which children die from accidental gunshots. Most people have seen the public-service ads with pictures or voices of children between the ages of four and eight, never over the age of eight, and the impression is that there is an epidemic of accidental deaths involving children.

The truth is that in 1999, 31 children younger than 10 died from an accidental gunshot and only six of these cases appear to have involved another child under 10 as the culprit. Nor was this year unusual. Any death is tragic, but with 90-some million Americans owning guns and about 40 million children younger than 10, it is hard to think of any other product in the home that represents such a low risk to children. Indeed, more children under five drowned in bathtubs or plastic water buckets.

Gun deaths are covered extensively as well as prominently, with individual cases getting up to 88 separate news stories. In contrast, when children use guns to save lives, the event might at most get one brief mention in a small local paper.

As a couple of reporters told me, journalists are uncomfortable printing such positive gun stories because they worry that it will encourage children to get access to guns. The whole process snowballs, however, because the exaggeration of the risks - along with lack of coverage of the benefits - cements the perceived risks more and more firmly in newspaper editors' and reporters' minds. This makes them ever more reluctant to publish such stories.

Lack of balance dominates not just the media but also government reports and polling. Studies by the Justice and Treasury Departments have long evaluated just the cost guns impose on society. Every year, Treasury puts out a report on the top 10 guns used in crime, and each report serves as the basis for dozens of news stories. But why not also provide a report - at least once - on the top 10 guns used defensively? Similarly, numerous government reports estimate the cost of injuries from guns, but none measures the number of injuries prevented when guns are used defensively.

But if we really want to save lives, we need to address the whole truth about guns - including the costs of not owning them. We never, for example, hear about the families who couldn't defend themselves and were harmed because they didn't have guns.

Discussing only the costs of guns and not their benefits poses the real threat to public safety as people make mistakes on how best to defend themselves and their families.
John R. Lott Jr. is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "The Bias Against Guns."

Does anyone else think on this?

[Dave]

I think you know where I stand when it comes to guns. I do agree that the news sources only print or talk about the downside of guns. However this is true for everything they talk about, not just guns. No money in the story of the county fair, unless you have a mad gunman involved.

So, I'll stand in agreement that the reports on guns are lopsided against them, but it does not change my stance on them.

[mtlhdtodd]

It's is actually quite simple. The editorial boards of most papers and the honchos at most other news outlets refuse to see guns as anything but extremely dangerous and evil. They will never allow a gun story to run that refutes their preconcieved notions.

Here is a simple test that anti's would never try. Since anti's feel that guns in the home are inherintly unsafe, they just need to proudly announce how safe their home is by posting that the home in which they live is a gun free zone. Then watch what happens.

Criminals prefer unarmed victims to a prepared defender.

[JD3]

My home has four german shepards, one dalmation, and one golden retriever. I don't need a gun to stop anyone from entering. They are well trained and protective.

A gun is a tool. No more; no less. It is only as good as the person using it.

[Big M]

Among all the instances when guns are fired during a break-in while the owner is at home, in only 2% are guns used to shoot the intruder. The other 98% of the time, residents accidentally shoot a loved one or themselves - or the burglars take the gun and kill them with it.

[Shooterman]

Originally posted by Big M
Among all the instances when guns are fired during a break-in while the owner is at home, in only 2% are guns used to shoot the intruder. The other 98% of the time, residents accidentally shoot a loved one or themselves - or the burglars take the gun and kill them with it.

Well, Big M, though you are espousing a myth that has been debunked many times, just possibly you may think you have proof to the contrary. Mind providing a link so we may all look at it. Some one reputable will do.

[AmericanSamurai]

"Among all the instances when guns are fired during a break-in while the owner is at home, in only 2% are guns used to shoot the intruder. The other 98% of the time, residents accidentally shoot a loved one or themselves - or the burglars take the gun and kill them with it."

Where are these statistics from?

If the above happened even one time I can guarantee that the gun owner was untrained in the use of the firearm.

I have guns, many of them.

I know how to use them, as do my wife and every one of my children.

Should an intruder come into my house he will most definitely join the 2% mentioned in the above post.

The Samurai knows that peace is only attainable through superior firepower.

[Eric]

Originally posted by Shooterman
Well, Big M, though you are espousing a myth that has been debunked many times, just possibly you may think you have proof to the contrary. Mind providing a link so we may all look at it. Some one reputable will do.

Fair enough, if you're going to give him a hard time for his fact, then get what's his name at the top to provide a link for all his facts on the amount of coverage guns get from papers and news stations.

I'm not being biased here or opinionated, I just want a fair and balance view. I think that ANY fact or stat should be backed with a link (preferably not one too anything of Ann Coulter's ;) )

Otherwise I can claim that in 2002 75% percent of gun-related stories on ABC, CBS and NBC revolved around Germain Shepperds helping their owners by firing their assault rifles at intruders and scaring them off.

[JD3]

My German Shepards eat assult rifes and intruders for breakfast. Source: JD3 5:17.:lol: :lol: :lol:

[up2date]

Originally posted by Shooterman
Mind providing a link so we may all look at it. Some one reputable will do. How is The New England Journal of Medicine? There have been a couple of very well respected studies there that have shown there is a higher risk of gun injury for those homes with a gun compared to those without. The 98% is not at all accurate as far as I know.

one study (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/15/1084)

[Shooterman]

Originally posted by up2date
How is The New England Journal of Medicine? There have been a couple of very well respected studies there that have shown there is a higher risk of gun injury for those homes with a gun compared to those without. The 98% is not at all accurate as far as I know.

one study (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/15/1084)

See

This may explain much better than I can Up2

[Shooterman]

Originally posted by Shooterman
See [URL=http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit.html [/URL]

This may explain much better than I can Up2

I'm just not very good at urls and links.

[up2date]

Originally posted by Shooterman
I'm just not very good at urls and links. I fixed it for you. ;)

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by Dave
I think you know where I stand when it comes to guns. I do agree that the news sources only print or talk about the downside of guns. However this is true for everything they talk about, not just guns. No money in the story of the county fair, unless you have a mad gunman involved.

So, I'll stand in agreement that the reports on guns are lopsided against them, but it does not change my stance on them. The news only carries anomalies, bad, tragic and horror stories. That's what makes it news. Fortunately it still does.

[azov]

I notice every one of the gun defenders posing as peaceful citizens, who solemnly vow they would use firearms only to defend their homes and loved ones.

The real truth is that owning a gun and shooting it, knowing that one possesses the power of life and death, produces a power high. You can see it out on the firing ranges: these people HOPE they encounter a robber or burglar so they can "blow the futhermucker away."

The criminal glee I hear from these folks not only makes them indistinguishable from the "criminals," but increases the potential for senseless violence. Add to this the John Wayne/Rambo/Clint Eastwood mentality that cheers to see people "blown away," and one can see why "Bowling for Columbine" hit a raw nerve with many.

I am not for outlawing firearms, but gun permits should be like a drivers' license: a privilege, not a right, which can and should be revoked for reckless use thereof. And because the purpose of a firearm is to do injury to another - unlike the purpose of an automobile - the laws governing firearm use, registration, and permit revocation need to be all that much tougher.

[AmericanSamurai]

As a career military man I am obviously comfortable with weapons. I own many of them.

I am admittedly not an expert in firearm legislation, but I do believe that the statistics show that banning gun ownership does little to reduce crime and is many cases is associated with an increase in crime. I recall that England and Australia's gun bans are not producing the results those who pushed for the bans promised they would.

I do live in a state where concealed carry permits are handled on a "shall issue" basis, which means that any adult, after completing a firearms course which includes the laws regarding lawful use of a firearm for self defense, will be granted a permit. When the "shall issue" legislation was being debated, the anti-gunners swore that our state would degenerate into a lawless version of the Old West. It did not. In fact, the opposite happened in many respects.

The Samurai is not a criminal and will not use guns to commit crimes.

The Samurai does not wish for the opportunity to shoot someone, he's already had that experience while in the military and it is not pleasant, especially when your target is shooting at you!

The Samurai does know that all men are responsible for the safety of themselves and their families. The police are not tasked with protecting my family, they are tasked with enforcing the law.

The Samurai is responsible for what does or does not happen to the Samurai.

Think about that and ponder whether or not you are living up to your responsibilities.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by azov
I notice every one of the gun defenders posing as peaceful citizens, who solemnly vow they would use firearms only to defend their homes and loved ones.

The real truth is that owning a gun and shooting it, knowing that one possesses the power of life and death, produces a power high. You can see it out on the firing ranges: these people HOPE they encounter a robber or burglar so they can "blow the futhermucker away."

The criminal glee I hear from these folks not only makes them indistinguishable from the "criminals," but increases the potential for senseless violence. Add to this the John Wayne/Rambo/Clint Eastwood mentality that cheers to see people "blown away," and one can see why "Bowling for Columbine" hit a raw nerve with many.

I am not for outlawing firearms, but gun permits should be like a drivers' license: a privilege, not a right, which can and should be revoked for reckless use thereof. And because the purpose of a firearm is to do injury to another - unlike the purpose of an automobile - the laws governing firearm use, registration, and permit revocation need to be all that much tougher. Great points.

[Dave]

Originally posted by AmericanSamurai


The Samurai is not a criminal and will not use guns to commit crimes.

The Samurai does not wish for the opportunity to shoot someone, he's already had that experience while in the military and it is not pleasant, especially when your target is shooting at you!

The Samurai does know that all men are responsible for the safety of themselves and their families. The police are not tasked with protecting my family, they are tasked with enforcing the law.

The Samurai is responsible for what does or does not happen to the Samurai.

Think about that and ponder whether or not you are living up to your responsibilities.


When you talk of yourself in this third person way, it makes me worry about you and the fact you can carry a gun. I don't need or want Dirty Harry or Samurai in my check out line at wal-mart. People can paint any kind of rosey picture they choose about guns, but the facts are simple, GUNS KILL! If they did not kill, the service in which you are enlisted, would not use them.

Can Samurai understand this?:confused: Well, Dave can.:lol:

[azov]

Guns give one the power of life and death over another. One can say that only the state - a representative one, in a democracy - should have such rights over fellow citizens.

[AmericanSamurai]

The Samurai does not trust a person who forfeits the responsibility to defend himself.

The Samurai knows that guns can cause death, whether in the hands of criminals or responsible, law abiding citizens.

The Samurai is a law abiding citizen and is highly competent in the use of firearms.

The Samurai hopes that he never has to use his firearm to defend himself or others.

The Samurai knows that if he has to use his firearm, he is well prepared to handle any situation.

The Samurai challenges anyone to produce reliable statistics that prove crime is eliminated when personal ownership of guns by citizens is prohibited.

The Samurai knows that;

"IF YOU LOOK LIKE FOOD, YOU WILL BE EATEN"

[Dave]

Originally posted by AmericanSamurai
The Samurai does not trust a person who forfeits the responsibility to defend himself.

The Samurai knows that guns can cause death, whether in the hands of criminals or responsible, law abiding citizens.

The Samurai is a law abiding citizen and is highly competent in the use of firearms.

The Samurai hopes that he never has to use his firearm to defend himself or others.

The Samurai knows that if he has to use his firearm, he is well prepared to handle any situation.

The Samurai challenges anyone to produce reliable statistics that prove crime is eliminated when personal ownership of guns by citizens is prohibited.

The Samurai knows that;

"IF YOU LOOK LIKE FOOD, YOU WILL BE EATEN"


Dave says he can defend himself without a gun and can't trust anyone who needs one.

Dave says you can't control crime with or without guns, but can control accidental death and suicides with absents of guns.

Dave knows how to use gun also and sees no need to go bang bang to prove manhood.

Dave says if you have no gun you won't need to worry so much about the use of one.

Dave says you can be prepared without your gun.

Dave would challenage you to find one country, state or city where guns have been outlawed that the precentage of accidental death by guns and suicide did not drop.

Dave says when your at the top of the food chain, you can look any darn way you want.

Dave says this is really hard to write this way.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :confused:

[Shooterman]

Originally posted by azov
Guns give one the power of life and death over another. One can say that only the state - a representative one, in a democracy - should have such rights over fellow citizens.

And that is the first step toward usurpation of rights.

[Shooterman]

Originally posted by Dave
When you talk of yourself in this third person way, it makes me worry about you and the fact you can carry a gun. I don't need or want Dirty Harry or Samurai in my check out line at wal-mart. People can paint any kind of rosey picture they choose about guns, but the facts are simple, GUNS KILL! If they did not kill, the service in which you are enlisted, would not use them.

Can Samurai understand this?:confused: Well, Dave can.:lol:

The really strange thing is, I've never seen a firearm prepare itself to shoot, aim itself, pull its own trigger and kill any living thing. People do that with a firearm.

[Shooterman]

Originally posted by Dave
[B]Dave says he can defend himself without a gun and can't trust anyone who needs one.

Everyone is not so blessed. We're not all double knotted, black with yellow polka dotted, Fu Wung masters.

Dave says you can't control crime with or without guns, but can control accidental death and suicides with absents of guns.

Accidental rates have been dropping for years to about 200 per year now. Suicides will not be appreciably reduced with gun control. Witness Japan.

Dave knows how to use gun also and sees no need to go bang bang to prove manhood.

I know of absolutely no one trying to prove manhood with a firearm.

Dave says if you have no gun you won't need to worry so much about the use of one.

Unless you just happen to need one! It's a little late to worry then.

Dave says you can be prepared without your gun.

Possibly in a utopian world.

Dave would challenage you to find one country, state or city where guns have been outlawed that the precentage of accidental death by guns and suicide did not drop.

Suicides are not affected appreciably, accidents are very low in this country anyway, but let's discuss crime, shall we. It has statistically been shown that with more and more good people being armed, which, btw, just happens to be a fundamental right, the crime rates are down.

[Dave]

Originally posted by Shooterman
Everyone is not so blessed. We're not all double knotted, black with yellow polka dotted, Fu Wung masters.

I know of absolutely no one trying to prove manhood with a firearm.

Suicides are not affected appreciably, accidents are very low in this country anyway, but let's discuss crime, shall we. It has statistically been shown that with more and more good people being armed, which, btw, just happens to be a fundamental right, the crime rates are down.

I just respond in part if that's ok. Your first statement, if you knew me, you'd be laughing.:lol:

You know of no one tring to prove their manhood. What kind of gun owner are you. People state the need to hunt, when you can buy food cheaper, better, safer and do it without the gun. (manhood) Well, I need it to protect my family. If guns do not kill, they can not protect. They just sit there, remember?(Manhood) Are you ready to admit guns kill? No! (manhood)

Suicides are affected by the use of guns. Guns are the prefered way to commit suicide. Most of the victims are law obiding people. Check it out, if I take a bottle of pills or slice my wrist, the chances are high I'll end up calling for help. If I take a gun, put it in my mouth, pull the trigger? Well, lets just say there's no call for help.

Yes, it is your right to own a gun and it is my right to state that guns cause more harm and death than all other weapons combined. Until the American man lowers his manhood to accept that fact, we'll continue to lead the world in gun related deaths. If a gun is just a tool, people, please reread the instructions. For that tool is responsible for a lot of death.

Any rosey picture you want to paint. Guns kill.

[Shooterman]

Originally posted by Dave
I just respond in part if that's ok. Your first statement, if you knew me, you'd be laughing.:lol:

You know of no one tring to prove their manhood. What kind of gun owner are you. People state the need to hunt, when you can buy food cheaper, better, safer and do it without the gun. (manhood) Well, I need it to protect my family. If guns do not kill, they can not protect. They just sit there, remember?(Manhood) Are you ready to admit guns kill? No! (manhood)

I really think your critique of most gun owners is misplaced. I have hunted, but not in years. Basically hunting fills a primordal need that has been with us since the first days of mankind upon this earth. As for self defense, I hope I never have to use a firearm to defend my life or the lives of loved ones. It is an awesome responsibilty. I do believe I have the mindset to use whatever deadly force is required to do so, though. Now I've been known to kill a few paper targets in the last few years, but not much else. And although in the absolute sense, firearms CAN kill, it requires that human element to do so.

Suicides are affected by the use of guns. Guns are the prefered way to commit suicide. Most of the victims are law obiding people. Check it out, if I take a bottle of pills or slice my wrist, the chances are high I'll end up calling for help. If I take a gun, put it in my mouth, pull the trigger? Well, lets just say there's no call for help.

It's strange that many industralized nations, having very stringent firearms control laws have higher rates of suicide than the US. Japan comes to mind as one. Russia rates up there as well. Several European nations have higher suicide rates with many more stringent laws.

Yes, it is your right to own a gun and it is my right to state that guns cause more harm and death than all other weapons combined. Until the American man lowers his manhood to accept that fact, we'll continue to lead the world in gun related deaths. If a gun is just a tool, people, please reread the instructions. For that tool is responsible for a lot of death.

Most of those deaths are attributable to CRIMINAL behavior, and that Sir, will always be with us.

Any rosey picture you want to paint. Guns kill.

Yet, it has been estimated there are as many as 2 1/2 million uses of a firearm each year that disuades criminal behavior.

[Dave]

Originally posted by Shooterman

Yet, it has been estimated there are as many as 2 1/2 million uses of a firearm each year that disuades criminal behavior.


Estimated: Another word would be a guess. However, lets assume your 2 1/2 million is correct. Inorder to claim self-defense, the force used can be no greater than the threat. Meaning, if your nieghbor says he's going to kick your butt, you can not blow up his house and claim self-defense. So, if 2 1/2 million cases of gun use disuaded crime, the criminal would have had to use a gun. They in turn balance each other out and we're just left with the innocent people getting killed by (pause) people with guns.


By the way, I did tell you, didn't I, that I support your right to own a gun. I just don't like guns, because they kill, I mean people kill with them. I will get this right. :rolleyes:

P.S.

If I lived anywhere other than America, I might have to buy a gun and end it also. So, lets talk America.