Skip to comments.Subsidized ‘reporter’ presents fraudulent accounting of gun ‘costs’
Posted on 08/23/2011 4:56:41 AM PDT by marktwain
What would you be willing to pay to reduce gun violence? the San Jose Mercury News headline asks.
If there was a measure on the ballot that called for increased tax rates to pay for an increased prevention of gun violence, how would you vote? If you say yes, then how much would you be willing to pay?
The question is never honestly explored. Instead, it is presumed that summarizing the offerings of anti-gun researchers Phil Cook and Jens Ludwig authoritatively lays down the last word on the costs of gun violence, with no attempt to factor in the benefits of gun ownership.
That this is a one-sided propaganda piece instead of straight news is not apparent to the majority of readers--indeed, it was filed under "Breaking News." Column author Scott Johnson is identified as a reporter in the lede, and its not until one starts pulling strings on his Oakland Effect blog that his incentive for advocacy and his disinterest in exploring a more complete picture becomes evident. From there we learn Mr. Johnson is the Oakland Tribune's Violence Reporting Fellow, an investigative position funded by the California Endowment.
Funded by the California Endowment..?
The ones whose President and CEO just named Michael Bloomberg and George Soros his Heroes of the Month?
On July 1, I interviewed Chad Baus of Buckeye Firearms Association on my The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance radio program to discuss his article on advocacy journalists, that is, paid propagandists presenting their agenda-directed work as news. It would have been ethical for the Mercury News to disclose reporter Johnsons sympathies and financial incentives, would it not? What does it tell us that they did not?
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
The phrase “gun violence”, much like the phrase, “militants”, is sufficiently ambiguous so as to lay blame on all sides. The offender, and the defender. Thats why they will never try to compute the “benefits” of gun ownership.
And why they constantly refer to “mid-east violence”, instead of ever referring to actual “terrorists”, who cause the problemskk in the first place.
In the case of “gun violence”, it allows them to escape the hard work of identifying the people who are actually causing the trouble. They might have to do something then, rather than just use the issue to advance their strentghen government constrain the people agenda.
“If there was a measure on the ballot that called for increased tax rates to pay for an increased prevention of gun violence, how would you vote?”
That is one of the most lame assertions that I have ever heard. Increase taxes to prevent gun violence? How does that person get from point A to B?
Poor, violent, crime-ridden urban neighborhoods have fewer guns per household than wealthy, quiet, safe suburban neighborhoods.
If libs wanted to do something about gun crime, they could support programs to encourage gun ownership among poor urban residents, instead of preventing it. The question might be, "How much would you be willing to pay to subsidize gun purchases by poor people?"
But libs will never be able to wrap their minds around this concept, or understand the Second Amendment, their heads would explode.
Who cares? Gun control and increased taxes. What's not to like?
Send in your money and we'll tell you. (You have to pass the bill to see what's inside.)
To get from point A to point B can only be done by way of the POOP SHOOT TUNNEL.
Well, lets see. $1,000 per gun, another $200 in training and $300 in range time and ammo. How about $1,500 per US citizen that has not been convicted of a felony. Make it a tax deduction.
That aught to make the libs head explode.
A survey is probably being canvassed throughout California this evening for support or oppose "fairness" for all.
Along with "right to own and carry firearms ?" or "Should people be allowed to carry guns in public ?"