Previous post
A strange juxtaposition occurred on Sunday night regarding gun violence, shootings, mass shooting events, and how the media covers it all.
NBC News created and ran a special news coverage story called “One Night in America: The Gun Violence Epidemic Plaguing The U.S.” Read the tweet below and see if you can spot what is happening here.
We are doing something unusual tonight @NBCNightlyNews Focusing on #OneNightInAmerica. Specifically last night in America. We devote about half of the broadcast to gun violence & what we saw in Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston and Baltimore. Join us. @nbcnews @NBCNewsPR pic.twitter.com/zwQKt466Q6
— Kate Snow (@tvkatesnow) July 17, 2022
Wait, run those four cities by me again? Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, and Baltimore? Hmmm, what could they all possibly have in common? A quick internet search shows that Chicago‘s last Republican mayor left office in 1931, Philadelphia‘s last Republican mayor left office in 1952, Houston‘s last Republican mayor left office in 1982, and Baltimore‘s last Republican mayor left office in 1967. In other words, these are all deep blue cities with large urban populations. And a special report on gun violence is going to focus on these cities? Why these cities? Yes, this is a rhetorical question, but it’s not one that the NBC News report even gets close to touching with a ten-foot pole. If you watched this news report and knew nothing about the cities involved, you would be forced to assume that gun violence is just happening EVERYWHERE – because this report completely ignores the CAUSES of gun violence. The people they interview, with the one exception of a police officer who blames drugs, solely focus on the fact that the guns exist. There is no speculation about legal gun owners using their guns for illegal means, or any suggestion that this all might be gang violence. These reporters are simply recording the fact that guns have been used to commit murders in these four cities on one single night.
NBC News wants to call this a “gun violence epidemic,” but they never look the how or the why this “epidemic” is taking place. The so-called “elephant in the room” isn’t that gun violence exists outside of mass shootings, which the media usually rush to cover. It’s that this happens all the time, and anyone who has been paying attention outside of the media bubble already knew that it was happening, and the reasons why. Put simply, it is the culture, not the guns. NBC News could have run a thousand TV specials on the cultural issues behind gun violence, but that isn’t what the media wants to do. That would mean admitting that there are real problems that simply banning all the guns would not fix. And that is NOT the narrative that the media wants. It’s just easier to send out four reporters to four cities, let them wander around observing the carnage with police officers and pastors and nurses and doctors, and let them mull over their pre-determined simplistic conclusion that IF WE JUST BANNED ALL THE GUNS, then all the problems would be solved.
But then a news story broke that busted that narrative into a million pieces. On Sunday evening, another mass shooting took place in Greenwood, Indiana, at a mall food court. Three people were killed and two were injured, and it could have been much worse, except for one thing.
“Four people are dead and two others wounded in the shooting at Greenwood Park Mall. Police tell 13News the shooter is among those dead… Greenwood Chief James Ison said a ‘Good Samaritan’ witnessed the shooting and shot and killed the shooter.”https://t.co/0qHCXEPmlz
— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) July 18, 2022
Yes, the shooter was taken out by an armed citizen.
Around 6:00 p.m. local time, multiple people called 911 to report an active shooter at the Greenwood Park Mall, Greenwood Police Department Chief Jim Ison told reporters.”
Investigators believe the unidentified gunman, an adult man, was shot and killed by a lawfully armed 22-year-old man who “observed the shooting in progress,” Ison said.”
“This tragedy hits at the core of our community,” Greenwood Mayor Mark Meyers said in a Facebook post. “Please offer your prayers to the victims and our first responders.”
Meyers also expressed his thanks to the person who fatally shot the gunman while the shooting was in progress.”
“This person saved lives tonight. On behalf of the City of Greenwood, I am grateful for his quick action and heroism in this situation,” the mayor said in another statement later Sunday evening.”
Ison said the Greenwood Police Department has trained for a mass shooting scenario and has performed “multiple mall exercises” to prepare for active shooter situations.”
“But I’m going to tell you, the real hero of the day is the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in that food court and was able to stop this shooter almost as soon as he began,” Ison said.”
Both the police chief and the mayor have also referred to the armed citizen as a “Good Samaritan” who was able to stop a killer before he killed any more people. Which means that this mass shooting runs directly counter to the media’s preferred narrative. A good guy with a gun? The media doesn’t want to cover those, because if they did, then maybe more people would get the idea that the only person they can rely on in an immediate emergency is themselves, and then THEY will decide to legally carry a gun! And the media wants to get RID of the guns, not encourage people to be armed! And we know what happens to mass shootings that don’t adhere to the narrative – they go straight down the memory hole.
And since the media is going to make sure that this Greenwood Park Mall shooting is going to be quickly buried and forgotten, they will never have to swerve from their naive belief that if they could just get rid of ALL THE GUNS, then everything would be okay and people would never die in violent attacks again.
At least, until they start running stories about how we have to ban all the knives.
Featured image via Bret_Hondow on Pixabay, cropped, Pixabay license
GWB says: Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, and Baltimore?
You know what’s funny? Except for Houston, those cities were featured (along with NYC and Detroit) in every national television ‘special’ about violent crime back in the 80s. Things haven’t changed, though the numbers have gone up. Maybe it’s not so much the guns themselves as the people using them? And maybe whatever these cities have been doing for 40 years doesn’t work?
assume that gun violence is just happening EVERYWHERE
It’s their M.O. They did it with sexual abuse in daycare. They did it with child abductions. They did it with Wuhan Flu.
it is the culture, not the guns
QFT
IF WE JUST BANNED ALL THE GUNS
Start with the security for politicians. Then do cops. See how far that goes.
multiple people called 911 to report
Because they are slaves of the state and cannot take care of themselves. So they have to call for help and wait and pray that a ‘first responder’ will finally show up. (And that they act when they get there, and not an hour later.)
“Good Samaritan”
Someone on Instapundit wondered if this guy knew his Bible, because “Samaritan” has a particular meaning/purpose in that story. I stated, “What if he was from Ohio? (Ref. the 10yo abortion story.)
the only person they can rely on in an immediate emergency is themselves
Oh noes! We can’t have people taking personal responsibility! What will happen to the devotion to the collective? Reeeeee!!!
they go straight down the memory hole.
Again on Instapundit, someone commented this was “front page” on MSNBC (iirc) until literally the moment they found out a civilian stopped the shooting.
Guns are a tool. (Not like politicians are tools; that’s meant differently.) Mind you, they can be a lethal one. That’s kind of the point. And it’s why you should be thoroughly trained and keep your wits about you if you have and use firearms. But I’ve been carrying away from home for the last year or so, consistently* and my gun hasn’t shot anyone, yet.
(* I have left the house and its curtilage unarmed exactly twice. Once was for destination reasons, and the other was literally forgetting. I was very tired that day.)
Wfjag says: The Greenwood Park Mall is designated by its owners as a Gun Free property – yet the perp who killed three and wounded others carried a long barreled firearm (e.g., a rifle) and several magazines into the Mall and to the food court. However, the alarm was raised by people who were being shot at calling 911.
Where was the Mall Security? Couldn’t someone watching security cameras watching someone carrying a long barreled firearm call 911 and set off a warning alarm? Were any security personnel at the Mall? Was anyone watching the security cameras? Since the Mall ownership wishes to deprive customers of the means to defend themselves from a shooter, does it have a duty to provide protection?
I suspect we’ll learn the answers to those questions.
GWB says: We might. But the general public probably won’t because of the memory-holing.
Bruce says: Then there is the hoary old chestnut about the peasants not taking he law into their own hands.
Whose “law”?
Is not the “official narrative” that the peasants are allowed to “vote” to “elect” representatives to do their bidding?
Thus, if basic logic is applied, the “laws”, for better or, as is commonly the case, for MUCH worse, ARE the responsibility of “the people”.
Thus, if a “peasant” encounters “wrong-doing”, upon whose head does the initial responsibility for “action” fall? This presupposes, of course, that the entire system is NOT rigged to the eyeballs, purely for the ultimate benefit of those who best game the “system; i.e., those at the “big end of town”.
There is a reason “criminal law” is called thus”
Conceived by criminals,
Drafted by criminals,
Enacted by criminals,
Enforced by criminals,
“Administered” by criminals,
Purely and exclusively for the “benefit” of the aforementioned cabal of CRIMINALS..
The evidence is abundant and stark: Change my mind if you can..
GWB says: Thus, if a “peasant” encounters “wrong-doing”, upon whose head does the initial responsibility for “action” fall?
To quote Sir Robert Peel, who invented civilian policing:
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
(emphasis added)
[…] fit the narrative, it will promptly be memory-holed, like all other politically inconvenient shootings. And the media will helpfully forget that it ever happened – just like all the shootings in […]
6 Comments