Gun violence myths debunked; quest for profits exposed

[SecularMotion]

Though many have seen the problem of gun violence and mass killing in the United States as a matter of moral depravity, few have argued as persuasively as Tom Diaz that the root of the problem lies in the deadly sin of greed. Through a painstakingly researched and carefully documented body of facts and anecdotes, The Last Gun challenges the myths of liberty and security purveyed by the gun industry and the gun lobby that serves it, and exposes the quest for profit that drives these myths.

Some of these myths have been busted before: Those who searched for the unvarnished facts may know that most of the deaths by guns are suicides, not homicides, and that most homicides are of family members and acquaintances. Acquaintances, not masked burglars, are also the most common home invaders, and such invasions most often take place when nobody's home.

However, Diaz also lays bare the enduring and dangerous myth that the proliferation of military-style weaponry has been brought about by the desire of law-abiding citizens who seek to protect themselves from invasive criminals and intrusive government. Rather, Diaz argues that the increasing presence of assault weapons and the increasing number of instances in which they have been used to mow down Americans result from organized efforts of lobbyists and legislators who suffer little to no scrutiny from a timid news media.

Diaz cleverly replays the media "ritual" that follows senseless shootings. It begins with the breathless coverage of shocking events and then proceeds through silent commemorations, interviews with friends and neighbors of victims, speculations on causes, and finally the makeshift memorials of "candles and teddy bears" at the scene of the crime. Conspicuously absent from the daytime dramas created from these disastrous events is any extended coverage of what guns were used and the process by which they were obtained.

http://ncronline.org/books/2014/01/gun-violence-myths-debunked-quest-profits-exposed

[friendly_iconoclast]

1. IOW, how a professor of English feels about gun crime:

Dennis McDaniel is associate professor and chair of the English department at St. Vincent College, Latrobe, Pa.

I'd say that was at least equal in incisciveness to that which has been expressed by certain washed-up
rock-n-rollers and billionaire media mogul/politicians.

I await with interest a criminologists' take
on the evolution of the novel over the course of the Twentieth Century...

[SecularMotion]

2. Dennis McDaniel wrote the book review

Here's the bio for the author of the book.

Tom Diaz is a lawyer, author, journalist, and an accomplished public speaker.

Diaz was formerly Democratic Counsel to the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. He worked for then-Rep. Charles E. Schumer. His principal brief covered issues related to terrorism and firearms.

Prior to his staff work for the Congress, Diaz studied and wrote about terrorism and transnational organized crime at the National Strategy Information Center in Washington, DC. Before joining NSIC, he was assistant managing editor for news for six years at The Washington Times newspaper, where his earlier beats as a reporter included the Supreme Court and national security matters.

Most recently Diaz was senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy organization that studies the gun industry, its products, and their impact on crime, death, and injury in the United States.

http://tomdiazgunsandgangs.com/about/

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. Then I should change that to "English professor agrees with partisan hack on guns"?

"Most recently Diaz was senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center..."

I'm sure a tome written by a staffer at the NRA or Gun Owners of America would
be just as biased and just as glowingly reviewed by whatever random academic
that could be found who already agreed with the premise...

[SecularMotion]

4. I guess you could say that

if you just wanted to smear the review and not address the contents of the book.

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. As I said, I wouldn't listen to a criminologist expounding on the novel...

...as it's obvious they would know nothing more about the subject than any semi-educated
person on the street. Couldn't you dredge up at least a PoliSci adjunct- or better
yet, buy and/or read Diaz's book yourself and review it here?

[SecularMotion]

6. If it's the book reviewer that upsets you,

try some Amazon reviews.

After Newtown I thought we would finally do the right thing regarding gun control. This book gives you all the ammunition you need to present a well-designed argument for sensible gun control. Learn who the real villains are in this fight.

-------

Wow- I just purchased Tom Diaz's new book after hearing him on Bill Moyer. His very thorough, well researched book is excellent. He balances statistics with anecdotal stories- something our national media fails to do today. It is one thing to constantly hear news stories of these random acts of gun violence but when you see the link to loose gun laws and the simple fact that a lot of these "tragedies" can be prevented- it's unfathomable why its not discussed more in the media as a national public safety issue. He meticulously peels the lid off of the truly maniacal machine of the gun lobby and why they are so powerful. It is rather scary. He does say the only way to get gun sanity in this country is for the people to remove their apathy and voice their concerns. I admit I was apathetic, until Newtown. And now I have joined in with others to fight this scourge of gun lawlessness in our country. Why should we put this burden only on gun violence survivors- it is all our problem and we are the solution.

------

I felt the book was very well documented and to the point. Everyone who is interested in gun violence should read this.

------

In the Aurora theater in Colorado last year, the lst Amendment right of free speech would not have sanctioned someone yelling FIRE in the midst of the hundreds of moviegoers.

Yet the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is thought by many to protect the use of an assault weapon against them.

So when a pro-gun lobbyist like Alan Gottlieb says after a mass shooting: The gunman can't be "treated like a child, he's got his own life to live and he can make his own mistakes no matter how horrific these mistakes turn out to be." the opinion is treated as perfectly sane.

Or so the NRA would have us accept.....


http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Gun-Industry-Americans/dp/1595588302/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. It's nice that those that already agree with Diaz like his book

However, you will need to work on those that aren't already in the choir singing "Amen"...

[Eleanors38]

10. "dredge up a poliSci adjunct?" Hey, I was one!

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. Cool- can you hold your nose and review/Fisk this book for us?

[Eleanors38]

13. Have to wait. I'm finishing my critique of fractal geometry & Space Music tonality.

[gejohnston]

8. Nice press release

If the book is anything like the PR, I'll pass. If I wanted to read emotional, propagandistic, and uninformed rants by someone who has no idea what they are talking about, I'll go read letters to the editor that talk about how much manatees love speed boats and how toxic waste is good for you.

[Eleanors38]

9. Diaz is bitchin' at what brung him to the dance?

MSM? Maybe the reason MSM has grown reluctant about I.D-ing and discussing the weapons used in shootings is because it has a studied ignorance of weaponry. In the Navy Yard shooting, news outlets feverishly published accounts of how the punk used an "assault weapon" -- only to slip on its ass and have to admit en masse the gun actually used was a hoary pump shotgun.

Diaz shouldn't be so rough on MSM; beyond it the control/prohibitionist outlook has little else with which to analyze "military style assault weapons."

[spin]

12. The media is hardly "timid" or "cowardly" in its attempts to for push strong gun control laws as ...

the article suggests:

When a mass murder like the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado or the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut happens, the cable news outlets are more than willing to devote 24/7 coverage to the incident for at least a week and closely follow the case for months afterward. CNN's somewhat pompous British anchor, Piers Morgan has declared it's his mission to bring reason to the United States and convince us to make guns as rare in our nation as they are in the United Kingdom. The far more likable and I suspect more intelligent Rachel Maddow also is willing to devote hours and hours discussing the issue on her MSNBC program in an effort to promote strong gun control.

The print media also throws its weight behind gun control advocates. It's extremely rare to read a pro gun rights article or editorial in any major newspaper or magazine.

If you listen to the media you will learn that weapons similar to the AR-15 serve no useful purpose except for killing other humans. The media will argue that no hunter needs a high capacity magazine to hunt deer but the ignores the fact that it is legal to hunt deer in many states with an AR-15 using a five round magazine and 20 and 30 round magazines are often used in states like Florida while hunting feral hog. Then the media contradicts itself when it suggests that an AR-15 is not a good home defense weapon. A rifle of any power is a poor choice in an urban environment but can be an excellent defense weapon in a rural area. Women often prefer an AR-15 over a 12 guage shotgun as the recoil level is much less. Militarized semi-automatic rifles similar to the the AR-15 are also commonly used in competitive target shooting.

The media also has a strong hatred of "stand your ground" laws. It considers such laws to be a license to kill while they merely expand much older self defense laws to eliminate the duty to first retreat before using a weapon for self defense. Prior to the passage of these laws it was quite possible that an overzealous prosecutor could convince a jury to send a person to jail for failing to first run when attacked by a person with a gun or knife.

This article blames the Zimmerman/Martin shooting on Florida's stand your ground law. The fact is that Zimmerman's attorneys never tried to invoke the stand your ground provision but merely presented a simple self defense case. They argued that Martin overwhelmed Zimmerman and had him on the ground pounding his head into concrete. Zimmerman walked free because the inept prosecution team was unable to convince the jury that Zimmerman was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In my opinion the media did its best to promote another assault weapons ban but all that was accomplished was to cause firearm sales to absolutely skyrocket. No major national gun legislation passed through the Democratically controlled Senate despite all the attention and a coordinated attempt by the media to embarrass Senators from the lower populated pro-gun states to "vote their conscious for the good of the nation."

The truly sad part is that the overreach by some politicians like Senator Dianne Feinstein to push another assault weapons ban through Congress doomed the chances of some far more reasonable measures to succeed. It is also possible that the push for the assault weapons ban will cause some good Democrats to lose seats in the House and Senate in the upcoming midterm election. Time will tell.

[gejohnston]

14. I actually think you are understating the case.

Last edited Sat Jan 25, 2014, 08:00 AM - Edit history (8)

As much as we like to think that we "evolved" away from 19th century yellow journalism, we returned to it assuming we ever left it. The media is out to make a buck or push an ideology. If the truth gets in the way of either, it gets plowed over. Infotainment is a product, the news is now a profit center, and no longer a public service. Once the MSM start following a narrative, either out of sloth or malice, they stick to it even when the facts show otherwise. They are also part of the political and economic elite in the US. Gun control is as much a front on the class war as it is the culture war. Political economic elites don't like armed proletariat.

Media figures and pundits are over paid, under educated, and intellectually incurious. Chat shows like Fox and Friends and TYT are extreme examples in such banality.

If it means editing a tape to make a mixed race nonracist moderate Democrat look like David Duke, so be it. Not that he was the first victim of trial by media, nor the last. I remember the media having half the country convinced that Chandra Levy was murdered by her congressman boss/boyfriend based on no evidence nor any claim by the police. He was killed by a serial killer that had no connection to either one. Then there is Richard Jewell, the security guard who was doing his job, but was smeared as a "wantabe hero".
In the Zimmerman case, they were completely irresponsible. As an experiment, I watched the entire trial from beginning to end and compared it to media accounts. I was appalled at the inaccuracy.
I feel compelled to correct one thing:

They argued that Martin overwhelmed Zimmerman and had him on the ground pounding his head into concrete. Zimmerman walked free because the inept prosecution team was unable to convince the jury that Zimmerman was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

From watching the trial, I got the distinct impression that the prosecution wasn't trying to prove Zimmerman's guilt as they were trying to create reasonable doubt of his innocence, which turns the system upside down. The prosecution team wasn't inept. OK, John Guy's "yes there is the evidence, but follow your heart" during the prosecution's closing argument wasn't exactly something you would expect out of the side expected to prove something, but they were forced to prosecute a case due to political pressure and the SA, Angela Corey, wanted to look like a champion for social justice to get re elected. It didn't have anything to do with justice for Trayvon or anyone else. There might have been evidence eventually produced, but Corey shut down the grand jury six days before election day.
The defense didn't argue that Zimmerman was getting his head pounded in the concrete insomuch as they took advantage of what the two eye witnesses (who called 911) told the cops on the scene and later in court under cross examination (they were prosecution witnesses). Let's face it, if two eye witnesses said "I saw your guy getting his head beat in the sidewalk", it would be unethical for them not to exploit it. And then there were the cops who investigated the case. IOW, everything I saw in the media, including talk radio, was completely wrong. Even the prosecutors and Martin family lawyers Ben Crump and Daryl Parks do not dispute that fact. In fact, the one time I watched Piers Morgan, I saw Parks telling Morgan that Zimmerman should be held liable because he should have endured the beating until the cops got there.

and the bottom of the barrel is leaving a serious discussion to the breaking "news" about Justin Beiber's DUI.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/24/1272156/-You-won-t-believe-why-MSNBC-cut-away-from-this-interview?detail=facebook#
I have absolutely no respect for the media.

There are conversations that should be had following the Zimmerman trial, but are not happening:
keeping politics out of the criminal justice system
why we shouldn't have elected DAs and judges
The role of the media and talk radio, and their responsibility to be honest
how media created myths (like he was told to stay in the car) become "reality".
the role of bloggers who think they know it all because they are a child of the one percent and have a degree in creative writing, but don't actually research the subject.