8 Ways the Media Doesn’t Understand Gun Owners

This is a dire situation: I have three anti-gun media hit pieces left to read, and I’m down to my last antacid. I normally ration them, but that last story was a real doozy. Why endure such torture? If you can grasp the mindset of someone who fears gun ownership—who doesn’t even trust himself with the right, let alone you—you’ll be better equipped to articulate your point of view. The more we’re familiar with the other side’s argument, misguided as it may be, the better equipped we are to defeat it.

I’ve learned something through this approach: Big Media does not understand gun owners. Their anti-gun stories range widely in subtlety, and could be categorized as lazy, intentionally anti-gun or unknowingly biased. The latest antacid-popper comes to us courtesy of The New Yorker and falls into the “unknowingly biased” category. Jill Lepore thinks she is a liberal crusader out there just trying to make a difference, which she has attempted to achieve through an unfair and condescending portrayal of gun ownership in America (She actually compares the ambience of a gun range to visiting a porn shop—what the hell?). Lepore’s story, while better written than some mindless anti-gun hit pieces, is undermined by a lack of empathy. There is a cavernous disconnect between liberal journalists (who don’t even recognize their own biases) and the plight of gun owners. Here are the top eight things anti-gun journalists don’t seem to understand about us.

One aspect of Lepore’s story revolves around a high school shooting. Both parents of the shooter have been in and out of jail for violent crimes, including against each other. The mother is a volatile alcoholic. The father was convicted of kidnapping and assaulting another woman. Reminds you of your home, right?

Then one day their son steals his uncle’s gun, takes it to school and commits an atrocity. It’s a sad story. It would perhaps bring some resolution if a preventative measure could be found. Lepore tries to find a tenable link between gun owners and mass shootings, but her reasoning is dubious at best.

Journalists always want to point the finger at gun owners after such tragedies, as if there’s some way to legislate away the actions of a madman intent on mayhem without expunging the freedoms of law-abiding Americans. They ignore the failures of liberal social programs and instead want to create “gun free zones,” forgetting that this is in fact where most mass shootings occur (even in highly firearm-restrictive European countries). And, perhaps most frustrating of all, they deny that an average armed citizen can halt a mass shooting. It’s happened, notably at a church in Colorado, a high school in Mississippi, at the Appalachian State law school and elsewhere.

If journalists want us to take them seriously, they should at least learn a little about the firearms they so irrationally fear. When we read about an “AK-47” used in a crime that turns out to have been a regular old bolt-action, or when journalists use such terms as “.12-caliber shotgun”, “automatic revolver” or “spray fire assault rifle,” he reveals his ignorance. He entirely discredits himself. And that’s one of the reasons why so many of us tend toward media skepticism even when it comes to non-gun issues.

You can’t just single out a freedom you don’t like and call it a “loophole.” In the United States, we have the right to own firearms. We have the right to sell firearms. If I want to walk across the street and sell my 1911 to a neighbor right now, I have that freedom, as long as he’s legally able to buy a gun and I’m a legal seller. These same transactions occur at gun shows between private sellers. To require a background check between such individuals would essentially end all private transactions—and that is of course the goal of those who push such legislation. So please, journalists, quit griping about gun shows and we won’t touch your “Free Speech Loophole.”

Lepore’s article once again drags out the old argument that, unlike every other freedom guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to be a collective right. Last time I checked, the Supreme Court looked into this issue and ruled that the U.S. Constitution guarantees an individual right to gun ownership. Can we move on?

Gun rights and pride in gun ownership hit a marked decline in the early to mid-1990’s, but since then things have changed. Gun owners have adjusted their strategy. We’re back on offense, and journalists don’t seem to understand what happened.

Personally, I believe we almost began apologizing for guns during the Clinton Administration. However, at some point we decided to get back to being honest: Shooting guns is an important freedom, we aren’t sorry about it and shooting them is good wholesome entertainment. That’s a message that resonates with the public, if not anti-gun journalists. The media establishment seems baffled by the Brady Campaign’s financial woes. And poll after poll that indicates growing support for gun ownership.

Namely we win because shooting is fun. If you take a rookie shooter to the range, their smile upon that first shot is practically blinding. Despite what they may have read about guns in the media, they just learned how much fun it is to send a round downrange. And there’s nothing a New York City journalist can do to convince them otherwise.

Firearms and ammo manufacturers make up practically the only industry that’s actually doing well during this tough recession. Gun buyers are so active that Ruger had to quit taking orders for certain guns. We’ve set sales and NICS check records. And yet journalists buy into the strategy of anti-gunners to portray gun owners as a fringe group. A dying breed.

Lepore makes this argument in her New Yorker piece, but given that she did not cite the source of her information, I’m not sure how she drew that conclusion. Gun ownership is up and, perhaps not coincidentally, the violent crime rate is down.

Lazy journalists love to drag out the old saying, “You’re more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.” Find some new facts—that one’s been discredited. It counted illegally possessed guns and gang members right along with the legitimate homes. And it only took into account incidents in which shots were fired.

According to a study by Florida State criminologist Gary Kleck, guns are used in lawful self-defense 2.5 million times per year. However, most times the mere presence of a firearm is enough to frighten away the miscreant without shots being fired. Bad guy kicks the door down. Little old lady points a .22 at him. Bad guy runs away. The incident may not even be reported to police. You see, journalists, unlike the way you insist on portraying us, we don’t really want to shoot anybody. But, if we have to, we’d rather be prepared to protect ourselves than wait for the police and hope for the best.

Note to the media: Quit citing hugely inflated Brady Campaign statistics to undermine our gun rights. The Brady Bunch is not some credible non-profit just out there seeking the truth, but an extreme anti-gun group with a complete willingness to lie to meet objectives. At the very least, please admit that the Brady’s anti-gun bias is as great as the NRA or NSSF’s pro-gun views. Instead, you act as if Sarah Brady preaches the gospel, then you bury a few facts from NRA deep in the story, hinting that they must be taken with a grain of salt, or you’ll ignore the pro-gun side altogether. That’s lazy journalism, and we notice.

I do not think that gun ownership went into a decline in the 1990s. I think people were far more afraid to *admit* to gun ownership in the 1990s.

I recall a strong, intellegnet wife of a freind of mine, who was worried about his pro-gun activities, because of what happened at Waco. I do not think president Clinton actually depressed the number of gun owners through the terroristic actions of his justice department, but he did push many into keeping a lower profile.

The media believes the GOP-E is done and easy to rid of. However, rest the gun owners... So they are trying to shore that up. They won’t let Romney make them sell his crap GE/GM products and what not, and they want to take his money, because it is all about greed. Greedy Romney is getting jealous of gun owners. It’s a game that has been playing, however, hopefuly, like in Brazille, there will be enough poor people with gang problems to stick to their guns and tell liberals to go screw themselves.

A Lott of credit goes to this freeper...

The Republican takeover in '94 along with the internet and talk radio all helped take the Dem party talking points away regarding guns and gun ownership.

Lott helped buttress common sense with statistical facts.

If anyone thinks gun ownership is in decline, then perhaps they should go talk to the people at Ruger. They had to stop all new orders, because they were a year behind in manufacturing for the orders they had. I’m SURE the firearms industry would be much bigger from the demand, but people are afraid to invest in something that can be shut down on the whim of some politician or bureaucrat at the ATF.

I do not think that gun ownership went into a decline in the 1990s. I think people were far more afraid to *admit* to gun ownership in the 1990s.

My memories indicate a rapid increase in gun sales, at least up to the 1994 elections. In these parts there was a strongly felt fear that Clinton and the Democrat Congress were working rapidly up to a confiscation or to a banning of ammo or something else equally drastic and gun sales went through the proverbial roof. The price of a functional Garand went from $300 with outliers as low as $170 or so in Fall 1993 to $1500 and mostly unavailable in October 1994. Other models followed similar trajectories. Military rifles were cleaned out of the stores and many models were long back-ordered. In the weeks following the 94 elections the price of that now available-again Garand went to less than $1000 and continued to slide for a while, at least until it all fell out of my focus. I had been in the market, myself, for a long gun and always wanted an M1 Garand which is why I paid attention to that particular item. I think the pace of gun sales did fall pretty sharply for a time beginning in November of 94 but that was surely due to the disappearance of the frantic urgency that had been in in the air.

I think the pace of gun sales did fall pretty sharply for a time beginning in November of 94 but that was surely due to the disappearance of the frantic urgency that had been in in the air.

I am in complete agreement as I bought an Colt AR-15 just before the selling price doubled (and the supply dried up). Best investment I ever made. After things calmed down a bit the prices dropped a bit but never returned to pre-panic levels.

Regards,
GtG

Point 1. errs a little bit.

It is the liberal terrorist mindset that causes murder, whether the murderer is a gang member or a gang member hired into government goon doing it in color of law.

Liberals want to protect murderers from themselves and empower them into government. Lack of gun ownership means that the thugs with evil intent get blended in the society to an equal access.

But the above detail aside, liberals speak in terms of the rhetoric of the slave, what feels good or bad. The liberal lives in an accademic bubble of utopian consequenceless school campus.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.