This story was on page a9 of the 1-5 Los Angeles Times. So why did the notoriously anti-gun LA Times bury a story like this on page 9? Why not the usual frothing front page treatment?
Why? Because the details of the story don’t fit the usual anti-gun narrative so it’s not as useful for them to exploit and push the standard anti-gun agenda.
January 4th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Doesn’t a tree count as cover? 😛
January 4th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Ominous.
January 4th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
That’s one cool customer. “Hell of a morning for jury duty.” Just has to be one of the best best understatements I have ever heard. 🙂
January 5th, 2010 at 11:27 am
A Gun: A lot nicer to have than a camera phone…
January 5th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
A gun? In Las Vegas? Surely you jest..
I’m sure all that shooting was just a movie or something becuz they don’t allow guns in Las Vegas. (Note that the REST of Nevada isn’t nearly as bad)
January 6th, 2010 at 3:58 am
This story was on page a9 of the 1-5 Los Angeles Times. So why did the notoriously anti-gun LA Times bury a story like this on page 9? Why not the usual frothing front page treatment?
Why? Because the details of the story don’t fit the usual anti-gun narrative so it’s not as useful for them to exploit and push the standard anti-gun agenda.