"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Fargo" wrote:

I thought you wanted unbiased reporting? You'll never get it in trade
papers
like the NRA's publication. I suppose there are likely many times more
events where the individuals did not have to save themselves with guns,
where was the NRA's reporter? You'll never develop an unbiased view if
you
single-source your information.

It doesn't matter whether the NRA is biased or not. The stories are
either factual or they are not, and each case included a citation that
can be checked.


But the claim was that the events are not given press coverage. I said they
were, each cite on the NRA page was taken from press coverage, so they were
reported and then repeated in a national publication for gun owners. Thats
extremely good coverage for local events. As I said, it gets covered very
well. The same press often does not bother with bad news stories about guns
unless they are spectacular in some way, a domestic dispute or a
neighborhood or bar dispute involving gunplay just isn't big news unless
there's some angle to it.

Being predisposed to appreciate one side more than the other would make you
look for more of one than the other. I suppose if that were a consideration
the dirth of good news would lead one to to feel the coverage is biased
against them but the bad news pile is simply much bigger. The NRA found six
in a month from over the whole country. I wonder how many crimes were
averted without gunplay, or how many cases were made worse.

The gun carrying church member has me wondering. Why does he attend a church
worshipping a God he apparently does not trust, and whose teachings he does
not appear willing to follow?