Leftist-Biased Headline of the Day
Reuters had the following howler of a headline on Monday: No solution in sight for U.S. gun violence
Let’s unpack the headline…
No solution in sight
The article implies that there is a problem since they are referring to the lack of a solution for it. We’ll soon see how they define the problem.
for U.S. gun violence
Ah, so according to Reuters “gun violence” is the problem. This is a blatant attempt to portray guns, not the evil perpertrators who use them, as being the problem. This has been pointed out by others, this is like pinning the blame for bank robberies on automobiles since bank robbers commonly use them for their get-away.
[quote]The article implies that there is a problem since they are referring to the lack of a solution for it.[/quote]
You mean the headline, right?
[quote]This is a blatant attempt to portray guns, not the evil perpertrators who use them, as being the problem. [/quote]
So, there’s no such thing as gun violence?
[quote]This has been pointed out by others, this is like pinning the blame for bank robberies on automobiles since bank robbers commonly use them for their get-away.[/quote]
I don’t know too many bank robbers who pull a car out from their jacket and yell, “This is a stick up! I’m have a fully-loaded sedan and I’m not afraid to use it! Just put all of the money in the trunk and nobody will get hurt!”
> So, there’s no such thing as gun violence?
It is preposterous to portray guns, not the evil perpetrators who use them, as being the source of the problem the headline refers to.
> You mean the headline, right?
Yes.
> I don’t know too many bank robbers who pull a car out from their jacket
I encourage you to the reread my simile as you’ve clearly failed to understand it.
>> So, there’s no such thing as gun violence?
>It is preposterous to portray guns, not the evil perpetrators who use them, as being the source of the problem the headline refers to.
I’ll rephrase: Is there such a thing as gun violence–yes or no.
>> I don’t know too many bank robbers who pull a car out from their jacket
>I encourage you to the reread my simile as you’ve clearly failed to understand it.
You clealy failed to understand that I made a joke.
> I’ll rephrase: Is there such a thing as gun violence–yes or no.
Can you define what you mean by “gun violence”? In general, as is the case with any other tool, guns can be used for good or evil purposes. Describing something as “violent” does not provide enough information to determine whether the violent act is morally reprehensible or not; after all one can react violently as a defense against an attacker.
By “gun violence”, I mean an act of violence with the use of a gun. Regardless of whether or not the gun is used for a good or evil act, this “tool” is designed solely to be used in a violent manner. Is it your position that gun has a non-violent purpose?
> By “gun violence”, I mean an act of violence with the use of a gun.
Got it. Yes, there is such as thing as violent acts committed with guns. That said, without further qualification describing something as a “violent act” is practically meaningless when discussing the moral merits of any gun-related policies (e.g., American’s constitutional right to bear arms). Hence, “gun violence” is not the problem despite the article’s implication to the contrary. People committing evil acts with guns is the problem.