In the pre-dawn hours yesterday, the nation experienced yet another mass shooting. One dead, 22 injured, including a 13-year-old boy. It took place at the crowded Art All Night Trenton festival in New Jersey. To their limited credit, a couple of cable news outlets mentioned the shooting in their coverage yesterday and this morning. The New York Times wrote a rather lengthy article about it, though it showed up on page A-17. It received similarly “not prominent” coverage in other major papers. The Associated Press took a fairly deep dive on it, but you need to search around a bit on their website to find it...Is the problem that the press and the rest of the left only care when white people are being shot?
One dead, 22 injured. That makes it one of the three or four largest mass shootings of 2018.
What you’re not seeing is a line of politicians waiting to be interviewed on cable news about this. You’re not seeing the Parkland kids calling for a march on the streets of Trenton. In fact, outside of the people who are directly impacted in the immediate area, we’re getting what’s mostly a collective shrug from the national press. Why?
One dead, 22 injured.
The Art All Night Trenton shooting isn’t of much interest to the majority of the press because it includes all the wrong sort of people for a hot story with a political hook. First of all, pretty much everyone involved with the shooting was black. There were rival gangs mixing it up at the festival. The cops even knew about it in advance because people were tipping them off about the gang presence. They had come and told the festival organizers they should shut down early because trouble was brewing. The organizers were in the process of doing that when the fireworks started.
The one shooter who is currently at room temperature, 33-year-old Tahaij Wells, had been out of prison on parole for all of four months for a previous murder. There were “multiple” gangs involved. The weapons of choice were almost entirely handguns so there was no chance to rail against “assault rifles.” (One suspect did have an extended magazine capable of holding more rounds than state law allows.) We’re not seeing any demands for information on the weapons used. Why? I’d like to know how many of those gang members were in possession of handguns they legally purchased after passing a background check. But nobody in the national press seems to be interested in telling that story either.
One dead, 22 injured.
Monday, June 18, 2018
No Hay To Make, Doesn't Propel The Narrative, So You Don't Need To Hear About It
Did you hear about the mass shooting in New Jersey this past weekend?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I’m sorry - while I know that you are quite pro-gun control, I am not. When the second amendment was created, assault rifles did not exist. Heck, guns with the capabilities of pistols didn’t exist. And our founding fathers could not have imagined the destruction that they would create. I do not think there is any good reason that a civilian needs to own an assault rifle. Yes, the shooters are at fault - not the NRA or gun owners. That said, there were many, many people in Las Vegas, in a high school in Parkland, and in an elementary school in Connecticut that did not deserve to die. Shouldn’t human life mean more then your right to have fun shooting at a gun range? To me, the arguments against gun control are very similar to those that are pro-abortion - i.e., someone’s right to have fun overrules innocent children’s right to live. Studies show that people are more likely to kill themselves or their family members with their handguns than an intruder. I have no problems with hunting guns, as studies show that hunting gun owners are not very likely to kill themselves or their family members. Plus, hunting guns have a real function - getting food. I grew up in Wyoming, and my father would often shoot our dinner. I think that hunting guns should actually be encouraged, to a point, as it is much better to eat an animal that has lived a wild life rather than one who was raised in a feed lot.
That said, this article shows why I am independent. The left claims to care about human lives, but ignores shootings when the perpetrators don’t fit their narrative. There’s also the whole “abortion” (I call it murder) and euthanasia issues... Meanwhile, the right claims to be “pro-life” - and they are, in respect to abortion. But they’re fine with people being murdered by crazed psychopaths with guns and prisoners being put to death by the government. The Innocence Project’s website should be required reading for anyone who is pro-death penalty. Personally, I am against killing people for any reason other than to prevent them from killing others, such as the Nazis and the Soviets, or in a hostage situation. That’s why we send murders to prison - killing is wrong. But even if you are alright with that, how can a Republican (who are supposed to protect individual liberties) condone the death penalty when so many that are already dead have been proven to be innocent?
If you think I'm pro-gun control, you haven't read this blog very much.
Your second paragraph veers into Crazytown. I don't think the right is "fine with people being murdered by crazed psychopaths with guns", we just don't see gun control as the answer. As for the death penalty, there's a major difference between "killing" and "killing the innocent". I am supporter of the death penalty *and* the Innocence Project--which you'd know if you typed "Innocence Project" into the search window at the top or bottom of this page. My most recent post about them was on March 12th of this year:
https://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2018/03/god-bless-innocence-project.html
Supporting the death penalty doesn't mean I want people to be executed unjustly, which is what your statement implies.
Perhaps it was my last sentence that threw you. Long-time readers would recognize my sarcasm there, my needling of lefties by using one of their own lines against them.
No, I know that you are not pro gun control. It was late, I typed incorrectly. I apologize. I do know that you support the Innocence Project (and I do commend you for that), that is why I brought it up. I do find being pro gun control and supporting the organization contradictory, however. I know that you do not - and I would not refer to your opinion as “crazytown” - but I do find your opinion to be illogical (although, after my comment last night I would not blame you for considering that to be hypocritical). The last sentence did not throw me, I did catch the sarcasm. Instead, it was your general anti gun control arguments coupled with your logical assessment of the media’s treatment of this article that inflamed me more than it should have. I understand arguments against gun control made by people who do truly want to do the right thing, but to understand an opinion does not mean that I agree with it. It angers me that neither political party is willing to actually support human life, for fear of losing votes. There is no other developed country that has the problem with mass shootings that we have in this country. Obviously, we’ve got a problem. There are countries that have loose gun laws coupled with low murder rates, but that is not where our country is at right now. What is a good reason for a civilian to own an AK-47, and why does it override the risk to human life? As much as I worry about the loss of freedom in this country, I do not think that any day now I will be hauled off to a death camp and will require an assault rifle to protect myself. Intruders can be shot with pistols; deer can be killed by hunting rifles. Where is the need for automatic weapons? Will some criminals still get their hands on guns if strict gun control laws are passed? Of course. But less will. And, more importantly, the rate of successful suicides and young children accidentally killing themselves or their siblings will go down. Where is the harm in that? Children are 11x more likely to to die from a firearm than in any other developed country. There are many policies we need to change to fix that, gun control being a major one.
Helen says: "I do not think there is any good reason that a civilian needs to own an assault rifle."
I would like to edit this statement and argue my point:
I do not think there is any good reason that a civilian needs to own a luxury automobile.
We live in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. We live in a society of trust. I walk down the sidewalk on a busy street with 50 mph speed limits trusting that the cars are going to follow the laws of the land and I will be safe. In the same vein, I trust that gun owners don't want to kill me. It is called Freedom. Who gets to decide what I can and cannot own? Sorry, there are zero laws that would have STOPPED the atrocities from happening.
Helen: like you, I can understand a different opinion but not hold it. Cars kill many more children than firearms do. Are we to outlaw cars? Banning doesn't make sense.
Let's not forget the purpose of the 2nd Amendment: to serve as a deterrent to tyranny. It's not there to protect deer hunting.
As for valuing human life, I do. I value *innocent* life. It's why I oppose abortion, support the Innocence Project, and support the death penalty for those *clearly* proven to have committed the worst of crimes. And yes, I want limits placed on the death penalty: beyond a *reasonable* doubt is a weak standard to me when the state is taking someone's life. But that's commentary for a different post.
So let's get back to this post we're both commenting on (quite civilly, for which I thank you): why do you think this particular shooting--or, for that matter, the staggering death tolls in cities like Baltimore and Chicago--has not received a minuscule amount of reporting compared to Parkland? If you don't think the reason is as I've stated, that it doesn't promote the left-wind narrative, what do you think the reason is?
Oh no, I totally agree with you on why this article did not recieved much press attention (that is, if you believe that it did not receive much attention because the shooter was black, recently released from prison, the shooting was gang related, and many or possibly all of the weapons involved were purchased illegally). That is why I went on my possibly over the top rant about how neither side truly respects life. Democrats claim to care about deaths by firearm, but ignore it when the situations do not reflect their worldview. Gang related shootings compromise a huge proportion of deaths by firearm. I do not think that either political side has it quite right on how to prevent as many deaths as possible. I think that the left is not handling shootings related to gangs and the mentally ill correctly, and that the right is not handling shootings related to accidental discharge and the mentally ill well, including suicides.
As for banning cars and ensuring freedom, I agree with you up to a point. Individual freedom is very important. But there are two ways that individual freedom can be violated - by the government, and by other people. That is why I think it is important that our country has both Republicans and Democrats, because Republicans have a tendency to over focus on the former while ignoring the latter, while Democrats do the opposite. We make murder and rape illegal, because they violate the rights the victims, even though in criminalizing these actions we are technically restricting people’s rights. I’d imagine that nearly everyone in this country would agree that the government’s rights and an individuals’ rights should not be limitless, but it is in where we draw that line that people disagree. Yes, cars kill more people than guns - a LOT more. But cars also have another, major purpose. The only good reason someone would own an assault rifle is because they find them fun to shoot. And if assault rifles were never or only once in a blue moon used to kill innocent people, that would be fine. But it is not the reality in this country. In my opinion, the benefits of banning assault rifles outweigh the costs. Part of ensuring freedom is protecting others, and people have the right not to be killed while attending school or a concert.
When the second amendment was created, guns with the capabilities of today did not exist. The second amendment was not created with any knowledge that the firearms today would ever exist. Tyranny can certainly be perpetrated by the government, but can it not be perpetrated by non government officials, as well? Aren’t gangs, mass murders, and terrorism all a form of tyranny? They all have an unjust amount of power. I agree with people’s right to, say, fight back if they are punched. If they’ve got a gun on them and a mass murderer shows up - by all means, shoot them! But people who purchase a handgun are significantly more likely to use it to kill themselves or their family members than an armed intruder or a mass murderer. At some point, musn’t we protect people’s right to live over their right to own killing machines?
On a side note, I apologize if I came off as insinuating that you do not respect life. I have absolutely no doubt that you do - more than most other people I’ve come into contact with, actually. I do disagree with you on the best way to make that happen, but I’m sure many people agree with me, as well.
When the 2nd Amendment was created, *any* person could possess the same type of firepower as the government could. That's no longer the case, we forbid the ownership of so many weapons--but the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment still stands. These words of the US Declaration of Independence hold meaning to me:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
In general government exists to secure rights, not to take them away. Just as Prohibition didn't work and was eventually repealed, so would gun-grabbing. And I say this as someone who
a) doesn't own an arsenal, and
b) isn't a member of the NRA.
As to your 3rd paragraph: the Constitution doesn't exist to keep bad people in line, it exists to keep government in line. Good government should keep bad people in line. As for protecting people against those who would do them harm, is that really possible by disarming them? It's clear that you think so, but I think not. In fact, I'm reminded of a quote from General/President Washington:
"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive
a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
We’re not seeing any demands for data on the weapons used. Why? I’d prefer to knowledge several of these gang members were in possession of handguns they de jure purchased when passing a background check. However, no one within the national press looks to have an interest in telling that story either. Totosite
Post a Comment