Media’s continued stigmatization of gun permit holders must stop
The media is faithful partner with the more-gun-regulation-is-needed crowd and it must stop. I challenge the main stream media in Connecticut and around the country to do some honest reporting on this issue, but I don’t hold much hope.
From our friend John Hinderaker at Powerline.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported yesterday that the State of Minnesota issued 31,657 permits to carry handguns in 2012, a record number. No surprise there. The Strib puts that number in the context of the current debate over gun control, and concludes with these statistics, presented without comment:
Minnesota’s permit holders have committed at least 1,159 crimes since 2003, including 114 in which a gun was used, according to the BCA.
Wow, sounds like a regular crime wave among gun permit holders! But what do those data actually show?
That sentence written by Paul Walsh comes from a piece listing general statistics on carry permits that were issued in Minnesota during 2012. He took the liberty to combine all of the crimes committed by permit holders during the last eight years to come up with 114 crimes where a gun was used. This is absolutely infuriating. When taken at face value, it sounds like the permit holders are a violent bunch, but in reality, permit holders are much less likely to be involved with any sort of crime, and they are better drivers too.
Please, go to Hinderaker’s post and review the information. In short, the data is available to show permit holders in Minnesota are much less likely to commit homicide, be involved with crime, or to be convicted of DUI as compared to the general public. It is important to note those with permits have gone through a background check and by definition are – in general – law-abiding citizens to begin with, but the issue here is the portrail of permit holders by the media, anti-gun mayors and police chiefs as people who need to be monitored because of their interest in firearms.
Will the Connecticut media do some reporting and look into the Connecticut data? How do Connecticut permit holders as a group do compared to the regular pubic when it comes to committing domestic violence and violent crime with and without firearms? How is their driving? The problem is coming up with this information is difficult for the simple fact we protect the names of permit holders. This is a good thing, but there must be a way for the state to spend a day or so and run the numbers and provide the statistics without any personally identifiable information.
I’ll note that WTNH provided some factual information in an 11 p.m. newscast that has only received about 3,400 YouTube views so far. The piece is certainly not perfect, but at least the information is pretty accurate.
14 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
Pistol permit holders will never get a fair treatment in this current political climate. Anything negative sells advertising and generates hits online. Take the reverse of the story above. Publish a story about “Permit Holders More Law-Abiding” and it will get a huge yawn. It’s interesting that the MSM had to scrape ten years of permit holder data together to make it kinda, sorta sensational. Still, by itself, it is not much of a news item. The media is stretching to cast it in a negative light. Yellow journalism.
?
Romney quipped at the Al Smith dinner that the media would report Obama was helping raise money for poor kids; the headline in the media would be that “Romney Dines With Rich Guys.”
?
Which stories serve the liberal, gun brabber meme better?
?
That should read, “grabber.”
Gun grabber . . . gun grabber. Grabby gun banners. Gun banning grabbers. Pa-too!
?
?
Of course, you could look at those stats another way: more crimes (however you define that term) are committed by non permit owners, and more non permit owners are likely to be liberals who are deathly afraid of guns (unless they are Democrat politicians), then, logically, more crimes will have to have been committed by liberals.? Which would explain a lot.
?
Maybe we should ban liberalism…
Not so funny, Dims. The guy in the avatar, toting a gun while walking toward a Home Depot store kind of looks like the Wild West of yore. I’d rather not go there again.
Wild West? Are you kidding me? Are you one of those people who think the “Wild West” had a shooting on main street every day at high noon? You’ve been watching too many Westerns.
Cops walk around carrying openly all the friggin’ time, and you see them, and you do not know them at all. Are you freaked out by that?
Who’s laughing?? I don’t find the media’s perpetual gun bashing funny at all.
And how old are you anyway?? 😉
No, not kidding. And not freaked out by cops with guns: it’s their job. And Westerns are so passe’, not many to warp my thinking.
It’s irrational for someone to be concerned about a person they do not know?going about their day?opening carrying a pistol, while not being concerned about a LEO – another person they do not know – doing the same. Just like the media, your bias against those who choose to legally carry a weapon is clear … you think they are not to be trusted and something is wrong with them. When in the real world, those who carry are orders of?magnitude?more law abiding than the public as this post recognizes. Which again proves you either didn’t read the post, or just wish to change the subject as usual.
And if you will look at your prior post, it was you who brought up the “Wild? West of yore”.
?
It’s pass? and blas?, particularly when liberals constantly use it it their tired playbook.? Maybe they should stop watching so many movies…
When Lowell Weiker was Governor… he came out with the statement that there were “X-amount ( I think 170,000 at that time ) pistol permits in Connecticut and (that’s WAY too much!)” The same newspaper ( I believe the Hartford Quran but could’ve been the J.I. ) further buttressed the governors ‘argument’ seemingly implying that ( we ) those permit holders were responsible for all the shootings in Hartford etc. I took the governor to task ( calling him and the media ) a ‘liar’ abd used statistics I had from the F.B.I to prove other-wise. I also challenged ( anyone ) including the governor to ‘debate me if they thought they could prove other-wise’.. but of course- no takers… not even a measly rebuttal…nothin!! THAT’S how the Liberal mind works… lie…make those ignorant people believe you then enact false legislation.
In the Bizarro world of liberals, law abiding citizen gun owners get prosecuted and harassed, while illegal aliens get entitlement benefits and all the perks of citizenship for the price of a stroll across the border.
?
For them, EVERYTHING is political and about grabbing power to the detriment of the country.
As I have noted before, there is no “debate” from within the gun owners, there is only calls for more controls, specifically, more laws to infringe on civil rights.
Conspicuously absent from ANY discussion are those who know firearms the best. Those people who have a love of shooting and engage firearms as a sport are NEVER invited to these so called discussions. In fact, it is the liberal Democrats who are seeing these high profile mass murders as a chance to implement their agenda. It is liberal democrats who JUMPED all over the Sandy Hook shootings with ill-concealed glee at the opportunity to implement their warped concepts of gun control and banning of firearms for some Utopian goal. They see their campaign against guns as a way to secure more power and control over others, most notably conservatives.
Liberals are going to suffer a backlash.Many lifelong democrat gun owning voters are seeing that their erstwhile party is prosecuting them in its fervent zeal to legislate morality.
should read: only calls from DEMOCRATS for more controls, . . .
Isn’t it funny how the Democrats want more laws against gun owners yet won’t make any provision to treat the mentally ill or address the total lack of community mental health services?
? Two issues I have. First off I’m curious to know what if anything a law abiding citizen and resident of CT can carry in lieu of a firearm for the protection of self and others. An actual list of items that will not get a person arrested, does not require permission from the state or municipality, and can be utilized by any adult 18+. I read through the state statutes and article and sub sections of what is NOT legal or permissible only under due authorisation…long and complex. I really am curious to know if we have the right toprotect ourselves, and the responsibility as good citizens to protect those that cannot, what shall we use to that end…harsh language?
Secondly unless it has been changed, the State of Connecticut IS an “open carry” state. The DPS-State Police just strogly suggest you keep your weapon concealed. It’s not strongly suggested that you wear a seatbelt or not drive under the influence…it’s a law.
It wouldn’t be difficult to have a psa with Lt Vance and State Attorney General Jepsen informing all resisdents via print, tv, radio, and website that it is legal for permit holders to carry open or have the legislative branch vote to make CT a concealed carry state and have Gov Malloy…