Why won't the "mainstream" media report fairly about 2nd amendment issues?

Question

The FBI has recently released its 3rd study on criminal violence and this 3rd installment goes beyond the first two. It also explores the effectiveness of gun control statutes nad their effect on crime and criminal behavior of theose who commit violent crimes.
This is not the frist, fully scientific study doen in the last few years that is ignored, and not just in America, either. Studies of the draconian laws in both Britan and Australia have been scientifically proven to be failures, but these studies are ignored so the media can devote space for the, now catagorically proven false, propaganda of the anti-gun croud.
WHY?
When the only thing people hear, see and read is a lie, it starts to seem like the truth. Why would the media owners want the average person to be diluded into wanting an unsafer world, when these very same rich, and often unknown powers behind the media have large staffs of armed body guards for personal and business reasons?
Why?

Answer 1

You're absolutely right. This issue first came to my attention back in 1999. But the mainstream media leans to the left, and the left, from time to time, lobbies for disarming Americans. You and I know that crime increases when that happens, as with Great Britain and Australia, but that's not the important item when Dems want to push an agenda. The Clinton administration pushed for disarming in the late 90s. They quit after a time for various reasons. One of those reasons was that a White House study showed that there would be a non-compliance rate to such a law of around 60 percent. As for myself, I was buying as many rifles and ammo as I could with each paycheck during that period.

Answer 2

All reports do agree that the United States has the most murders per Capita than any other 'westernized' country coming in usually at number 20 something with France a distant second coming in at number 40 something. Assuming for a minute that these murders are occuring with knives and rocks instead of guns and that homeowners are saved everyday by having a weapon at home to protect themselves with, and guns don't kill people, people actually do kill people... the bigger question you should be asking yourself regarding an 'unsafer' world should be why aren't we doing anything enough to control *violence* through programs for at risk youth? Look at addressing the root problem so the poor businessman won't need a large staff of armed bodyguards. Have you ever seen news reports on our complete national apathy regarding kids that fall between the cracks and wind up buying the blackmarket firearms? Nope. It's just too good for business.

Answer 3

nicely-regulated meant that the militia might function under the order of regulation. meaning the militias might desire to no longer purely type up and pass capturing on the enemy, it had to function under the regulation and the government. The militia grow to be particularly bodily fit adult adult males (no longer women) between sixteen and 50, extra or much less. they had to have weapons so while there grow to be a decision up, they might grab the weapons with no need to first quit some the place to get them. the concept grow to be no longer replaced by ability of the formation of the national safeguard. in case you examine the main modern version of the Geneva Conventions, they understand 3 diverse lawful warring parties in conflict. The universal forces (energetic duty) the Reserve forces (national safeguard and Reserves) and levee en masse (the civilian militia). yet all 3 might desire to be under the command and administration of the national government, that's why the so-suggested as "freedom factors" of Iraq are no longer lawful warring parties. they're appearing independently of the government and for this reason they're terrorists.

Answer 4

these people are stupid. one person does something wrong and they punish everyone. The Constitution dictates that we are to have an ORGANIZED MILITARY - and an UNORGANIZED MILITIA of ARMED FIGHTING MEN (and Women - but they indicated it was men only at the time) - that could organize into a fighting force if we were under sudden invasion. It makes sense, and these stupid people haven't read their constitution recently. People are being profiled now. LikeCho had post trauma stress syndrome and now anyone wtih PTSD is going to be terrorized. Many people have PTSD and will never kill anyone. It's the stupidest thing I ever heard. in Cho's case the writings were there for months, and everyone was terrified of him. but now we all have to pay for what he did. These people are idiots. The terrorists WANT US TO ACT AFRAID - if we ACT IN FEAR THEN WE FALL IN TO THEIR HANDS!

Answer 5

The on air media folks are overpaid puppets who cherish their jobs(where else can such mediocrity earn so much money) that they just say what they are told to say. As you noted the wealthy can hire 'guns' so they don't want anyone else to have guns-they care not about the second amendment-but the very existence of such a press mandates that we keep our guns-ironic isn't it?

Answer 6

Because it does not fit their political agenda. When you control the microphone (or typewriter in this case) you can control the conversation. Unfortunately the conservatives did not lock up the news media, the liberal left did.

Answer 7

a huge percentage of the media is pro-gun control, so they only report one side of the issue.