man released from jail, shoots 2 the next day, then a cop the following day

[Ban Hammer 14,266]

Well it wouldn't be.

"Man holds burglar at gunpoint until police arrive" isn't exactly a sexy headline.

it happens quite often - it's just rarely seen in the paper. "the armed citizen" in the nra magazine covers these every month.

[slim 1,533]

The problem here is that you cry failure simply because you read a story in the news about a gun crime.

No, the problem here is I cry failure based on years and years of statistical evidence and facts. Folks like you, who read a story about gun crime, jump to the conclusion that gun crime can be stopped by making guns "more illegal" yet for whatever reason you choose to ignore the fact that every single gun crime commmited is already illegal.

Bad news sells. News editors don't care that a homeowner held a gun on a burglar until police arrived (usually the focus in those stories is on the homeowner being old or disabled) or if someone avoided being "almost" shot. It's a more interesting story when there are bodies on the ground.

Well it wouldn't be.

"Man holds burglar at gunpoint until police arrive" isn't exactly a sexy headline.

And your point is?

Media can report on whatever they choose to report on. But, that doesn't change the facts or reality.

[SuperDuper! 230]

wait a second I thought guns were illegal in the UK.

Right now, Booyah's ears are burning! He will soon experience an irresistible gravity pull to his computer and log in.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

it happens quite often - it's just rarely seen in the paper. "the armed citizen" in the nra magazine covers these every month.

As I say it's not in the news because it isn't deemed newsworthy. Whether it should be or not is a fair question, but obviously the NRA is interested in reporting those things because it has an ideological interest in doing so.

[Ban Hammer 14,266]

As I say it's not in the news because it isn't deemed newsworthy. Whether it should be or not is a fair question, but obviously the NRA is interested in reporting those things because it has an ideological interest in doing so.

i'd be inclined to believe the stories are more prevalent than we see, just they get spiked by an editor that has an agenda.

[slim 1,533]

Agenda? Noooooo.

Editors don't have agendas, they're fair and balanced.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No, the problem here is I cry failure based on years and years of statistical evidence and facts. Folks like you, who read a story about gun crime, jump to the conclusion that gun crime can be stopped by making guns "more illegal" yet for whatever reason you choose to ignore the fact that every single gun crime commmited is already illegal.

Guns were "banned" (they aren't actually banned BTW, but there are a lot of restrictions) in the UK following two high profile incidents shootings - Hungerford and Dunblane.

Whether the "ban" is effective or not, I don't know - but I get irritated by people who make trite comments for ideological reasons. I think it is in bad taste to make irreverent gum chewing statements in response to a story where real people have been terrorised and suffered violent death.

And your point is?

Media can report on whatever they choose to report on. But, that doesn't change the facts or reality.

You are suggesting that there is some sinister reason why those stories aren't front page news, when it is quite clear to me (having some experience in journalism) why they wouldn't be.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i'd be inclined to believe the stories are more prevalent than we see, just they get spiked by an editor that has an agenda.

If they are prevalent as you say, that would be another reason why they aren't given prominence in news coverage. How many times can you tell the same story?

[evli1966 88]

If they are prevalent as you say, that would be another reason why they aren't given prominence in news coverage. How many times can you tell the same story?

Ask that question to Nancy Gray

Not saying she is a reliable media source and all. just saying she beats into the ground.

ok back to topic

[slim 1,533]

Guns were "banned" (they aren't actually banned BTW, but there are a lot of restrictions) in the UK following two high profile incidents shootings - Hungerford and Dunblane.

Whether the "ban" is effective or not, I don't know - but I get irritated by people who make trite comments for ideological reasons. I think it is in bad taste to make irreverent gum chewing statements in response to a story where real people have been terrorised and suffered violent death.

Violent homicides have not been reduced in the UK following the "lot of restrictions" based on firearms. Yet for whatever reason, you have folks on VJ and other places who champion gun bans (or restrictions that aren't really bans but make people feel better) and refuse to acknowledge their ineffectiveness while continually attempting to point out America's problems are because of guns.

I have no idea why you did it, others do it, etc., yet for some reason, it's always OK for you folks to point out "America has it far worse than we do" when, in fact, you're wrong. What you're basically saying is it was OK for you to make incorrect statements following this incident but I cannot make factual arguments to the contrary because "people were terrorised and suffered violent death."

Facts are facts whether you agree with them or not. I can't believe it irritats you and you think it's in bad taste when, in fact, you are the one who is incorrect.

You are suggesting that there is some sinister reason why those stories aren't front page news, when it is quite clear to me (having some experience in journalism) why they wouldn't be.

You don't have to be an experienced person to understand motivation.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Violent homicides have not been reduced in the UK following the "lot of restrictions" based on firearms. Yet for whatever reason, you have folks on VJ and other places who champion gun bans (or restrictions that aren't really bans but make people feel better) and refuse to acknowledge their ineffectiveness while continually attempting to point out America's problems are because of guns.

I have no idea why you did it, others do it, etc., yet for some reason, it's always OK for you folks to point out "America has it far worse than we do" when, in fact, you're wrong. What you're basically saying is it was OK for you to make incorrect statements following this incident but I cannot make factual arguments to the contrary because "people were terrorised and suffered violent death."

Facts are facts whether you agree with them or not. I can't believe it irritats you and you think it's in bad taste when, in fact, you are the one who is incorrect.

I believe we have yet to see any "facts" in this thread.

You don't have to be an experienced person to understand motivation.

You have to be experienced to have an idea of why certain stories are selected over others.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Your comparing apples and oranges. UK 60+ million USA 300+

What doesnt make national news is the lives that are saved because of guns.

Statistically incorrect but very hilarious!

[slim 1,533]

I believe we have yet to see any "facts" in this thread.

I believe the facts have been posted, ad nauseum, here on VJ.

You have to be experienced to have an idea of why certain stories are selected over others.

That's like saying "you have to have kids to understand why they cry for Happy Meals."

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I believe the facts have been posted, ad nauseum, here on VJ.

Yet not here and not by you.

That's like saying "you have to have kids to understand why they cry for Happy Meals."

No it isn't. It's being able to tell the difference between editorial bias and what makes a given story "newsworthy".

[slim 1,533]

Yet not here and not by you.

I have posted facts. If you are ignorant of crime statistics then use some of that journalistic experience and go uncover the truth. The fact (again, a fact) that you don't know something is not my problem.

No it isn't. It's being able to tell the difference between editorial bias and what makes a given story "newsworthy".

And I need to have experience in the news media to be able to do that? I can't just be a halfway intelligent person? I have to have experience in a related field?