Question of the Day: “How can a nation have a debate about gun violence and gun control when the epic, random eruptions of violence that guns produce aren’t even thoroughly covered as news?”

Over at mediamatters.org, Eric Boehert (above right) spends an entire column bitching and moaning about the lack of coverage given/not given a recent workplace shooting. Eric reckons the mainstream media owes it to America to report all spree killings with equal fervor and (let’s face it, Eric) outrage—regardless of the number of victims or the fact that the majority occur in so-called “gun-free” zones. Eric’s column asks the question above. In other words, how can people debate gun control unless they A) accept the idea that guns produce violence and B) soak themselves in the blood of innocents on a regular basis? Your thoughts?

comments

  1. avatar Saren says:

    Spoons made me fat.

    1. avatar bontai Joe says:

      I have no problem with spoons, it’s forks that did it to me. Those big pie scooping assault forks, gotta ban ’em now, think of the children!

      1. avatar pat says:

        Nice. Liberal madness.

  2. avatar Mr. Lion says:

    Lack of coverage? They run every such incident up the flag pole for two weeks at an absolute minimum.

    Oh, and eff you, Eric.

  3. avatar Paul says:

    The entire question is absurd. Unfortunately, “the uncontested absurdities of today become the accepted truths of tomorrow”, so this drivel requires a response. I’m too disgusted with it to say more than “up your I/O, Eric!”

  4. avatar jwm says:

    Guns are a tool, like the shovel my wife wants me to put to use in the garden. And so far my civilian purchased guns have killed nothing without feathers, fur or scales.

    I have found that it’s easier to get a grip on one of my guns than that shovel.

  5. avatar Levi B says:

    So he’d also agree that we can’t have an informed debate on austerity measures to help balance the budget unless all cases of welfare fraud are given widespread media coverage? Boy, that’d be a long program.

  6. avatar Sanchanim says:

    So if some one uses an ax and kills 12 people, will he get 24 / 7 coverage for months? Thought not because his weapon of choice didn’t go bang or look scary.

  7. avatar cliff says:

    Keep in mind that Mediamatters is the official public relations department for Eric Holder and The Most Wondrous One. So…those of you who harbor any doubts about the gun control instincts of those two, consider them disspelled.

  8. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

    i don’t waste my time watching MSNBC

    1. avatar Buzzy243 says:

      Agreed. TTAG probably gets more page views on a good day than MSNBC has viewers. Why give them more of an audience?

  9. avatar GS650G says:

    MSNBC is still on the air? I heard MSFT was finally cutting ties and now that Comcast owns the network heads should be rolling over there.
    Hopefully Rachel Maddow will be able to get free birth control pills she doesn’t need after she loses her job.

    1. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

      LOL…….I think the erectile disfunction show (ED) should go 1st

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    More Media Matters bullsh!t, proving yet again that the media doesn’t matter.

  11. avatar styrgwillidar says:

    Well, wouldn’t the real issue regarding informing the public is the lack of publicity in incidents where civilians use firearms for self-defense/defense of others where nobody gets shot? Isn’t that the part of the issue that really is under-reported? In incidents where folks get shot, they at least make the news. The incidents where the confrontation simply ends are vastly under-reported.

  12. avatar Biofire says:

    One of the top criminologists, Dr. Gary Kleck, specifically says that his work shows that violence leads to gun use. The opposite idea–that guns lead to violence–is just not true and he has decades of data to back that up.

  13. avatar macgearailt says:

    Inanimate objects killing and soaking up blood all by themselves. Why do these folks shy away from holding the human agent who activates the device(firearm) responsible instead of the device itself?Seemingly,logic has no place in this discussion.

  14. avatar Chas says:

    What they really mean is: “Those mouthbreathing, gun loving, racist rednecks – who hate senior citizens and children – don’t agree that all guns oughta be banned, so there’s no point in even trying to talk to ’em!!!”.

  15. avatar TF says:

    How can we hold an honest debate about rescinding gun control measures, especially gun free zones, unless we let people know the lives disarmament costs?

  16. avatar Larry says:

    What about covering the 30,000+ deaths from those outrageously dangerous killing machines known as automobiles? Where’s the outrage? Let’s all just agree that about half of Americans are gun owners and gun supporters. They will never give up those guns. Those who don’t support guns, won’t ever be able to take them away – by laws or by force. It’s part of who we are as Americans. Let’s all get past the argument and turn our attentions to things we can change. Maybe focus on why our society is so violent? Perhaps look towards the media, movie producers, music producers, etc.

  17. avatar Bob says:

    If you really look at his question, then the answer is obvious.
    …”when the epic, random ERUPTIONS OF VIOLENCE THAT GUNS PRODUCE aren’t even thoroughly covered as news?” Look carefully at the six words I capitalized.

    You can’t report on something that doesn’t happen. Guns do not produce violence. Evil PEOPLE produce violence, sometimes while using a gun.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    We also need to properly define several words in his question, before any intelligent discussion can begin:

    Debate:
    Pro-gunnner – an intelligent discussion where both sides present pro and con arguments, and try to agree upon a solution for a problem.
    Anti-gunner – a one-sided tirade when I tell you how I feel about a subject, I accuse you of terrible motives for disagreeing with me, and I refuse to listen to any of your facts or arguments.

    Gun Violence
    Pro-gunner – Violence committed by a criminally violent person, which is already against the law, and which happened to include the use of a gun.
    Anti-gunner – Violence that guns produce, by their very nature as evil, scary things.

    Gun Control:
    Pro-gunner – Law-Abiding Gun-Owner Control – an absurd notion that by disarming law-abiding people we can convince criminals that they should stop hurting innocent people.
    Anti-gunner – If we can only make it more difficult to get guns, then gun violence will not happen anymore. It’s so obvious!

    We can’t have a discussion, because we speak different languages. (And I certainly do not want to have a “Debate” with an anti. (-; )

  18. avatar DerryM says:

    We can’t have this debate because Politicians get too many votes and New Media makes too much money by scaring old ladies and Soccer Moms with lurid tales of random eruptions of violence that guns produce.

  19. avatar Dallis Miller says:

    WHY do people ignore the hundreds if not thousands of gun laws already on the books that don’t work. Laws only protect those who break the laws. They do nothing to protect anyone.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email