NPR Reports that there is no school shooting epidemic ...
- Thread starter SharpDog
- Start date
- Status
Alec
Member
I have listened to a few reports on NPR that were surprisingly balanced on the topic of guns. Say what you will about their political leanings and the greater purpose of public broadcasting— in general I respect it for its execution.
armoredman
Member
Interesting.
MachIVshooter
Member
The real epidemic is the immediate, reckless dissemination of (mis)information, the race to be the first to report on or even release video of bloody tragedies. After that, we get media digging into the perpetrator's life history, giving them the attention, the "fame" they desire.
Illegal homicides are way down, lowest rates we've seen in over a half century. But the instantaneous reporting by orders of magnitude more outlets makes it seem like things are far worse. I just saw a thing about some retard teacher in an unknown CA town accidentally discharging a weapon in the school. This would not have been national news two decades ago, probably wouldn't even have been known by anyone who didn't live in the community where it happened. But it's front page on Yahoo! "news"
Illegal homicides are way down, lowest rates we've seen in over a half century. But the instantaneous reporting by orders of magnitude more outlets makes it seem like things are far worse. I just saw a thing about some retard teacher in an unknown CA town accidentally discharging a weapon in the school. This would not have been national news two decades ago, probably wouldn't even have been known by anyone who didn't live in the community where it happened. But it's front page on Yahoo! "news"
My thoughts exactly.
Peter Gun
Member
NPR gets a bad rap from you lot but they really are the most balanced reporting out there.
Yes they are very biased, everyone is. Part of living in a free society is evaluating the bias of all information and it’s relative worth.
All real journalists are biased a little left, it’s the nature of the person who becomes a journalist. People don’t become journalists if they aren’t looking to change the world somehow. You just have to take it into account.
I don’t believe NPR has a political bias, they have an extreme CITY DWELLER bias!
Not all bias in reporting is deliberate propaganda, in this case it’s mostly that the reporters simply aren’t aware that some of the things they assume are universal, aren’t.
To do a story, they usually just step outside their studios and interview people in suburbs like Bethesda MD, or Cambridge, MA. When they report from a rural area the reporters sound like explorers on Mars, you can almost hear the environmental isolation suits they would want to wear.
My favorite example is how they repeat on many different shows that millennials will not own cars in ten years.
I’m sure that’s true in big cities, but does anyone who lives in rural area really think the young people living there won’t want cars in ten years?
But they do try and stick to the rules of good journalism which most places have abandoned in favor of sensationalism. The call in shows do a good job of respecting and airing dissenting opinions.
You want political bias, listen to BBC radio! Lots of good info still but not at all accepting of divergent opinions.
Crazy PC!
Yes they are very biased, everyone is. Part of living in a free society is evaluating the bias of all information and it’s relative worth.
All real journalists are biased a little left, it’s the nature of the person who becomes a journalist. People don’t become journalists if they aren’t looking to change the world somehow. You just have to take it into account.
I don’t believe NPR has a political bias, they have an extreme CITY DWELLER bias!
Not all bias in reporting is deliberate propaganda, in this case it’s mostly that the reporters simply aren’t aware that some of the things they assume are universal, aren’t.
To do a story, they usually just step outside their studios and interview people in suburbs like Bethesda MD, or Cambridge, MA. When they report from a rural area the reporters sound like explorers on Mars, you can almost hear the environmental isolation suits they would want to wear.
My favorite example is how they repeat on many different shows that millennials will not own cars in ten years.
I’m sure that’s true in big cities, but does anyone who lives in rural area really think the young people living there won’t want cars in ten years?
But they do try and stick to the rules of good journalism which most places have abandoned in favor of sensationalism. The call in shows do a good job of respecting and airing dissenting opinions.
You want political bias, listen to BBC radio! Lots of good info still but not at all accepting of divergent opinions.
Crazy PC!
P5 Guy
Member
doubleh
Member
This, like any information that is actually factual will be totally ignored by the anti- gun crowd. Just watch and see. Truth means nothing to them.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
And yet they breathlessly carried the gun grabbers' water for nearly an entire month.
They're only balanced when it suits their paymasters, usually after the desired effect has been achieved.
It's painfully obvious this "national walkout" thing was the real purpose of all this outrage. Basically a show of force for a movement that has had a long, long string of losses, especially at the national level.
Given the number of ostensible gun rights supporters intimidated into compromising on their principles, I'd say it was a resounding success. Now the anti-gunners are feeling strong enough to go after the NRA via their preferred tactic; an investigation of possible illegal foreign influence brought about by accusations reported in the media, and generated by...Fusion GPS.
They're only balanced when it suits their paymasters, usually after the desired effect has been achieved.
It's painfully obvious this "national walkout" thing was the real purpose of all this outrage. Basically a show of force for a movement that has had a long, long string of losses, especially at the national level.
Given the number of ostensible gun rights supporters intimidated into compromising on their principles, I'd say it was a resounding success. Now the anti-gunners are feeling strong enough to go after the NRA via their preferred tactic; an investigation of possible illegal foreign influence brought about by accusations reported in the media, and generated by...Fusion GPS.
Which makes sense when you look at where people in the USA live:
76% Live in metro areas of more than 250,000
67% Live in metro areas of more than 500,000
55% Live in metro areas of more than 1 million
26% Live in metro areas of more than 5 million
10% Live in LA and NYC
67% Live in metro areas of more than 500,000
55% Live in metro areas of more than 1 million
26% Live in metro areas of more than 5 million
10% Live in LA and NYC
Mr. Standfast
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2015
- Messages
- 45
I don't believe there is much doubt that the incidence of school shootings is increasing, and yet it is a very small proportion of murders committed. There would be a lot to be said for the perpetrators to just vanish anonymously, with a press release that a man was executed, or sent to an institution for the criminal insane for a possibly indefinite period. But I don't believe that can be done for legal reasons, or his friends (if applicable) and family prevented from selling their story to the media. People would talk, about the Gulag and the Nazi "nacht und nebel" sentences of disappearance.
In the circumstances, then, the type of media attention they now get might be about the best possible deal. Some friendless loser on the other side of the country doesn't get to form the idea that he is emulating a hero, willing to die to vindicate his principles. I think some will be put off by knowing that they would be emulating friendless losers.
In the circumstances, then, the type of media attention they now get might be about the best possible deal. Some friendless loser on the other side of the country doesn't get to form the idea that he is emulating a hero, willing to die to vindicate his principles. I think some will be put off by knowing that they would be emulating friendless losers.
Carl N. Brown
Member
The data presented in the source Allie Nicodemo and Lia Petronio, "Schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school shootings are not more common than they used to be, researchers say", Northeastern, 26 Feb 2018
http://news.northeastern.edu/2018/0...e-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/
also indicates that the 1994-2004 ten year era of the federal Assault Weapon Ban was more dangerous as far as mass school shootings went than the ten years after the repeal.
Also "Since 1996, there have been 16 multiple victim shootings in schools, or incidents involving 4 or more victims and at least 2 deaths by firearms, excluding the assailant. Of these [sixteen], 8 are mass shootings, or incidents involving 4 or more deaths, excluding the assailant." Not quite the numbers pushed by VPC or Everytown with their hidden definition.
They do pull a John Donohue: three instances where measures to secure the school building failed means such measures are ineffective in preventing school shootings (1989 Stockton kids shot on playground, 1998 Joneboro shooter tripped the fire alarms and shot students in the parking lot, 2005 Minnesota shooter walked through a door metal detector and shot the guard first). Exceptions don't prove deterrence ineffective since incidents that are deterred are uncountable (what gets counted are mass shootings).
I had long talks with my son after Columbine. Mega schools, students lost in the crowd, cliques that bond by bullying outsiders, alienated kids harboring butthurt, average of less than 1 guidance councilor per 400 students, no parental guidance, "mental health" treatment in the form of drugs, lotsa hard to solve problems.
It's easier to blame some thing that can be banned and demonize people who want to keep the scapegoat. Video games, guns. I though banning "Tales from the Crypt" comics and burning Beatles' White albumns was supposed to purify the world.
http://news.northeastern.edu/2018/0...e-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/
also indicates that the 1994-2004 ten year era of the federal Assault Weapon Ban was more dangerous as far as mass school shootings went than the ten years after the repeal.
Also "Since 1996, there have been 16 multiple victim shootings in schools, or incidents involving 4 or more victims and at least 2 deaths by firearms, excluding the assailant. Of these [sixteen], 8 are mass shootings, or incidents involving 4 or more deaths, excluding the assailant." Not quite the numbers pushed by VPC or Everytown with their hidden definition.
They do pull a John Donohue: three instances where measures to secure the school building failed means such measures are ineffective in preventing school shootings (1989 Stockton kids shot on playground, 1998 Joneboro shooter tripped the fire alarms and shot students in the parking lot, 2005 Minnesota shooter walked through a door metal detector and shot the guard first). Exceptions don't prove deterrence ineffective since incidents that are deterred are uncountable (what gets counted are mass shootings).
I had long talks with my son after Columbine. Mega schools, students lost in the crowd, cliques that bond by bullying outsiders, alienated kids harboring butthurt, average of less than 1 guidance councilor per 400 students, no parental guidance, "mental health" treatment in the form of drugs, lotsa hard to solve problems.
It's easier to blame some thing that can be banned and demonize people who want to keep the scapegoat. Video games, guns. I though banning "Tales from the Crypt" comics and burning Beatles' White albumns was supposed to purify the world.
Last edited:
DeepSouth
Random Guy
I have to ask where this information came from, according to census.gov only New York has over 5 million people which makes
“26% Live in metro areas of more than 5 million
10% Live in LA and NYC”
An impossibility.
Census link
My guess is the “metro area” in your stats goes beyond the city limits but the census doesn’t, but that’s just my guess. That’s why I’m curious where that info came from.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,619
This post being the first I had heard about the attempted smear of the NRA by no less than Fusion GPS, I went googling. The reporting is beyond disgusting. Reading between the lines it does sound like the Russian guy was trying to court the NRA, but the reporting says the NRA was trying to court the Russians, which nothing I read supports in the least. Horrible horrible horrible.
CapnMac
Member
Which actually can be broken down in a simpler fashion. 50% of the US population live in just 32 of the 3000 counties of the US.
captain awesome
Member
yeah. just looked up the stats. odds of a child being shot in school are about twice(a little more than twice) as likely as winning a state lottery; 1 in 18,000,000. that puts them in the same class of odds in my opinion. I don't buy lotto tickets because its an absolute waste of money. The odds are so astronomically low of winning it's safe to say you just threw your dollar away. How many people quit their jobs because they plan on winning the lottery?
Added:
Forgot to mention those lotto odds are every week. The school shooting odds...yearly?
Added:
Forgot to mention those lotto odds are every week. The school shooting odds...yearly?
Last edited:
RETG
Member
I was wondering that about that too. I wonder if that means the greater LA and NYC metro areas.
In 2000, slightly more than one-half of the nation’s population lived in jurisdictions --- cities, towns, boroughs, villages and townships --- with fewer than 25,000 people or in rural areas. And a lot of those smaller cities and towns are counted in a city's metro area.
The real data puts doubt on the idea that there's an increase.
"The Parkland shooting last month has energized student activists, who are angry and frustrated over gun violence. But it's also contributed to the impression that school shootings are a growing epidemic in America.
In truth, they're not."
http://news.northeastern.edu/2018/0...e-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/15/5938...ign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180316
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...witter_impression=true&utm_term=.b44fea04853d
Yes, those are metro areas not city limits. The NYC metro area is 20 million people.
I live in the Portland, Oregon metro area. The "city" I live in is only 100,000 people but it is part of a continuous 2.4 million person metro area. The only way to know when you are leaving one "city" and entering another is to look for the sign.
The data comes from the Census Bureau 2016 estimate, pasted into excel, sorted by size. From there getting percentages is easy.
Census Data here: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
theotherwaldo
Member
I chalk the panic up to three things:
1) The 24-hour news cycle - "If the nice man in the talking box mentions a problem thirty times per hour then it must be an epidemic!"
2) The rapid melting of broadcast and cable media - "Gotta stay relevant!"
3) The advanced ages of the leaders of the gun-banners - "Gotta get it done in my lifetime!"
1) The 24-hour news cycle - "If the nice man in the talking box mentions a problem thirty times per hour then it must be an epidemic!"
2) The rapid melting of broadcast and cable media - "Gotta stay relevant!"
3) The advanced ages of the leaders of the gun-banners - "Gotta get it done in my lifetime!"
DeepSouth
Random Guy
That’s what I figured, thanks for that link. Looks like a lot of information their for me to explore. It’s hard for me to imagine a city, I live in a town with a population of around 450.
M2Pilot
Member
Gotta agree with you there & I appreciate NPR for that. I learned of The Liberal Gun Club from an NPR broadcast.
Interesting, I'll have to check them out. I'm a liberal or conservative depending on the issue so I don't fit neatly into either party. Every gun forum I've been a part of leans HEAVILY to the conservative side so it will be interesting to hear the other side of the discussion.
Don't worry - there are plenty of gun owners who don't fall under the traditional description of 'conservative'. There is nothing inherently coincident between, say, religiosity, and the belief in the right to bear arms. Or with supporting civil/minority rights, say, and belief in gun control. Those are late 20th century artifacts of our 2-party system. And the sooner we move away from those artificial philosophical constraints the better for gun rights. The Deacons of Defense and the Pink Pistols certainly set strong counter-examples (as do New Jersey Republicans)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
