Saturday, July 21, 2012

July 21, 2012

ABC, Ross Under Withering Fire for Teaparty Link to Shooting
by David A. Patten and Martin Gould
by July 21, 2012

ABC came under increasing fire Friday after claiming that alleged theater shooter James Holmes had ties to the tea party.

Reporter Brian Ross made the shocking accusation on "Good Morning America" after discovering the Colorado Tea Party Patriots had a member called James Holmes.

Ross admitted on air that he did not know whether the two men were the same, but still went ahead with his claim that the tragedy in Aurora in which 12 people were killed and 59 injured could be linked to the grassroots group.

ABC later apologized online and Ross tweeted, "Earlier I reported incorrectly that the shooting suspect might be tied to the Tea Party. I apologize for the mistake,” but those two statements would have been seen by just a fraction of the number of people who watched his original report.

Conservatives were joined by journalism groups in attacking Ross. In an article entitled "Well, It Might Be the Same Guy," Rem Rieder, editor of the American Journalism Review was scathing.

"What was he thinking?" wrote Reider. "How could Brian Ross, ABC's chief investigative correspondent, make such a ridiculous mistake?

"If you don't know, how in the world can you think it's a good idea to 'report' it on network television as the nation tries to come to terms with another mass murder. And why? Why would you do it?" asked Rieder, who described Ross' error as "yet another blow to the reeling credibility of the news media."

Read more:

Media Again Smears the 'Violent' Tea-Party
by Katie Pavlich
July 20, 2012

The facts surrounding the horrific shooting today in Aurora, Colorado are still coming in, but one thing is clear: the mainstream media is still hell bent on linking the Tea Party to violent occurrences as much as possible, with zero evidence to prove it.

Earlier, ABC News’ Brian Ross linked the Tea Party to the shooting by pointing out “there is a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado on the Colorado Tea Party site talking about joining the Tea Party last year. Now we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes, but it is a Jim Holmes of Colorado.”

Did you catch that? “We don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes.” An outlet with any journalism ethics at all wouldn’t report any name of any person until it was confirmed they were a suspect. Host George Stephanopoulos said the finding “might be significant” before ABC issued a retraction (a rare occurance). But why did they report it at all? Simply to smear the Tea Party as violent, an accusation that has never been backed up by evidence or fact.

“An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect. ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted,” the retraction said.

The problem is, ABC never had plans to vet the name, they were looking for the Tea Party “connection” since the words “massive shooting” came across the news wires. ABC didn’t bother to call the Colorado Tea Party Patriots, verify the man’s name, call James Holmes or engage in any other form of verification. Like squeezing toothpaste out of a tube, the entire goal was to plant a “the Tea Party is violent” seed back in the minds of viewers.

Read more:

Conceal-Carry Can Save Lives
by Susan Petrey
July 21, 2012

The massacre in Aurora, Colorado on Thursday evening has stirred up the gun-rights controversy once again. Opponents of the 2nd Amendment have renewed calls for a ban or strict regulation of firearms claiming that easy access to guns is a primary factor in incidents such as the one in Aurora. But, what opponents of our second amendment fail to consider, is that gun access and ownership does not, in fact, correlate with more gun violence, and that gun ownership by law abiding citizens is not only their Constitutional right, but could very well prevent or limit the carnage in these well publicized mass shootings. 

Economist John Lott's analysis of crime report data claims a statistically significant effect of concealed carry laws on crime, with more permissive concealed carry laws correlated with a decrease in overall crime. Many studies have been conducted by gun rights opponents to refute Lott's claims and methods, but nearly every study conducted has either confirmed Lott's conclusions or has shown little to no correlation between an increase in violent crime and increased access to firearms by law-abiding citizens. 

Don Kates, retired professor of criminal law at The Independent Institute in Oakland, California,  also conducted a study into the effects of legal gun ownership and correlations with violent crime and concluded the following: 
"First, there is no persuasive evidence that gun ownership causes ordinary, responsible, law abiding adults to murder or engage in any other criminal behavior—though guns can facilitate crime by those who were independently inclined toward it. Second, the value of firearms in defending victims has been greatly underestimated."
In 1991 a CRAZY man drove his pickup truck into a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, TX, shot 23 people to death while wounding another 20. The victims in this incident were sitting targets for this madman because there were no conceal-carry permits in the state of Texas at that time. Dr. Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the time of the shootout where both of her parents were shot and killed expressed regret for obeying the current law by leaving her firearm in her car rather than keeping it on her person. In 1996, the new conceal-carry law was put into effect in Texas.  Opponents of this measure insisted it would correlate with an increase in gun violence in the state, but since the passage of the Concealed Handgun Law in Texas, the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows an 18% decrease in crimes involving handgun violence in Texas.  

The simple truth is, owning a gun is not a crime in this country and is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.  A law-abiding citizen who finds themselves in a situation like the Aurora massacre should have the right to defend themselves and their community. 

No comments:

Post a Comment