Why Does the Media Only Talk About Guns?

I came across an interesting op-ed a few days ago that really got me thinking.

The opinion piece, titled "Kyoto Animation arson killings didn't get much attention because we couldn't demonize guns," was written by James Alan Fox and appeared in USA TODAY.

It was Fox's first line that sort of stopped me in my tracks:

"The Kyoto Animation killing left 34 dead, but it didn't have much impact because we don't pay attention to mass killings without guns. We should."

I have to admit that I had heard little about the massacre, which occurred last Thursday in Kyoto, Japan.

The New York Times reported that "much was still unknown about the Thursday fire, which appeared to be Japan's worst mass killing in decades. The police ... identified a suspect in the case," and that suspect "told the police that he started the fire because he believed the studio, Kyoto Animation, 'stole a novel' from him."

The more I read, the more unsettled I became. Why was it that one country's "worst mass killing in decades" made but a splash on the media's radar?

According to Bearing Arms, "The reason the fire in Japan [didn't] get more play is that it [didn't] do anything for them. They [couldn't] spin it, make it a bigger story, so they [didn't] devote the coverage to it. They'll save that for when they can push to take away our right to keep and bear arms."

In his op-ed, Fox agrees: "The limited attention here in the United States cannot be explained away on account of distance. Compare the coverage with that of the mosque shootings last March in Christchurch, New Zealand, a location even farther from our shores. U.S. newspapers and wire services featured the Christchurch massacre five times as much as the Kyoto mass murder."

He continues: "Mass shootings remain one of the most widely discussed topics here in the United States. By comparison, we just don't seem to be as unnerved by mass killings carried out by other methods, unless of course they hint of terrorism, be it of foreign or domestic origin."

He makes an incredibly logical point and even points out how, in our own country -- maybe especially in our own country -- people tend to move on quickly from any mass murder that doesn't involve guns.

He writes, "It would be hard to find adults anywhere in this country who do not remember when 12 victims were gunned down at a cinema in Aurora, Colorado, in 2012. It would be equally difficult to find folks outside of Nevada who do recall when 12 victims succumbed to smoke inhalation at a Reno hotel in 2006, when an irate resident set fire to a stack of old mattresses and caused the building to become engulfed in flames. Few outside of New York City likely recall the 87 killed in 1990 at the Happy Land nightclub in a fire deliberately set by an ex-boyfriend of an employee. The death toll was nearly twice as high as Orlando's Pulse nightclub massacre in 2016, a crime that remains fresh in our collective memories."

Disturbing ... yet true.

Fox goes on to cite the Associated Press/USA TODAY/Northeastern University Mass Killing Database to point out how, of some 391 massacres in the United States since 2016, more than one-fifth involved weapons other than a gun. (He also reiterates how the media never called for the banning of knives or trucks or gasoline in any of those 85 instances.)

Fox claims "it is surely fruitless to assess the relative severity of mass killings on the basis of weaponry," and I couldn't agree more.

The bottom line is that evil is evil, regardless of how it's carried out. All life is precious, and all victims of these horrendous crimes deserve to be honored and remembered instead of used to push a political agenda.

And it bears repeating: We must stay vigilant at all times. We must be ready for anything. And if we are ever faced with a deadly threat -- be it someone armed with a knife or a gun or a truck or fire -- we must fight like hell to prevail.

Take care and stay safe,

Tim Schmidt
Publisher - Concealed Carry Report
USCCA Founder