Why isn't this headline news?

[Cjwglock19]

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/20 ... 524596.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


May be on here somewhere else. Amazing the politics of it all! Only local media running this story.

[Cjwglock19]

Not sure why link isn't working. Story is from dec 29. On dec 17 there was a restaurant and theater shooting in San Antonio. Female off duty Leo shot the shooter 4 times saving many lives. She is being honored with a medal from the city next week!

[Cjwglock19]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_ ... 122668.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[anygunanywhere]

This news does not fit with the current crisis that the pustule needs to implement the plan. This shooting was irrelevant.

Anygunanywhere

[handog]

The media is driven by their agenda. If it doesn't fit, it doesn't get reported. For example, you and I are just as likely to get struck by lightening as being killed in a mass shooting. You wouldn't gather that from the reporters though, would you?

On top of that we have a Nobel peace prize president starting wars and dropping bombs preaching to us about our violent culture. How we gun owners need to change. Enough to make any clear thinking American puke.

Here is what should be headline news:

"Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict. Guns [are] used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year — or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker."

[HankB]

The media is driven by their agenda. If it doesn't fit, it doesn't get reported.

This is absolutely correct.

Some years back I was listening to an interview with a recently retired news anchor (I want to say it was David Brinkley, but I can't swear to it.)

He basically said that many journalists feel it's their duty to guide public opinion to the "correct" conclusion, so they deliberately exclude whatever is contrary to their determination of what's right; their motives aren't overtly sinister, but they really see themselves as the sole arbiters of truth and don't want to confuse the masses with conflicting - and yet persuasive - messages.