[Tropical Z]

We all know (or at least should know)that antis will do WHATEVER it takes to make guns look bad to the average clueless soccer mom.Out and out lies occur almost daily in the camps of liberal, freedom hating, anti American gun grabbers.My friends and i have been contemplating what lengths they will go to in order to secure a permanent ban in September 2004.We all agree and assume that there will be at least 2 or 3 high profile shootings where some poor patsy (or willing sap) is set up by these clowns in order to make "evil looking" rifles look bad to Joe sixpack.What do you think these Hitler worshipping idiots will do in order to push the ban?

[foghornl]

What do you think these Hitler worshipping idiots will do in order to push the ban? ANY D*** thing they can think of to try, they will.

In another thread, there was areport of rumors that anti-gunners planned to go into shops/shows. etc, and sneak live rounds into display guns. Don't know if true, but would cause a world of hurt if so.

[Justin]

:rolleyes:

Look, if you can't prove a definate connection between some anti-gun politician and a high-profile shooting, stop with the yakkin'. This tinfoil hat stuff doesn't do anything to help stop the renewal.

Calling your representatives and telling them that the ban is bad will go a lot further.

[Wildalaska]

Tinfoil hat on.

OK go ahead.

WildsillinessAlaska

[longeyes]

The antis don't need to do anything special. This is a country
of three hundred million people. Stuff will happen. The only
way to stop the "stuff" is to disarm everyone (impossible) and impose a
police state. High-profile anything should not be a stepping-stone
to ill-conceived legislation that abrogates essential individual rights.
People who demand 24/7/365 "safety" should kiss freedom goodbye.
America has never been about order and control, but that's a lesson
that appears to be lost on all too many Americans nowadays.

[Standing Wolf]

I'm sure the leftist extremists have already written the press releases. All they need to do is fill in the dates, numbers, and types of weapons involved.

They're carrion feeders.

[gun-fucious]

there is a theory that the more gun control is propogandized in the mediasphere,
the more likely someone fragile will get set off and fulfill the feared scenario

[Mark Tyson]

Oh, come on! The idea that gun-banners are going to go sabotage gun shows or pay off some deranged person to shoot up his office all for their political causes is pretty looney. They don't need to do any of that. There are always a few maniacs who screw up freedom for everyone else.

[cuchulainn]

There is a non-tinfoil explanation.

The media is like a swarm of junebugs. When something becomes "an issue" they cover it more like junebugs veering into a porch light someone just turned on. Shootings that would have gone unreported on a national level now have a higher chance of getting covered.

As they cover it more, it appears to occur more -- even if the frequency actually is lower. In 1999/2000 there was a perception among the public that shootings were "skyrocketing" due to the post-Columbine pre-MMM media coverage. Yet shooting actually had fallen dramatically by then

Year -- Number -- Rate per 100,000
1993 --- 39,595 ---- 15.36
1994 --- 38,505 ---- 14.79
1995 --- 35,957 ---- 13.68
1996 --- 34,040 ---- 12.83
1997 --- 32,436 ---- 12.11
1998 --- 30,708 ---- 11.36
1999 --- 28,874 ---- 10.59
2000 --- 28,663 ---- 10.41

Source: www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqarss

[Seawolf]

Hitler worshipping idiots?

Try Stalin, not Hitler.

[Monkeyleg]

cuchulainn's got it right: any shooting, anywhere, will count as an argument for renewal of the AW ban. It won't matter if the killer used a spatula. The media will report the instrument as an "assault weapon."

Our opponents are vicious in their lies, and shameless in their media manipulation of tragedies. They don't care one whit about who died or how, as long as it was by gunshot. They only care about twisting the truth until it suits their needs.

In the words of former Clinton advisor and now-congressman to Illinois: "We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns."

[TheOtherOne]

As they cover it more, it appears to occur more -- even if the frequency actually is lower.Yep, just like the huge rash of child abductions last summer. Kidnapping was actually lower than previous years, but the media focused on lots of cases that summer because it was the "in thing" to report on.

As the sunset gets closer, we can be guaranteed that the media will latch on to every violent act even remotely related to a gun. Too many of us are being too overly optimistic that this ban will sunset. The media can change politics just like that -- and given their track record they'll do it with this issue.

[bogie]

What gets me about the whole media feeding frenzy is that people will be hurt, because they'll become numb to the whole mess... Look at the "child kidnapping" bit...

You know, the kids on the milk cartons?

I've basically quit looking at 'em. Why?

Because it seems like 95% of 'em were "abducted" by a family member. They're part of a custody battle gone wrong. Yeah, it ain't right, but it generally isn't life threatening, like an abducted by a kidnapper or a sexual predator would be. But it's getting the same attention, to the point that abductions by non-family-members become ignored.

Bad thing.

[Tropical Z]

All i know is liberals will do WHATEVER it takes to achieve their goals,PERIOD!

[Iain]

any shooting, anywhere, will count as an argument for renewal of the AW ban. It won't matter if the killer used a spatula. The media will report the instrument as an "assault weapon."

I seriously doubt that, don't get paranoid.

Our opponents are vicious in their lies, and shameless in their media manipulation of tragedies. They don't care one whit about who died or how, as long as it was by gunshot. They only care about twisting the truth until it suits their needs.

I agree, everybody has their agenda. You have yours do not forget.

In this country (UK) there was a small spate of child killings by paedophiles, the media and the public went mental. They forgot that over 90% of all child killings that happen in this country are carried out by the close family and that statistically children are safer now from strangers than they were in the 1970's.

Some good points have been made on this thread, but it is very easy to dismiss something the opposition to you says as 'liberal propaganda', sometimes they may have a point and you need to consider that.

[Croyance]

We all agree and assume that there will be at least 2 or 3 high profile shootings where some poor patsy (or willing sap) is set up by these clowns in order to make "evil looking" rifles look bad to Joe sixpack. :confused: If a guy does a spree killing, how is he being set up?
I don't think we face a monolithic anti-gun front, just as comminism was not monlithic. Seperate related events conspire to help anti-gun rights efforts.
1.) The effort of make gun manufacturers immune from prosecution for crimes committed with their products will cause media scrutiny. They will examine the damage to society caused with guns.
2.) The media swarms to anything that they think will shock. Witness anything having to do with a "celebrity". How much media attention is focused on Kobe Bryant's rape case? Is it really any worse than any other rape case? If so, you explain that to 100 raped people and their families.
Also, notice how much attention has been focused on a NYC councilman's shooting, as opposed to recent workplace shootings in MO an TX (I think). Each had higher casualites.
3.) The economy is bad with no realistic hope that there will be real improvement in the next 12 months. Violent crimes like armed robbery and murder will increase.
4.) Media savy organizations against gun ownership will use the facts and effects of the coverage to push their agenda, just like everybody else.
5.) The media is not that educated. Not just on guns, on everything. Their reports are laced with inaccuracies all the time. Any story that has anything technical or with a little bit of specialized knowledged gets butchered. So when a reporters firearms education is from TV and movies, everything is an assault weapon.
See, you don't need some conspiracy that is killing children in playgrounds to make guns look bad to your soccer moms.

[MicroBalrog]

any shooting, anywhere, will count as an argument for renewal of the AW ban. It won't matter if the killer used a spatula. The media will report the instrument as an "assault weapon."




I seriously doubt that, don't get paranoid.


It has already happened, for example, after the Lockeed shooting they said the shooter used an A-Salt weapon, but in fact, he used a shotgun (even though he did have an A-Salt weapon with him at the time of the shooting).

[Monkeyleg]

St John's, I don't know how much time you spend watching US TV news (especially the local channels) but the amount of misinformation and outright lies is staggering. If there's a stabbing, the graphic on the screen behind the TV anchor will show a gun. Reporters regularly refer to "semi-automatic submachineguns," or just call any semiauto a "machine gun."

In yesterday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, there was an article about the arming of pilots. A little sidebar to the story gave a brief synopsis, in which the words "9 millimeter semi-automatic handgun" were in boldface. Why? This was a front-page story. How would things be better or worse if the pilots were carrying .357 revolvers?

There are many, many reporters in the US with an anti-gun bias. I've argued with enough of them to realize that they view themselves as missionaries and not journalists.