Tuesday, May 27, 2014
California Shooter [and Stabber] Kills 3 People with A Knife and 3 with A Gun, But Most Stories Only Focus On the Gun Deaths
No calls by the establishment media for knife-control or a knife ban, despite the fact that Elliot Rodger [pictured] stabbed his first three victims to death. Nope, it's just about the guns
by Larry Simons
May 27, 2014
In the past few years, whenever some deranged lunatic has gunned down people at a mall or a school, the establishment media [more specifically, the liberal media] have done nothing but blame guns, attack gun owners and have pushed for the repeal or the abolishment of the Second Amendment.
After a shooting occurs, it becomes crystal clear that mostly liberals want gun-control or guns outlawed period. Conservatives fight back and attack liberals for wanting to dismantle the Second Amendment. The liberals deny they want guns taken away and even deny that they politicize the issue, two things everyone knows couldn't be more untrue.
There is no better evidence that the corporate-controlled [liberal] media want guns completely out of the hands of all non-police and non-military people when an incident occurs that involves casualties in which guns were not the only weapon used [but only focus on the guns], like the one that occurred in Santa Barbara, California last Friday night.
This past Friday night, 22-year old Elliot Rodger, son of assistant Hollywood director Peter Rodger, stabbed three men to death at his apartment, then proceeded to go on a shooting rampage that left another three dead and many injured before Rodger took his own life by shooting himself in the head.
Many stories about this incident from mainstream websites either barely mention the stabbings or completely omit them, clearly illustrating their obvious intention of undermining the stabbings and directing all the attention to the shootings only, so their agenda to rid the population of guns can be achieved.
One story on Time.com completely omits the stabbings. If you had no information on this story and read this article, you would walk away thinking only guns were used. A word search of the words "knife", "stab" or "stabbing" came to a whopping zero in results, whereas a word search for the words, "gun" or any form of the word like "gunshot", "gunman", "guns" or "gun-control" produced nine results. The word "shoot" or any form of the word, like "shooting" appeared four times. Despite the fact that 50% of the deaths were the result of a knife as the weapon, guns are mentioned nine times and knives are not mentioned at all.
On another popular liberal site, The Huffington Post, I performed the same word check on one of their stories. Results: "guns" and any form of the word: 13 times. The word "shoot" or any form of the word: 7 times. "Stab" or "knife": zero.
In a story on CNN.com, the word "gun" or any form of the word: 13 times. The word "shoot": 4 times. The word "stab": 3 times [but the word was used only in the context of the writer explaining in Rodger's own words what his plan would be]. The word "knife": zero
In a USA Today story, the word "gun" [or any form] used 9 times. The word "shoot": 11 times. The word "stab": 3 times. The word "knife": zero.
LA Times: The word "gun": 13 times. The word "shoot": 7 times. The word "stab": 2 times [and 1 of these usages was, once again, Rodger's own words]. The word "knife": zero.
Forbes.com: The word "gun": 4 times. The word "shoot": 3 times. The word "stab": 2 times [and 1 of these usages was in the very bottom, underneath the article. The sentence reads "*Edited to add information about stabbing deaths that occurred at Rodger’s apartment"]. I found this statement interesting. In other words, the writer, Kashmir Hill, is admitting that she did not even include the stabbings in her original article. One might defend her and claim that she simply did not know about the stabbings and went back to amend the story. My personal take on this is that a good journalist should not write about or report anything until all the facts are in.
The Forbes.com story only mentions the word "knife" once, and that is only in reference to a graphic Japanese film titled, "Philosophy of the Knife", which was one of the favorites on Rodger's YouTube page.
So you see, it's practically unanimous that the cover story across the board is "guns are bad, they kill, ban them" whereas the usage of a knife claimed the same number of people, yet calls to ban knives are non-existent. We see no liberal, or anyone else for that matter, calling for widespread knife disarmament. It's hypocrisy at its peak.
Of course, we all know how silly it would be for anyone to advocate for "knife-control" because knives have other practical uses, unlike guns, which we all know only have one purpose: to slaughter innocent groups of people in mass shootings. I hope the sarcasm was loud and clear, because it is just as ridiculous to pass more gun-control laws. The only people that suffer with the passage of more gun laws are the very people who use guns lawfully and with no criminal intent.
More gun laws will do two things: Strip law-abiding citizens of their rights to own guns and increase restrictions on them, making it much more difficult for non-criminals to defend themselves against the very ones in whom more gun laws will help, the very people who have no respect for laws to begin with: criminals.
It is a plain and simple fact that where there are more guns there is less crime. Shake your head all you want, it's just fact. The truth is, any time a crime happens as the result of a no gun zone or a gun restricted area, it gets either downplayed in the media or not mentioned at all. The following story is a prime example.
On May 18, a restaurant in Durham, NC was robbed at gunpoint when three masked men entered the restaurant through the back door. A few of the staff members were injured but no one was seriously hurt. One cannot help but to wonder if the masked men would have entered at all if not for a sign posted on the front door that read, "NO WEAPONS. NO CONCEALED FIREARMS".
The fact that the men entered in through the back door [and not the front, where the sign is] is not a valid point as to why the men still entered and robbed the place. Anti-gun advocates might argue, "they didn't see the sign if they came in the back door". This is a ludicrous argument. This suggests that criminals obey gun laws. Would a law-abiding citizen have been allowed to enter and rob the restaurant if there was no "no weapons" sign posted? Of course not. Why? Because it is illegal to rob anyone, period.
I have news for anti-gun advocates: Criminals do NOT obey gun laws. Congress could pass 50 new gun laws tomorrow and the only thing it would accomplish is that even a greater number of the law-abiding population would be either completely disarmed or at the very least, more restricted in defending themselves.
Case-in-point: The sign on the North Carolina restaurant accomplished nothing. These men still entered and robbed the place. Because they didn't see a sign? Of course not. I am 100% sure they were very aware of the sign. It helps a criminal tremendously in knowing that during a robbery, no one can possibly intervene, because no one will be armed to shoot back in order to prevent the crime. Anti-Second Amendment advocates do not understand this simple point.
The anti-gun crowd wants only one thing: to get rid of guns so the federal government would have no resistance from their citizens, so that their tyranny can accelerate.