PUBLICATION:
The
New Brunswick Telegraph Journal
DATE:
2004.11.04
SECTION:
Opinion
PAGE:
D6
COLUMN:
Guest Commentaries
BYLINE:
CHARLES W. MOORE At Large
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Media's
anti-gun bias continues to doctor the truth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guns
are used defensively by private U.S. citizens from 1.5 to 3.4 million times the
year, according to economist John R. Lott Jr., author of More Guns, Less Crime,
and The Bias Against Guns.
Writing
in the September, 2004, edition of Hillsdale College's Imprimis newsletter
(which has a claimed circulation of 1,100,000), Mr. Lott notes that a survey he
conducted in November, 2002, found that 2.3 million defensive gun uses occurred
in America during the twelve months previous, 95 per cent of which involved no
discharge of a weapon, and fewer than one in 1,000 defensive gun uses results in
the death of the attacker. Even in the rare instance when shots are fired,
injuries are some six times more frequent than deaths.
Several
years ago, Professor Gary Mauser of B.C.'s Simon Fraser University calculated
that firearms are used more than 62,000 times each year in Canada to defend
people or property from criminals or animals. If just one in 300 such defensive
incidents saves a life, more lives are saved annually than are lost in all types
of firearm deaths.
You
never hear any of this in the general media, which is obsessed with sensation
and drama, and generally biased against guns.
For example, Mr. Lott cites a January, 2002, incident, when a deranged
individual shot three people dead at the Appalachian Law School in Virginia.
Among 218 news articles about the attack that Mr. Lott reviewed in the
LexisNexis database, a paltry four mentioned that the killer was stopped from
extending his rampage by a couple of brave students who confronted him with guns
they happened to have in their cars.
One
of the students, Troy Bridges, later told Mr. Lott he had carefully described to
more than 50 reporters how he had pointed his gun at the attacker and yelled at
him to drop his weapon, but the media almost unanimously related that Mr.
Bridges and fellow armed student Mikael Gross had "tackled" or
"pounced on" the killer, deliberately leaving the heroes' guns out of
their reports. And some people will try to tell you with a straight face that
the media doesn't have a preponderant liberal/leftist bias.
Mr.
Lott quotes an interview with Associated Press Media relations manager Jack
Stokes, who said he had been "shocked" to hear that students carrying
guns subdued the killer, commenting "I thought, my God, they're put into
jeopardy even more people by bringing out those guns." Never mind the
obvious likelihood that without "those guns" more people would have
been murdered.
Actually,
says a Mr. Lott, "research consistently shows that having a gun (usually
just brandishing it is enough) is the safest way to respond to any type of
criminal assault."
Mr.
Lott further observes that during the year 2001, of the three largest U.S.
newspapers - USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times, only
the Times carried a single news story about defensive gun use, while in the same
the year printing 104 gun crime news pieces. In the 1999 Newsweek special issue
entitled "America Under The Gun," there were 15,000 words plus photos
and graphics about gun-ownership, but not a single mention of self-defense with
a firearm.
Anti-gun
bias was no less in broadcast media. According to Lott's research, in 2001 the
major US TV networks ABC, CBS, and NBC had 190,000 words of news coverage on gun
crimes, but a single 518 word news story among them on the use of guns to
prevent crime.
Media
anti-gun bias is if anything more lopsided and prejudiced in Canada. During the
gun registration controversy ongoing in this country for the past decade, I have
rarely if ever seen in the general media fair and balanced reporting of the real
facts on the effects of gun restriction, such as that when stricter gun controls
are imposed, as they have been in the UK and Australia over the past twenty
years, the rate of gun crime actually increases.
Data
is corroborated by research in the U.S., including a major 1997 study by Mr.
Lott at the University of Chicago comparing crime rates in states and counties
with light restrictions on gun ownership and carriage, with jurisdictions that
have strict gun control which noted that for each one per cent reduction in gun
ownership there is a three per cent increase in violent crime.
As
Mr. Lott summarizes, "when crimes are committed with guns, there is a
somewhat natural inclination toward eliminating all guns. While understandable,
this reaction actually endangers people's lives because it ignores how important
guns are in protecting people from harm. Unbalanced media coverage exaggerates
this, leaving most Americans with a glaringly incomplete picture of the dangers
and benefits of firearms. This is how the media bias against guns hurts society
and costs lives."
--------------------------------------
LIBRARY
OF PARLIAMENT REPORT: "THE BENEFITS OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP"
Here
are just a few of the benefits of firearms ownership addressed in the Library
report that the Liberals refuse to acknowledge or even study:
http://www.cssa-cila.org/garryb/publications/Librarystudy-april2-2004.doc
THE
HILL TIMES - GUN REGISTRY HAS COST RURAL CANADIANS DEARLY
Rural Canadians who use firearms have take a big hit, right in their pocket books http://www.cssa-cila.org/garryb/publications/Article317.htm