Some Interesting Stuff

I followed a link on Habb's site to here. Some stuff I noticed:

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence's website displays this oft-quoted "fact": "The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns." Their web site fails to mention that Dr. Arthur Kellermann, the "expert" who came up with that figure, later backpedaled after others discredited his studies for failing to follow standard scientific procedures.

Note, I am not bashing the Brady Center here. I am just using them as an example. Isn't it interesting how groups will ignore information that disproves or discredits their position on an issue?

"More Guns, Less Crime" author John Lott points out that, in general, our mainstream media fails to inform the public about defensive uses of guns. "Hardly a day seems to go by," writes Lott, "without national news coverage of yet another shooting. Yet when was the last time you heard a story on the national evening news about a citizen saving a life with a gun? . . . An innocent person's murder is more newsworthy than when a victim brandishes a gun and an attacker runs away with no crime committed. . . . [B]ad events provide emotionally gripping pictures. Yet covering only the bad events creates the impression that guns only cost lives."

Americans, in part due to mainstream media's anti-gun bias, dramatically underestimate the defensive uses of guns.

This is very true, and not just about guns. I have heard several stories from soldiers returning from Iraq during the early days of the war. They would see news reports about Iraqi citizens angry that the US is there. All of the soldiers responded that there were some who were angry, but most were glad. This happens during anti-war protests and pro-abortion protests as well. The media ignores the 100 pro-life activists to do a story about the 10 pro-choice activists on the other side of the street. Why can't the news be fair and cover both sides of stories, not just the one they support.