And what have you to say, Andie? It seemed that you were quick to reply to those who were willing to be interviewed. Now the thread is hot, and you are silent.
At the very least, I would call it shoddy journalism. But I tend to believe the article came across exactly as you intended.
In an earlier post you claim that "in fact I want to overturn some preconceptions that people may have about the pro-gun lobby. " The only pro-gun people you quote are a couple of women who carry, and their personal opinions. All the while, you have quoted Hamm (a communications director) and Yewman (a media spokesperson/ community organizer) on multiple occasions, without offering ANY data supporting what they are presenting as fact. Now, considering the UK has their own anti-gun agenda that it spoon feeds into the minds of it's citizens, just who do you think your unknowing readers will give more credibility to? Claiming that the Brady Campaign doesn't want to ban all guns just bolsters that credibility. However, it doesn't take much research to realize that they want to ban the private ownership of DAMN NEAR all guns.
Why have you neglected to quote anyone who is pro-gun, who could offer statistical data refuting their nonsense? And yes, Hamm's claim that "any criminal can buy a gun at a gun show" and Yewman's claim that "a lot of the time the person who buys the gun to protect himself or herself ends up being a victim of that gun..." are outright false. I won't even go into Meleanie Hain, as others have already pointed out that deplorable portrayal. But I will add that it wasn't her own gun that she was killed with.
The closest you come to a gun proponent quote and statistic is...
Despite official government figures, the pro-gun camp maintains that guns reduce crime rather than increase it. John Lott, senior research scientist at the University of Maryland and author of More Guns Less Crime, argues that crime is lower in areas where guns are permitted, although anti-gun campaigners vigorously dispute his arguments and research.
First, I would like to know what "official government figures" you are referring to? It should be pointed out that Lott's research was one of the most comprehensive gun/crime studies ever conducted. You nonchalantly state that "anti-gun campaigners vigorously dispute his arguments and research" without offering any quotes or data offered by these campaigners. And while this paragraph implies that crime is NOT reduced by increased gun ownership, just a couple pages earlier you write...
The past ten years have, in fact, seen crime rates plummet across the country. Last year, the FBI’s tally of violent crimes dropped to lows not seen since the 60s. Yet people are convinced crime has increased – 74 percent of respondents in a 2009 Gallup poll said crime was getting worse.
So, we've seen a plummet in crime rates, but an all-time-high increase in gun ownership had nothing to do with it? It may be worth pointing out that the plummet in crimes happened where the largest increases in gun ownership took place, while the crime rate in the most restrictive cities/ states haven't fallen nearly as much.
And one more thing that should be noted...74 percent of respondents may have said that crime is getting worse. However, I would be willing to bet that a poll taken only of law abiding gun carriers would show that at least 74% of us know that the crime rate is declining. And we know why it is declining. We are largely an educated bunch who must stay on top of the "mind-boggling" rules so that we remain within the law. With that comes the common sense realization that guns DO reduce crime, and the statistics to back it up.
The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by utimmer43
American
Posting Permissions
