Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on December 12, 2007, 08:52:33 AM
-
How has the media handled school shootings and other mass shootings by whackjobs?
We live in a nation of fame starved.. everyone wants to be famous.. their 15 minutes.. we are a nation of fad followers and parrots and idiot tv show watchers with empty headed big hair anchors with soothing voices and the ability to look happy or pained on cue.
When asked.. 76% of those involved in the media say that they lean left socialist.
when their is one of these shootings.. they tend to focus first.. on the suffering of the victims.. even if they were not even victims.. then.. the suffering of the poor guy (and his life story) who did the shooting... just what he wanted.
In fully on quarter of school shootings a civilian with a gun stopped the shooter before police arrived.. why didn't you know that?
In this one... at the co. church.. the first reports never even mentioned the woman with a concealed weapon who killed the guy.. latter.. they said that the guy wasn't really killed by her... he committed suicide.
They are now talking about how mean she was at her last job.. It is crazy.
Wouldn't you think that being a nation of fad followers.. that it would be better (and more newsworthy) to focus on how a tiny little woman with a gun stopped the big bad angry man from his cowardly mission to kill? instead of making him some dark avenger?
Wouldn't it be better if people imitated her instead of him? Shouldn't he be ignored in the news and her praised and made into a national hero?
Wouldn't how she stopped him be a lot more interesting (in a nation of action flicks) than what kind of underwear and music they found at the dark avengers home in his moms basement?
lazs
-
I agree, there are 2 folks there who placed themselves at risk to defend others. While I have seen a lot of footage dedicated to the shooter there is substantially less dedicated to the heroes. It all comes down to what is most sensational, the bad guy is worth more print and air time since he caused the problem, the ones who solved it are less worthy in the sensational biased media.
Continuing to play up to the need for attention the shooter has only encourages more copycats.
-
Im just glad she shot the bastard. I first I thot she was sorta hot, but she really looks kinda odd. Anyway, the guy got dropped by her, if he finished himself off? hell, who cares. She stopped the SOB and he is dead. Chalk one up for the good guys.
Im carrying concealed everywhere I go, I sense this lunacy is just going to worsen as we near the end times, and I want to "do my part" when the need arises :)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
as we near the end times, B]
:rofl :lol :rofl
:rolleyes:
-
You guys realise that there were two church shootings recently right?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316263,00.html
Funny how the other one has been completely disregarded by...the O'Club. Wonder why?
Lazs....I don't want to get in a big debate about it but can you please provide a source for the one quarter of school shootings being dealt with by civilians?
-
Curv,
You do know the same guy is responsible for both shootings don't you? The second incident is more noteworthy only because the shooter was taken out not because the victims were more worthy of concern. That's the crux of the discussion here. A potential victim (2 actually) stood up and fought back.
-
Lazs,
People on the left and right are getting railroaded by a biased media, imv.
It is a bi-partisan problem, I think.
I haven't seen the righty media doing any less than the lefty media with regards to all this. They both spin against the real facts and hide facts from public viewing on cable TV.
Instead of being the unbiased government watchdog for the country they appear to be partisan and government pawns.
I agree with you that media not reporting relevant news and news twisting needs to stop.
If the sum, or near total sum, of mainstream American TV Media is in bed with both political parties (depending on the channel) and the government, and I believe it is, it needs to stop.
There are A LOT of things that go unreported.
When was the last time you saw a cable news piece on the rampant inflation that is racking the country?
I remember when the inflation index at any given point in time was on everyone's lips and that was before cable TV.
What about this? --> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-US&q=rape+us+servicewomen+iraq&btnG=Search
What's ironic about this woman and her co-defender and their mutual takedown of this maniac is... it can't be spun away and shoved under a carpet.
BTW, it is reported she got fired from the police force for lying about chewing out a bus driver.
I was excited when FOX NEWS came on line to set the left Media on it heels... now FOX is as bad, imv, just in a different direction, and not for the better.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Curv,
You do know the same guy is responsible for both shootings don't you? The second incident is more noteworthy only because the shooter was taken out not because the victims were more worthy of concern. That's the crux of the discussion here. A potential victim (2 actually) stood up and fought back.
Nope, I didn't know that...thanks.
Any info on lazs' stats?
-
During the same period of time they also arrested a serial killer likely linked to 15 murders dating back to the 1970s who did not use a gun. I recall at least one arson story in the local news that got minimal coverage where 2-3 people were killed -- no media circus. I have also seen several links to local stories where a homeowner or CCW used a firearm to defend himself. Only made the local news, of course.
The serial killer may get some news traction but really, firearm crime is handled far differently by the media compared to other crime where a murder kills someone using their hands, or a knife or gasoline or a car or a few too many Martinis.
I think that largely explains why many Europeans have a different view of what daily life in "war zone America" is like compared to those of us who actually live here.
You will see far more attention paid to the shooter than the savior on this one though. The Church killer probably was acting out of more personal motivation on this one, given his background, but the mall shooter certainly had media stars in his eyes. Like Cho at VT, he sought out a gun strictly for the purpose of becoming Infamous. And, exactly as he expected, he achieved his goal.
So, is it time to discuss some sensible restrictions on the First Amendment? Stuff like referencing the criminal as simply "the shooter" not showing his face and only providing minimal details about his background or "manifesto?" The current mass media machine, where news travels around the globe almost instantly on dozens of channels, thousands of newspapers and hundreds of thousands of Web sites was certainly not the "press" known to the framers.
Personally, I think these events, as I have noted many times, are far too rare in our population of 300,000,000, even in a bad year like this one, to particularly factor into any rights debate whether it's the 1st or 2nd. However, I do think a change in media policy would be about 100 percent effective on the selfish "make me a star" killers. So, if sensible restrictions are fine with the 2nd, then why not the 1st?
And what about Hollywood, that publicly hates guns but makes millions off of the unrealistic, almost pornographic, portrayal of gun related violence? Time to reign them in? Video games?
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
During the same period of time they also arrested a serial killer likely linked to 15 murders dating back to the 1970s who did not use a gun. I recall at least one arson story in the local news that got minimal coverage where 2-3 people were killed -- no media circus. I have also seen several links to local stories where a homeowner or CCW used a firearm to defend himself. Only made the local news, of course.
The serial killer may get some news traction but really, firearm crime is handled far differently by the media compared to other crime where a murder kills someone using their hands, or a knife or gasoline or a car or a few too many Martinis.
I think that largely explains why many Europeans have a different view of what daily life in "war zone America" is like compared to those of us who actually live here.
You will see far more attention paid to the shooter than the savior on this one though. The Church killer probably was acting out of more personal motivation on this one, given his background, but the mall shooter certainly had media stars in his eyes. Like Cho at VT, he sought out a gun strictly for the purpose of becoming Infamous. And, exactly as he expected, he achieved his goal.
So, is it time to discuss some sensible restrictions on the First Amendment? Stuff like referencing the criminal as simply "the shooter" not showing his face and only providing minimal details about his background or "manifesto?" The current mass media machine, where news travels around the globe almost instantly on dozens of channels, thousands of newspapers and hundreds of thousands of Web sites was certainly not the "press" known to the framers.
Personally, I think these events, as I have noted many times, are far too rare in our population of 300,000,000, even in a bad year like this one, to particularly factor into any rights debate whether it's the 1st or 2nd. However, I do think a change in media policy would be about 100 percent effective on the selfish "make me a star" killers. So, if sensible restrictions are fine with the 2nd, then why not the 1st?
And what about Hollywood, that publicly hates guns but makes millions off of the unrealistic, almost pornographic, portrayal of gun related violence? Time to reign them in? Video games?
Charon
Careful you dont throw the baby out with the bath water when thinking of tinkering with the 1st amendment... it's a slippery slope once one is on it.
Homicidial maniacs will always spawn and no law can prevent it.
But I certianly understand your point of view.
TIGERESS
-
I agree Tigress. I am a strong supporter of the entire BOR, regardless of how messy freedoms can be on occasion. As I have pointed out a number of times in the past, your chance of being killed by some nutter with a gun in one of these high-profile incidents is less than you chance of getting hit by lightning, regardless of the media circus these events create.
Same with semi-automatic rifles (so called assault rifles) where they are used in 1-2 percent of all firearm homicides, about the same as a baseball bat as a murder weapon. Not worth the assault on out liberty, IMO.
However, unlike the typical call for ban this or ban that, in a practical sense denying these creatures the media stage would, effectively, eliminate this specific problem, again IMO. So, for those so willing to further restrict firearm ownership.... what say ye? Why is the 1st a sacred cow and the 2nd a doormat where "sensible" restrictions are concerned?
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
I agree Tigress. I am a strong supporter of the entire BOR, regardless of how messy freedoms can be on occasion. As I have pointed out a number of times in the past, your chance of being killed by some nutter with a gun in one of these high-profile incidents is less than you chance of getting hit by lightning, regardless of the media circus these events create.
Same with semi-automatic rifles (so called assault rifles) where they are used in 1-2 percent of all firearm homicides, about the same as a baseball bat as a murder weapon. Not worth the assault on out liberty, IMO.
However, unlike the typical call for ban this or ban that, in a practical sense denying these creatures the media stage would, effectively, eliminate this specific problem, again IMO. So, for those so willing to further restrict firearm ownership.... what say ye? Why is the 1st a sacred cow and the 2nd a doormat where "sensible" restrictions are concerned?
Charon
I feel as protective of the 2nd amendment as I do the 1st amendment.
See my recent post on pro-gun Democrats who support gun ownership and anti-gun Republicans who want to limit or end it. --> http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=2671602#post2671602
This is why, in the main, I don't trust politicians, left or right.
I will, instead, pick and choose, ala carte, who I vote for based on my views as to how things should go and not get into the partisan shell game between the left and right.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Charon
Why is the 1st a sacred cow and the 2nd a doormat where "sensible" restrictions are concerned?
Because the 1st is an abstract ideal, and all Americans can get behind it. The 2nd deals with guns, and guns are designed only to kill, so they must be bad... right?
There's such resistance to the idea that occasionally... killing can be justified, and even laudable. That's the core of it.
-
See my recent post on pro-gun Democrats who support gun ownership and anti-gun Republicans who want to limit or end it. --> http://forums.hitechcreations.com/f...602#post2671602
This is why, in the main, I don't trust politicians, left or right.
Preaching to the Choir :) I lost faith in either party some time ago. After much arguing with Lazs over why Ron Paul makes sense, I may vote Republican strictly, and I mean strictly, over the issue of supreme court nominations. Not that I have any great deal of trust in Rudy McRomney al' Huckabee on that or any constitutionalist issue. If that wasn't an issue neither party would receive my presidential endorsement, just like neither did last election.
Charon
-
curval... you can go to the John Lott site for the number.. I know how much you like him but it should be even more true since your people spent so much time trying to find one fact in the thousands he used in his book that.. it pretty much gives it a "peer reviewed" quality.. if you want to see the footnotes on source you will have to buy the book I suppose. I am too lazy to look it up in mine.
His site does say it tho.. as does this national review article.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200503230744.asp
lazs
-
did it occur to you lasz that the people who do put down a shooter are less likely to give information or spotlight time due to the fact that they werent seeking it and/or are being tight lipped for legal reasons?
-
and... I do not believe the 1st should be tampered with.. if 76% of the journalists are liberal socialists and they can sell their news... so be it.
I think they are getting what they deserve tho... no one watches the news or reads the commie drivel papers anymore.
Good intentions are worse tho... the idea that the government can fund the news results in the same lefties being able to be on the air even if no one wants to hear em.... NPR and PBS are examples.
The government should not be able to waste our money on funding news or art.
lazs
-
if the media reports focus on the good guys killing the bad guys there will be less bad guy news which is the majority of their content .. maybe it would force news back to an hour a night, back to where it should be...
-
Our old friend Lott huh? Figured as much.
I'm not disagreeing with what your main point is in this thread...which is that the media manipulates the situation and focuses on the crazed shooter rather than the hero who put him down.
I just don't think your stats are right and I find it mildly amusing that you state that 3 out of 4 school shootings are stopped by civilians and then use this woman in the church shootings as a great example. But, it wasn't a school shooting. You should look into the media for a new career. You'd be good at it. ;)
Plus, I see you moaning and groaning about gun free zones in schools and yet 3 in 4 shootings are stopped by civilians with guns? That seems to be a contradiction to me.
No need to look anything up. It was just a passing observation. I'll let you get back to your ranting and hand wringing again.
-
Our old friend Lott huh? Figured as much.
Lott's reputation is not pristine in a variety of fairly minor and petty areas, but he's hardly discredited even with a heavy academic focus on discrediting anything he publishes that goes against "conventional wisdom." In fact, whether they agree with the notion that concealed carry does reduce crime, he has convinced a great many critics that it certainly doesn't lead to blood in the streets over every minor altercation.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
Preaching to the Choir :) I lost faith in either party some time ago. After much arguing with Lazs over why Ron Paul makes sense, I may vote Republican strictly, and I mean strictly, over the issue of supreme court nominations. Not that I have any great deal of trust in Rudy McRomney al' Huckabee on that or any constitutionalist issue. If that wasn't an issue neither party would receive my presidential endorsement, just like neither did last election.
Charon
Ron Paul is someone I could vote for.
But I fear he will be prevented from getting the nomination by the wheeler-dealers in the Republican party; even if it means dirty tricks or keeping campaign funds from getting too high for him.
Do you remember the war chest Geo. Bush had even at this stage? ...in his first bid for president?
In my view, Ron is too much a pro-people's rights (pro-constitution) politician for the power block to allow him to win the nomination.
For example--> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html
excerpt:
Lowering the Cost of Health Care
by Ron Paul
As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.
We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.
While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage” – is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.
from--> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul330.html
The Worldwide Gun Control Movement
by Ron Paul
The United Nations is holding a conference beginning this week in New York that ironically coincides with our national 4th of July holiday. It’s ironic because those attending the conference want to do away with one of our most fundamental constitutional freedoms – the right to bear arms.
The stated goal of the conference is to eliminate trading in small arms, but the real goal is to advance a worldwide gun control movement that ultimately supercedes national laws, including our own 2nd Amendment. Many UN observers believe the conference will set the stage in coming years for an international gun control treaty.
Fortunately, U.S. gun owners have responded with an avalanche of letters to the American delegation to the conference, asking that none of our tax dollars be used to further UN anti-gun proposals. But we cannot discount the growing power of international law, whether through the UN, the World Trade Organization, or the NAFTA and CAFTA treaties. Gun rights advocates must understand that the forces behind globalism are hostile toward our Constitution and national sovereignty in general. Our 2nd Amendment means nothing to UN officials.
Domestically, the gun control movement has lost momentum in recent years. The Democratic Party has been conspicuously silent on the issue in recent elections because they know it’s a political loser. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11th terrorist attacks and last summer’s hurricanes only made matters worse for gun control proponents, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals.
So it makes sense that perhaps the biggest threat to gun rights in America today comes not from domestic lawmakers, but from abroad.
For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France!
Yet, Ron Paul is a staunch Pro-Lifer and would have women imprisoned were they to elect to undergo an abortion if he had his way.
I am having a problem with any man telling a woman what she can and can not do in the matter.
I have my own spiritual views on the subject and would like to think I would never have one but... it's not my place to tell another woman she can't and if she does then imprison her.
TIGERESS
-
In my view, Ron is too much a pro-people's rights (pro-constitution) politician for the power block to allow him to win the nomination.
I would say an even bigger problem is that a great many people, whether they consider themselves to be conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican, have lost touch with the whole concept of smaller government. Paul sounds alien and scary to many, who at their core see a big conservative or big liberal government as the solution to all of their problems.
But there are a notable amount who see the light, and it is growing and coming from moderates in both parties (not the pure fiscal socialists or strict social conservatives, of course) and my belief is that, at the very least, Paul can be counted on to show both parties that we are becoming more aware of how the sausage is and and less willing to accept the status quo. Nudge them both into a better alignment, perhaps. Much of this is hashed out in greater detail in this thread: http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=216978&referrerid=5405
I very much like MOST of Paul's message, and would vote for him even knowing h would likely lose, if the Supreme Court nominations were not an issue. I voted for that Libertarian chap last election, can't quite remember his name, Bardink, Brdenom... the guy who got crushed even by Nader. I may still vote for Paul even with the court nominations on the line. Much will be decided for me based on the outcome of Parker/Heller under the Robert's court, when we see just exactly what we have gotten from the previous conservative presidents as far as constitutionalist jurists are concerned.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
I would say an even bigger problem is that a great many people, whether they consider themselves to be conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican, have lost touch with the whole concept of smaller government. Paul sounds alien and scary to many, who at their core see a big conservative or big liberal government as the solution to all of their problems.
But there are a notable amount who see the light, and it is growing and coming from moderates in both parties (not the pure fiscal socialists or strict social conservatives, of course) and my belief is that, at the very least, Paul can be counted on to show both parties that we are becoming more aware of how the sausage is and and less willing to accept the status quo. Nudge them both into a better alignment, perhaps. Much of this is hashed out in greater detail in this thread: http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=216978&referrerid=5405
I very much like MOST of Paul's message, and would vote for him even knowing h would likely lose, if the Supreme Court nominations were not an issue. I voted for that Libertarian chap last election, can't quite remember his name, Bardink, Brdenom... the guy who got crushed even by Nader. I may still vote for Paul even with the court nominations on the line. Much will be decided for me based on the outcome of Parker/Heller under the Robert's court, when we see just exactly what we have gotten from the previous conservative presidents as far as constitutionalist jurists are concerned.
Charon
I would say an even bigger problem is that a great many people, whether they consider themselves to be conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican, have lost touch with the whole concept of smaller government. Paul sounds alien and scary to many, who at their core see a big conservative or big liberal government as the solution to all of their problems.
Know why the age old criminal con-game still works on people every day?
Greed at the expense of others... people wanting something for nothing...
The SCJ's are a serious concern for me too... re: Roe v Wade and some other things.
TIGERESS
-
The SCJ's are a serious concern for me too... re: Roe v Wade and some other things.
This is pure hijack material in waiting, but I will add that I personally disagree with judicial activism. The case supporting R v W is seriously weak from a Constitutional standpoint. A fact noted even by many liberal scholars who otherwise support the right to choose. It was a broadly sweeping, politicized finding that stretched the Constitution to the limit.
The problem with Judicial activism is that it is a shortcut around the legislative branch based on the political views of those sitting on the bench, if they do not adhere rigidly to the Constitution. You may like the outcome of R v W, but, you may not like the next activist outcome and you have no democratic control over the process. This would have been just as valid if the court presented a pro-life position based on a twisted reading of the Constitution. There are legislative alternatives that can accomplish this or most any goal if society wants to accomplish it. They are harder to achieve in many cases, but the Constitution can be changed if needed.
While Paul personally disagrees with abortion by and large, especially after having performed some late-term procedures, his political position is based on the position, accurate IMO, that R v W is not a constitutional issue to begin with. It's one for state legislatures or a Constitutional amendment -- both legislative processes. After that, the court can review individual cases to see if they fit with the language and intent of the Amendment.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
.
The problem with Judicial activism is that it is a shortcut around the legislative branch based on the political views of those sitting on the bench, if they do not adhere rigidly to the Constitution.
this is truth, the job of the SC is to rule on the Constitutionality of a law that was challenged, not to make law.
-
Originally posted by Charon
This is pure hijack material in waiting, but I will add that I personally disagree with judicial activism. The case supporting R v W is seriously weak from a Constitutional standpoint. A fact noted even by many liberal scholars who otherwise support the right to choose. It was a broadly sweeping, politicized finding that stretched the Constitution to the limit.
The problem with Judicial activism is that it is a shortcut around the legislative branch based on the political views of those sitting on the bench, if they do not adhere rigidly to the Constitution. You may like the outcome of R v W, but, you may not like the next activist outcome and you have no democratic control over the process. This would have been just as valid if the court presented a pro-life position based on a twisted reading of the Constitution. There are legislative alternatives that can accomplish this or most any goal if society wants to accomplish it. They are harder to achieve in many cases, but the Constitution can be changed if needed.
While Paul personally disagrees with abortion by and large, especially after having performed some late-term procedures, his political position is based on the position, accurate IMO, that R v W is not a constitutional issue to begin with. It's one for state legislatures or a Constitutional amendment -- both legislative processes. After that, the court can review individual cases to see if they fit with the language and intent of the Amendment.
Charon
I view state and federal government interference and religious interference as Patriarchal meddling in an individual woman's reproductive issues and as an invasion of privacy which is a constitutional right and also I understand what you are saying and it's probably best we avoid the R v W thing in this thread. :)
Lots of other things we can and do agree on!
TIGERESS
-
Which gets us back to the original point.
Purely playing devils advocate, when you have a 1st Amendment that allows the recruiting and promotion of hate groups, that incites people to violence (the Turner Diaries/Murrow Fed. Bldg.) that glorifies mass killers to the point that they commit mass killings strictly for the infamy, that allows pedophiles to hunt for victims then why not support sensible restrictions?
Talk about violence! A lot of guns and swords and clubs have been used to kill people, but the genocides and wars and pogroms start with the spoken or printed word. I understand why the media refuses to call for sensible restrictions on the 1st while supporting them on the 2nd -- that's our job man! But what about the rest of you?
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
Which gets us back to the original point.
Purely playing devils advocate, when you have a 1st Amendment that allows the recruiting and promotion of hate groups, that incites people to violence (the Turner Diaries/Murrow Fed. Bldg.) that glorifies mass killers to the point that they commit mass killings strictly for the infamy, that allows pedophiles to hunt for victims then why not support sensible restrictions?
Talk about violence! A lot of guns and swords and clubs have been used to kill people, but the genocides and wars and pogroms start with the spoken or printed word. I understand why the media refuses to call for sensible restrictions on the 1st while supporting them on the 2nd -- that's our job man! But what about the rest of you?
Charon
How would you consider changing the 1st amendment yet prevent opening a presently closed door that, once opened, would create a precedence that enables future tampering with the fundamental freedom of speech it provides We the People?
Human nature, its ugly side, has always been and will always be.
Many religious extremists bash and try to control or limit anyone or anything that isn’t exactly how they want them to be.
Many political extremists want to control the population according to their beliefs thus cancel individual freedoms.
No law ever passed prevented the existence of murder or hate as a thing people do.
Personally, I don’t like the objectification of women by certain men as mere sub-human sex toys.
But I would not make porn illegal because it would abridge the 1st amendment which affords me freedoms many others in many other countries do not have.
Imagine the government barging in on this BBS and censoring criticism of the government or arresting people as they do in China?
Sometimes freedom of speech is a bitter pill but life without it would be worse.
A BBS is a means of providing interactive human expression; speech.
With that said, members of this BBS do not have the freedom to say whatever they want anytime they want in the forums; they are required to abide the forum's rules.
But... this BBS does not force anyone to be a member either, thus acceptance of the BBS rules is a requirement of membership.
Every single rule places limits or prohibitions on certain types of speech.
TIGERESS
1- Posts are to be made in the relevant forum. Users are asked to read the forum descriptions before posting.
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
3- Do not open a new thread that duplicates a current topic.
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
6- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". Issues with any breach of rules should be brought to HTC's attention via email at support@hitechcreations.com.
7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.
8- Cheating allegations or descriptions are not allowed. Email support@hitechcreations.com to report any issues regarding this. HTC permanently bans anyone caught cheating in Aces High. We take cheating and allegations of cheating very seriously.
9- Complaints about a player's behavior online should be emailed to support@hitechcreations.com rather than posted to this board.
10- Spam is not tolerated here under any circumstance.
11- Do not use overly large signatures. Signatures should not take up more than 5 normal sized text lines in height. Do not use images in your signature.
12 - Users are permitted to upload one of their own avatars. Avatars must be in good taste and consistent with the other rules of this board.
13- Do not punt topics. Punting would be making a non-substantive post for the express purpose of bring the thread to the top of the thread list.
14- Members should post in a way which is consistent with "normal writing". That is users should not post excessive numbers of emoticons, large, small or coloured text, etc. Similarly users should not SHOUT or use excessive punctuation (e.g. ! and ?) in topic titles or posts.
15- Threads started or, posts made, with the intent to inflame, incite will be considered trolling and not allowed.
16- All posts, in public forums, should be made in the English language.
17- Threads started devoid of commentary will not be allowed (i.e. links, cut-n-pastes, clicky, read this...)
Posts and threads may be edited, deleted, or locked for violations of these rules. Continued or blatant violation of these rules may result in a temporary or permanent ban.
-
Originally posted by Charon
Lott's reputation is not pristine in a variety of fairly minor and petty areas, but he's hardly discredited even with a heavy academic focus on discrediting anything he publishes that goes against "conventional wisdom." In fact, whether they agree with the notion that concealed carry does reduce crime, he has convinced a great many critics that it certainly doesn't lead to blood in the streets over every minor altercation.
Charon
So, do you think lazs', or sorry Lott's, stats in this case are correct?
Three out of four school shootings are prevented by civilians?
Convincing people with false stats isn't hard. Particularly here.
-
Actually lazs wrote "on quarter". I assumed he meant 1/4.
But I always enjoy lazs' rants. Especially when he pulls stats outta his rear. 76% of journalists are lefty-socialist? hehe.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
But I always enjoy lazs' rants. Especially when he pulls stats outta his rear. 76% of journalists are lefty-socialist? hehe.
here, i "pulled" this out of MSNBC.com.
MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
:lol
-
yeah.. don't you hate it when lazs brings up all those uncomfortable stats?
thanks MT for clearing it up for poor ol curval who didn't read what I wrote nor... followed the link obviously.. or he would have seen "on quarter" or in english... one quarter.
as charon pointed out.. the left hates Lott.. they poured over every stat and data point in his books.. thousands of em.. they found only some obscure poll that was wrong.. I think if the "one quarter" stat was wrong they sure as hell woulda jumped on it.
Charon.. I will vote for paul until he is a write in.
I also believe the SC is too activist but.. facts are facts.. the most activist are the left wing socialists that get in.. we have to keep em out.. the democrats will put em in.
lazs
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Actually lazs wrote "on quarter". I assumed he meant 1/4.
But I always enjoy lazs' rants. Especially when he pulls stats outta his rear. 76% of journalists are lefty-socialist? hehe.
Okay...on quarter. ;)
I still don't buy it.
-
Which would be 88%. See now, if lazs had used that number...
using the "lefty-socialist" label is also a nice touch. Did you have an actual point?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
as charon pointed out.. the left hates Lott.. they poured over every stat and data point in his books.. thousands of em.. they found only some obscure poll that was wrong.. I think if the "one quarter" stat was wrong they sure as hell woulda jumped on it.
Oh but they have.
Here's one, but there are Lotts more. ;)
http://timlambert.org/2003/09/0910/
You need to read some of the other side rather than simply suggesting that if a lefty makes some noise and lazs doesn't hear it..then it never happened.
:rofl
-
well, of course you don't buy it curval.. it would mean that your world was all out of kilter.
mt.. the poll I seen said that 76% were "left of center" the "lefty socialist" thing was mine. To me, the new "center" is the new left tho.. I will admit that. Every time I hear someone say they are "in the center" it turns out that they are hiding the fact that they are a couple of degrees shy of stalin.
lazs
-
that's it curval? one stat out of thousands? Maybe 1% of his data is flawed? not wrong... the results still go the direction he points but... flawed? There is not one anti book that uses stats that is not at least 25% flawed and none of em have near the footnotes and facts as Lott's.
Have you ever looked at the book? just look at a copy.. it is thousands of facts.. a truly monumental work.. every fact is footnoted. It is downright anal. If it had 5% errors it would still be a tremendous effort.
So some blogger who hates guns finds some data points that aren't as drastic as was shown in the book and that dismisses the entire book?
Contrast that with belisiles "the arming of america" this recieved every award that can be given to a book...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America:_The_Origins_of_a_National_Gun_Culture
The man is a fruitcake.. he made up data and then when asked to show it said that his dog ate it (his attic flooded).. he got the data from records that had been destroyed 100 years earlier than his "research" No one recalls seeing him at any office doing "research"
Try to be objective curval... look at the link and compare that to Lott's "error" and see if you can tell the difference. Have a little integrety and at least leaf through Lott's book to see what I mean.
lazs
-
every time the anti gun group tries to prove guns are bad.. they either find that they were wrong and end up on our side (and get vilified buy former friends) or...
They lie through their teeth and hope no one will notice.. this guy won every award there was.. he is a liar to the point of being nuts. hell..even "the nation" is embarassed by the guy!
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20021125/editors2
http://hnn.us/articles/930.html
come on curval.. be honest.. the left is lying to you.. free people should have the ability to defend themselves or.. they can just hope to be lucky but.. it should be our choice as free men not some governements. Look at how facts on guns are treated in the media.. does it look fair to you?
88 may have a point that the heros don't want to be in the spotlight but.. In the case of a law school shooting.. everyone there said that one guy had used a gun to stop the shootings and not one news source said as much.. every one said that he was "overpowered" by the same guys who told the news sources that they had only jumped on the guy AFTER he had been disarmed.
Why would they do that if not for an agenda? Maybe you can come up with some other reason to sooth way of thinking but I sure can't think of any reason except agenda.
lazs
-
Blah blah blah
I'm not the one blindly holding on to one man's view of the situation...you are.
As to agenda...yours is crystal clear.
What kind of crappy website is that hnn site...it keeps putting links in the middle of the text..??? It has nothing to do with Lott, just about some guy who claims that gun culture didn't exist until the Civil War. THE HORROR!
lol
-
some guy? the guy won every award the eggheads could throw at him. He was praised on every morning show here for 6 months. He was on the best seller list.
some guy? of course.. it was all a lie. a huge lie. yet... Lott.. who is 99% or better completely accurate and who has about 100 times more data points is vilified.. he is threatened and attacked.
I said that no anti gun work was even one tenth as accurate as Lott or kleck for that matter or several others.
The point is the pro gun rights guys are ten times more honest than their countreparts yet.. they are vilified and the lying anti gun authors are praised..
That doesn't bother you? that is some pretty shaky ground to feel smug about Lott on don't you think?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well, of course you don't buy it curval.. it would mean that your world was all out of kilter.
mt.. the poll I seen said that 76% were "left of center" the "lefty socialist" thing was mine. To me, the new "center" is the new left tho.. I will admit that. Every time I hear someone say they are "in the center" it turns out that they are hiding the fact that they are a couple of degrees shy of stalin.
lazs
Holy crap !
The center is on the left now !
-
Never heard of him. Sorry. Nothing you have written convinces me of anything. Your assertions are just that...assertions.
Many here blindly accept your assertions...most of which are simply prattling of Lott's or the NRA's line.
Why don't you go and post stuff on a site that is full of people who DON'T take everything you or Lott says about the subject matter as gospel? Maybe then you'd get some better perspective on the subject matter. You've convinced just about everyone here yet you continue to blather the same old same old like a broken record. Hardly a challenge.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well, of course you don't buy it curval.. it would mean that your world was all out of kilter.
mt.. the poll I seen said that 76% were "left of center" the "lefty socialist" thing was mine. To me, the new "center" is the new left tho.. I will admit that. Every time I hear someone say they are "in the center" it turns out that they are hiding the fact that they are a couple of degrees shy of stalin.
lazs
You really think I am a lefty? hahaha that would be a hoot. :rofl
I am just to the right of center.
But I do understand your point... anyone (Hillary) can say they are anything (Centrist) but still be a full bore lefty in the full light of day.
TIGERESS
-
curval... which numbers bother you? the one quarter of all school shootings (at the time of the book)?
Why not just show how Lott is wrong? should be easy enough if true.. maybe you could ask the guy who has the blog you linked to? I can find no data the refutes what he says about it..
lazs
-
So, do you think lazs', or sorry Lott's, stats in this case are correct?
Three out of four school shootings are prevented by civilians?
Convincing people with false stats isn't hard. Particularly here.
I don't know the specific statistics on school shootings, how that breaks down relative to other nutter shootings etc. I don't think there are formal statistics. However, there are a number of regularly cited incidents that received limited total coverage and virtually no coverage of the shooter being stopped by an armed citizen. Such as: http://www.gunowners.org/sk0302.htm
You have to also consider that until relatively recently CCW was rare, and the ability for that to factor into a shooting was therefore rare. That is not the case anymore. You can find plenty of examples of self--defense here: http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
As for Lott, he is hardly discredited. Some limited elements of his work have been questioned. For example, his research found that simply brandishing a weapons deters an attack 98 percent of the time. His critics claim some flawed methodology and cite other studies that show a result of 70 - 85 percent of the time. A big error academically if true, but it hardly refutes the common sense premise that showing an assailant a gun causes them to reconsider their course of action.
As for his other work, while the issue of CCW in reducing crime is debated, his position that CCW does not increase crime is not, broadly, and it has been confirmed by actual experience with states adopting CCW laws in recent years. No blood in the streets, cowboy land. All the fears, worries and "what if's" just haven't panned out.
Also, he has peer reviewed articles that have not been challenged.
The most embarrassing issue with Lott is that, apparently, he went on a message board to defend his work and pretended to be someone else in the process. Hardly unusual on the internet, and more of a personality issue than a scientific one, but something that makes him more of a secondary source for me. Fortunately, there are plenty of alternative sources to fill the void.
He is currently employed as a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, in fact after the critical attacks, so apparently they have no problem with his credibility. And, the mass media still uses him as a source when they decide to play fair, and when Ted Nugent isn't available to entertain.
Also, as Laz points out the darling of gun control research, Michael Bellesiles, winner of the prestigious Bancroft Prize awarded by Columbia University had his prize subsequently revoked and was fired by Emory University for what was blatant academic fraud. One of the links Lazs posted, The Nation (a solidly progressive news source, BTW) describes this. This researcher was lionized, but his errors were not subtle with just a bit of checking once independent parties in his field did just that. Too many peopl just wanted his position that guns were almost non existent in American life during he founding and until the Civil War to be true as it supported their biases .
Which brings us to you whole false stats argument. That's the problem with gun control, it doesn't really have stats on its side. An almost direct parallel to drug control, btw, where the restrictive laws only impact the law abiding. As was noted by the CDC recently (hardly an organization in the pocket of the NRA) there is no conclusive proof that gun control works.
You can point out clear FBI data that shows so called "assault rifles" (actually ANY kind of rifle) are used in about 2.5 percent of all homicides. Yet you still hear the emotional call to ban these dreadful devices.
You can point out clear stats showing the greater impact on society of alcohol, compared to guns.
You can cite clear statistics showing that, at least in the major urban crime spots, most of the "children" killed involve one career criminal (can't legally own a gun) gangbanger or urban thug killing another.
You can show just how rare the Columbines, and Virginia Techs and mall Shootings are, using gun control organizations' own figures, compared to the average number of people hit by lightning each year, the total US population and the number of people mass killed in notable arson and bombing events. Have we hit 200 this year yet? If not, then you are still more at risk stepping outside in a storm that being involved in a mall or school killing. Let's ban lightening.
You can see this play out in media editorials that reference few if any statistics while calling for a ban or supporting other restrictions.
The New York Times:
December 12, 2007
Editorial
Weapons of War at the Mall and Church
Barely touched on in the coverage of the two latest gun rampages is how the disturbed shooters could so easily obtain assault rifles — weapons designed for waging war. In separate random massacres, eight people were slain at an Omaha shopping mall last Wednesday and four were more shot dead Sunday at two Colorado churches. The Omaha killer took his stepfather’s rapid-fire rifle from a closet to pick off Christmas shoppers. In Colorado, the gunman, leaving behind an Internet screed referenced to the 1999 Columbine massacre, was equipped with two assault rifles, three handguns and 1,000 rounds of ammunition.
How could this happen? That’s the great American cliché attached to these ever-mounting tragedies. We all know the answer. Guns are ubiquitous in this country, and the gun lobby is so powerful that this year’s toll of 30,000 gun deaths makes barely a political ripple.
Until recently, the nation did have a law designed to protect the public from assault rifles and other high-tech infantry weapons. In 1994, enough politicians felt the public’s fear to respond with a 10-year ban on assault-weapons that was not perfect but dented the free-marketeering of Rambo mayhem. Most Americans rejected the gun lobby’s absurd claim that assault rifles are “sporting” weapons. But when it came up for renewal in 2004, President Bush and Congress caved to the gun lobby and allowed the law to lapse. This was despite Mr. Bush’s campaign vow to renew the ban. It was especially frightening to see the ban expire in the very midst of politicians’ endless post-9/11 invoking of homeland security.
New presidential candidates are now wooing voters. Surely they can’t wait to address the latest slayings with a detailed plan of action at the very next televised debate. Surely moderators can hold off on immigration and finding out who believes more in the bible to bring up the latest rampages.
Instead of asking how could this happen, the country needs to know who is going to stop it.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Notice the total lack of statistics beyond the 30,000 figure, half of which are suicides and only 2.5 percent of the rest involved any type of rifle (the focus of the call to action). Here was my response, that I don't expect to ever run:
Your recent call to restrict so called "assault weapons" (real assault weapons, by definition, are capable of automatic fire) was both hysterical and hypocritical. It was hysterical in that while incidents using these weapons are highly publicized, they are rare. According to the FBI, rifles of any type are only used in about 2.5 percent of all killings. The editorial was hypocritical in your lack of interest in restricting the 1st Amendment as well as the 2nd. Both the recent mall shootings and the Virginia Tech shootings were motivated by the killers' desire to gain infamy though the media. Cho, at Virginia Tech, even sent his own press kit in to NBC. So where's the call to limit the coverage of these criminals? To not use their names, or images or publish their manifestos? Well, that just might get in the way of selling a few newspapers.
I have not linked most of my previous statements here because I have heavily covered these in the past on this board. You probably saw it the first time and can easily search and refute these points as you might wish.
The problem with gun control is that it is emotion based, and centered around restricting the tool used in crime vs solving the problem that is encouraging the crime. We really want life to be as simple as banning this or that and having some magic solution to urban nacro street gangs, single parent teenaged families, failed inner city education and an inability of politicians and community activists to call for personal responsibility. Ain't going to happen.
Charon
-
curval.. read the sites charon linked.. I was gonna link the NRA armed citizen site but.. despite the fact no one has ever proved the NRA liars... you don't trust em.
Makes for facinating reading.. You can also see how the facts on who is killing who are distorted.. about a third of those incidents could be said to be.. a family member or someone known to the family being killed by a gun... truth is yeah.. they were "family" or known but they still needed to be stopped.
the left would make it sound like having a gun endangered your family or friends instead of real bad guys when the truth is... these "family and friends" were the bad guys.
Just like their stats on "children" a 17 year old gangbanger with a yard long record is a "child" to them and "killed by someone he knew" is.. a rival gang member or rival drug dealer.
But.. you have followed the shootings at the church.. how much positive stuff have you heard about the brave woman who killed the shooter? Why isn't she on every morning show and news broadcast and being touted as the biggest hero of the year? Probly saved dozens of lives.
lazs
-
"I don't know the specific statistics on school shootings, how that breaks down relative to other nutter shootings etc. I don't think there are formal statistics."
*ching*
Actually there are....according to lazs. I quote "In fully on quarter of school shootings a civilian with a gun stopped the shooter before police arrived.. why didn't you know that?"
Seems pretty specific to me...other than missing an "e" off of "on".
But Charon, honestly, no need to hit me with a wall of text. I'm not the one that needs to be convinced. I have no say in what happens in your country.
I'd say you and lazs are waaaaaay better off going onto the anti-gun blogs etc and "have at them". 99.9% of people here are fully and utterly on your side in any gun debate.
Lazs seems to enjoy getting everyone here all worked up and getting his ego stroked. I can't see any other reason to keep posting these threads. If he wants an argument he can find one easily on the thousands of intardnet sites that disagree with him. Posting on one that completely agrees with him seems pointless to me.
Or is it all for my benefit? I doubt that very much.
-
I'd say you and lazs are waaaaaay better off going onto the anti-gun blogs etc and "have at them". 99.9% of people here are fully and utterly on your side in any gun debate.
Actually, the anti-gun blogs tend to preach to the choir and restrict, in many case, polite discussion if it becomes to uncomfortable. Some play around on the Huffington Post, etc. or Brady.org but that's not an interest of mine.
Sites like the Democratic Underground and The Daily Cos actually, and perhaps surprisingly for Lazs, have at lest 50 percent support, if not better, among their posters. These are posters who identify themselves as progressive to some extent and regularly post on other issues.
For my part I concentrate on letters to the editor, reply posts to articles when offered online and being part of the network that identifies anti propaganda for rebuttal. I also call legislators, like the 3 Cook County Commissioners I called today over the proposal to fully ban all handguns and register all rifles in the county (including those sacred hunting rifles) and that includes such language as this: Any weapon that the President, the Board, or the Sheriff defines by regulation as an assault weapon because the design or operation of such weapon is inappropriate for lawful use.
I also sent a friendly Tribune columnist (of of a very few) a notice as to what is going on at the county to see if he has any interest in writing about it.
AH is just practice :)
Charon
-
Originally posted by lazs2
But.. you have followed the shootings at the church.. how much positive stuff have you heard about the brave woman who killed the shooter? Why isn't she on every morning show and news broadcast and being touted as the biggest hero of the year? Probly saved dozens of lives.
lazs
She was on Fox News. Any of you Clinton News Network watchers see/hear from her there?
-
Originally posted by Charon
Any weapon that the President, the Board, or the Sheriff defines by regulation as an assault weapon because the design or operation of such weapon is inappropriate for lawful use.
[/B]
but is it ok to use such weapons for unlawful use, thats what the criminals want to know. Because we know the criminals would not want to use a unapproved weapon.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
How has the media handled school shootings and other mass shootings by whackjobs?
We live in a nation of fame starved.. everyone wants to be famous.. their 15 minutes.. we are a nation of fad followers and parrots and idiot tv show watchers with empty headed big hair anchors with soothing voices and the ability to look happy or pained on cue.
When asked.. 76% of those involved in the media say that they lean left socialist.
when their is one of these shootings.. they tend to focus first.. on the suffering of the victims.. even if they were not even victims.. then.. the suffering of the poor guy (and his life story) who did the shooting... just what he wanted.
In fully on quarter of school shootings a civilian with a gun stopped the shooter before police arrived.. why didn't you know that?
In this one... at the co. church.. the first reports never even mentioned the woman with a concealed weapon who killed the guy.. latter.. they said that the guy wasn't really killed by her... he committed suicide.
They are now talking about how mean she was at her last job.. It is crazy.
Wouldn't you think that being a nation of fad followers.. that it would be better (and more newsworthy) to focus on how a tiny little woman with a gun stopped the big bad angry man from his cowardly mission to kill? instead of making him some dark avenger?
Wouldn't it be better if people imitated her instead of him? Shouldn't he be ignored in the news and her praised and made into a national hero?
Wouldn't how she stopped him be a lot more interesting (in a nation of action flicks) than what kind of underwear and music they found at the dark avengers home in his moms basement?
lazs
Who owns the media syndicates? What sells advertising? What do people want to see? Does it tick you off enough to get a reaction?
Bottom line is what makes the money?
-
Originally posted by Charon
Actually, the anti-gun blogs tend to preach to the choir and restrict, in many case, polite discussion if it becomes to uncomfortable.
LOL
Wow man, that sounds familiar.
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Lazs,
People on the left and right are getting railroaded by a biased media, imv.
It is a bi-partisan problem, I think.
I haven't seen the righty media doing any less than the lefty media with regards to all this. They both spin against the real facts and hide facts from public viewing on cable TV.
Instead of being the unbiased government watchdog for the country they appear to be partisan and government pawns.
I agree with you that media not reporting relevant news and news twisting needs to stop.
If the sum, or near total sum, of mainstream American TV Media is in bed with both political parties (depending on the channel) and the government, and I believe it is, it needs to stop.
There are A LOT of things that go unreported.
When was the last time you saw a cable news piece on the rampant inflation that is racking the country?[i/]
I remember when the inflation index at any given point in time was on everyone's lips and that was before cable TV.
What about this? --> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-US&q=rape+us+servicewomen+iraq&btnG=Search
What's ironic about this woman and her co-defender and their mutual takedown of this maniac is... it can't be spun away and shoved under a carpet.
BTW, it is reported she got fired from the police force for lying about chewing out a bus driver.
I was excited when FOX NEWS came on line to set the left Media on it heels... now FOX is as bad, imv, just in a different direction, and not for the better.
TIGERESS
1..What inflation--take away gas price fluctuation, there is little....(mebbe 3-3.5% this year)I remember at the end of the Carter administration....was double-digit...now THERE's news....As far as right-wing news/Fox (There ARE'NT any other outlets, unless you count talk radio, and they are professed opinion givers, unlike MSNBC) .... For the ZILLIONth time, I see a post that says Fox is just as bad or worse....but I never see an example (the NEWS, mind you, not Hannity, et al)
-
curval.. why do you post to every gun thread on this board? I welcome you but.. It seems odd. I know you aren't doing it just to give me the opportunity to beat you up.
gun threads here run to two basic types.. the political which is just what is happening in the country.. I mean.. how do you discuss the SC decision to hear on the second or school shootings without mentioning guns?
And.. the "what is best" FYI stuff.. "got a new gun" "what is best for a first gun?" Which is better revolver or semi auto?" "is the 9 mm really a girls gun?"
type of thing. I can't see how you would not just ignore those ones.
Just like... I ignore all the sports ones. I don't care about sports. Sure, they are all drug addicts and crybabies watching them probly causes the breakup of families and world hunger and maybe... global warming but... not interested and none of my business if other watch sports.
sheesh.. calm down and start a "what is the best type of shorts for golf" thread.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curval.. why do you post to every gun thread on this board? lazs
OK, this made me laugh.
Lazs, you not only post in every gun thread, you tend to make all threads gun threads.
-
ah... but it is not funny to you when curval.. who knows nothing about guns except what he "feels" posts to every single gun thread?
Like I said... there are threads I don't go into. sports.. cooking... the way some new car looks.. I just think it is funny that he posts to threads about guns.. of which he hates and knows nothing about.
lazs
-
OK, you're both funny.
-
good... thanks.
lazs
-
lol
Do a search on gun threads lazs.
You will see that I do NOT post in every gun thread at all, no where near.
It seems to be a habit with you of distorting facts...very media-like. ;)
Do the search...
-
how do you do a search on every thread that is about guns? Are you saying that you don't post to em? do a search for sports and see how many I post to.
There are a lot of threads with guns in em.. I am exaggerating when I say you post to every single one of em... some get by you. I BET that if we did a search and tallied up the results you would be posting to 50% of em.. with one hell of a lot of gun threads on this board..
That is still a whole lot of posting to threads you have no interest in and don't know anything about.
lazs
-
So, I'm posting in EVERY SINGLE gun thread...but now you bet it is 50% of them.
I specifically haven't posted in very many gun threads over the past year or so.
You are wrong. Plain and simple. I have posted in one or two this week. Prior to that I seriously challenge you to find anywhere CLOSE to the 50%of gun threads you now claim I post in.
In 2007 I am willing to bet it is less than 5%.
Think about it. You and I have not gone toe to toe in any gun threads in a very long time.
-
Wow man, that sounds familiar.
That's interesting because I recall numerous detailed multi-page debates on this board on the subject that are, for the most part, polite. I have take part in many of them. Don't recall many that have been locked.
Now, do the foreign gun control proponents find themselves outnumbered. Sure. While there are a few US posters that are pro gun control there really is no comparable "grass roots" movement to speak of in the US. You have some big city mayors who promote guns as the major source of inner city crime as a distraction to problems they (and we as a society) lack the will to address directly. You see a handful of true believers largely funded by the Joyce Foundation and Soros. You see a media that generally believes in a European model for society, guns included. And you have seen (though that is changing) a Democratic party that made gun control a platform plank in the past no doubt related to the big city/Democrat power base.
But, for the vast majority of the people living in the US there is no "Gun problem." There is no gun problem even for those living in the roughest neighborhoods, unless they are actively involved in a criminal lifestyle. Admittedly, there is a much broader violence problem in those neighborhoods than you would find anywhere else in the US -- where violence in general is a part of daily life-- but even there most of that does not involve a trigger being pulled. As I have pointed out the risk from alcohol, or diet and I believe even unprotected sex, etc. are greater -- far greater in many cases.
In fact, for people actually living here the view of the "wild west" US that a lot of foreigners have from the media and movies and Rap music etc. is actually a bit funny and out of tune with reality. [edit: It somewhat funny, because I see plenty of rural Americans on other boards talking about a trip into the big city, and no CCW etc. and they are nervous and it's pretty obvious they are out of touch with reality as well thanks to the media and "If it bleeds it leads." As long as they aren't coming to the city to sell a few kilos of crack they'll probably be OK :)]
So, frankly, the only people in the US who really care about the issue tend to be gun owners and politicians and the Democrats are starting to realize it's a loser because even the big city voters don't put that as a top tier concern approaching the economy or the war in Iraq, etc. So if they support gun control they gain little and lose the rural Democrats in return. Go over to the Daily Koz or the Democratic Underground sometime and watch the gun debate over there. There are more gun control proponents than you find hear, but it is definitely a two-sided debate there as well.
Charon
-
curval.. you did make me think about it... It certainly does seem that you have been in less gun threads this year than in the past.. no way am I gonna do the research that it would take to prove it one way or the other.. I will concede that it is something like a number between what you think and what I think.
still... why bother at all? If you have no strong feelings on it. I think I feel about the way charon feels about it..
I don't see any real anti gun grass roots swell here.. it is all media and democrat politicians.. the rank and file couldn't care less.. do you see people clamoring for some new gun ban after a shooting? nope.. in fact.. most Americans that don't have guns start thinking it is a good time to buy one.
I know all too many who say that they don't own a gun now but... any hint of a ban and they will rush out and get one.
The democrat politicians are manufacturing a concern about gun control that just doesn't exist.. and they are doing it because the people who pay em tell em to.. they know it is a loser but they are taking the gun control money.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
still... why bother at all? If you have no strong feelings on it.
I guess I'm just trying to keep you "honest". ;)
In this one I see you complaining about media manipulation of an event. Then you throw out stats that you claim everyone should know and yet even Charon admits the data is not conclusive on the subject.
Nobody else is going to call you on it. Beet1e and most of the other "Euro liberals" are gone so I am all that is left.
It's kinda like my sacred duty.
LOL.
-
The stats are correct.. not the way you said it.. it was not 3/4 as you said but the 1/4 that I said. If you can find any source that disproves that then I will be glad to look at it.
You "feeling" it is not correct is not too good a "proof" You not liking Lott is not good enough... you saying that Lott is wrong .05% of the time is not good enough.. it simply means that there is a 99.5% chance that he is correct on this fact too.. that is about as good as it gets..
contrast that with.. oh.. "the arming of america" that ended up being 95% BS and was universally praised by the media... it is now an embarassing joke on the liberals of course but....
I told you where to find the fact.. You have searched for sites that try to disprove anything Lotts says yet.. you don't show that he is wrong.
It seems fair to say that Lott's figure... based on weight of numbers of data that he puts out that is extremely accurate.. that there is about a 99% chance this one is entirely accurate.
How does that stack up against your predjudice and wishful thinking?
lazs
-
I've spent about 30 seconds doing a yahoo search to find anything I have found on Lott. Don't flatter yourself, you (or this issue is only worth about that much of my time.
"You "feeling" it is not correct is not too good a "proof" You not liking Lott is not good enough... you saying that Lott is wrong .05% of the time is not good enough.. it simply means that there is a 99.5% chance that he is correct on this fact too.. that is about as good as it gets.."
I am not saying Lott is wrong .05% of the time...that is you. You you you.
I'm still trying to figure out where the 0.05% came from, but now suddenly Lott is right 99.5% as a result.
Your manipulations are quite staggering.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I'm still trying to figure out where the 0.05% came from, but now suddenly Lott is right 99.5% as a result.
.
thin air, based on what they feel...same place everyone else gets that kind of number.
-
(http://divisionoflabour.com/archives/LesterGunsatMallCartoon.jpg)