Another Example of Spin

One of the things that frustrates those who are involved in self defense issues is the media’s stance on firearms. According to many news stories, guns aren’t merely weapons but are instead demonic devices that force otherwise peaceful people who come in contact with them to explode into violence and slaughter the innocent.

What’s carefully left out of these thinly disguised op-eds is the fact that firearms in the hands of average citizens save many more lives than are taken by criminals.

Case in point is a recent shooting in Tyler, Texas. A deranged man opened fire on his wife and eldest son outside of a courthouse. The wife died, but before he could finish off his son and a sheriff’s deputy who were both wounded, a bystander named Mark Wilson stepped up and engaged the gunman at the cost of his own life. But, even though he died himself, Wilson managed to save both his son and the deputy.

This eyewitness account pretty much puts it into perspective. The gunman slowly drove out of town after killing Wilson, taunting police that were in the area. The witness said, “I think he was expecting to be killed by the cops, but no one but Wilson took a shot at him. That bugs me.”

So Wilson was a hero that paid the ultimate price for trying to save lives. You’d think that this would be the focus of at least a few news stories. But Jeff at Alphecca finds that reporters seem to be more concerned with demonizing the gun used by the murderer than honoring an average American who showed more courage than anyone else at the scene.

Reporters like to say that they have ethics, a strict code that they follow which ensures accuracy and fair handling of the facts. Those of us dedicated to saving lives have a code we live by as well. Wilson lived up to his code, how come the media doesn’t live up to theirs?

2 thoughts on “Another Example of Spin”

  1. If law and custom somehow changed so that there was at least one person carrying a gun nearly everywhere you went, would criminals start using body armor all the time? Would this remove all the benefit derived from widespread gun carrying?

    (I wouldn’t expect honest citizens to habitually wear body armor until it got a lot cheaper and more comfortable, and even then not unless the violent crime rate got much higher than it is at present)

  2. If law and custom somehow changed so that there was at least one person carrying a gun nearly everywhere you went, would criminals start using body armor all the time?

    Maybe, but body armor is rather difficult to conceal and it’s expensive to boot. Besides, there are ways to defeat armor. If we saw a marked increase in criminals wearing armor then we’d take the steps to counter it.

    James

Comments are closed.