I'm tired of CNN and their 2A/SYG rhetoric


PDA






CDR_Glock
April 17, 2012, 07:19 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/16/opinion/bishop-osler-guns-trayvon-case/index.html

I'm done with that channel.

If you enjoyed reading about "I'm tired of CNN and their 2A/SYG rhetoric" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
AirForceShooter
April 17, 2012, 08:44 AM
What really annoys me about the whole mess is no one knows exacly what the record shows.
How can anyone figure out what to think based on fact?

AFS

Double Naught Spy
April 17, 2012, 09:07 AM
And yet folks on both sides of the argument do it all the time.

Carl N. Brown
April 17, 2012, 09:20 AM
CNN wants to make it a meme of protecting minorities against "vigilantes" with guns. Recent invocations of SYG in Florida include minorities defending themselves from criminals by using knife or icepick in self-defense. The extreme anti-SYG advocates would want these folks in jail, using up what savings or retirement they might have on lawyers, until found not guilty in court. That is the situation that SYG was written to cover: no probable cause to disbelieve the self-defense claim, the defender is free unless the investigation finds evidence the use of force was unlawful. When under CNN's ideal, you get jailed until you prove your innocence (or as prosecutors prefer, your "not guilt"), you are royally screwed. Of course, to true liberals if you defend yourself, especially with a gun, you are a vigilante and worse than the criminal you defended yourself against, and a hue and cry must be raised against you.

Ronin8451
April 17, 2012, 09:35 AM
They had a march in Dallas a couple of weeks ago and were signing petitions to repeal the Castle Doctrine in Texas so we wouldn't be able to shoot them when they come to rob and kill us ! We gotta fight to keep our rights !

SlamFire1
April 17, 2012, 09:53 AM
I would rather not comment on Zimmerman,whether having a gun in his possession made him more aggressive, and whether his actions were appropriate.

Still, the liberal media is against guns and they are making the most out of this opportunity to push their agenda.


This is an election year, a letter to your Congressman supporting self defense is the most value added thing you can do to protect your rights.

loose noose
April 17, 2012, 09:58 AM
You know what CNN stands for don't ya, "Communist News Network", after all their preaching about anti American traditions such as using deadly force to protect one self, and wait for the police to do it; what else could it stand for?:mad:

Tipro
April 17, 2012, 10:06 AM
That study's author, Charles Branas, has speculated that one reason may be that guns give carriers a sense of empowerment that causes them to overreact in tense situations. That may be precisely what happened in the case of Zimmerman.

In fact, this is the exact opposite of what many people here and elsewhere say, which is that carrying a gun makes them try to deescalate situations, because a gun is the last thing most people want to introduce in a hostile situation. I know I feel that way.

Nothing in our Constitution even vaguely promotes the redress of grievances with guns; the "redress of grievances" clause of the First Amendment has nothing to with the "right to bear arms" described in the Second Amendment. Rather, what the Constitution protects is the ability to redress our grievances by petitioning our government.

Who the heck has been making this argument? No sane person has been "redressing grievances" against Congress by waiving a gun around. That's not at all what the 2A stands for.

There may be no more damning indictment of our society than this: We too often seem to be equipping our young men with the guns and excuses to kill one another, rather than the safe schools and knowledge it takes to frame a good and righteous petition

Yeah, well, petitions against George and Lincoln didn't go to well.

The whole idea that advocates of gun rights and the 2A are hoping to kill people is ludicrous. The premise of the 2A is that we have a pre-existing right to form a new government, free from tyranny, which can and should be done in a peaceful manner. Unfortunately, tyrants don't just let their subjects go (see King George and King Lincoln above), and guns are, regrettably, needed to protect that revolutionary right.

Carl N. Brown
April 17, 2012, 10:26 AM
^ Those quotes from the linked article. Jeanne Bishop and Mark Osler, "Trayvon Martin case also about guns", CNN, 16 Apr 2012.

My points:

People who carry may be people under greater threat than those who don't carry.

On danger of owning a gun they quote Kellerman. Enuf said there.

As far as the 300% increase in reports of SD following SYG, that just proves that SYG changes how police report SD. The actual numbers of SD incidents may be going up, down or remaining steady. All that has changed is that the UCR police report is more likely to reflect SD than simply manslaughter or homicide.

The article is full of straw man arguments. Criminal defense lawyer Bishop, ex-federal prosecutor Osler. Know what to expect from criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors. The only trial I followed in any detail was the Weaver/Harris trial resulting from the Ruby Ridge incident; after the trial one of the jurors told reporter Jesse Walter that the prosecutors tried to bury the jury in horse**** and the defense lawyers tried to bury them in bull****. Nothing new here.

Prince Yamato
April 17, 2012, 10:39 AM
It's an election year. The left is losing political ground. I think what you're seeing are the last big gasps from a dying idea (gun control).

That said, we still need to keep fighting and keep our guard up.

henschman
April 17, 2012, 11:54 AM
NPR is really biased in their reporting on Stand Your Ground laws too. They have had plenty of people talking about the law since the Zimmerman incident, and not once have they even given a basic statement of what the law says. They refer to the law in very vague terms, and state that "some oppose it because they believe it could protect an aggressor who starts a physical confrontation and then uses deadly force."

Never mind that the law only applies in instances of self defense, and in fact specifically DOES NOT apply to the aggressor in an assault. It would be extremely easy to find an attorney or someone who is familiar with this law to explain it to their listening audience, but they have not done so. This fact, along with the fact that the only people they have interviewed about it are against the SYG law, shows that it is intentional bias and misrepresentation on NPR's part.

4v50 Gary
April 17, 2012, 12:32 PM
Good for you. I stopped watching mainstream media years ago when I learned it wasn't there to report the news but was part of the entertainment industry. It is based on ratings and generating advertising revenue.

Skribs
April 17, 2012, 03:22 PM
I've learned that the average citizen shouldn't try to get in a statistic-battle with an anti, because of where most statistics are pulled from. I've learned from other debates that people find the studies that prove their point of view and view all other studies as biased, but theirs as kosher. I would argue it's the logic you can use to apply the study that counts.

I've also learned that they don't seem to understand the "if you make guns illegal, criminals will ignore that law, and thus have the advantage" logic.

I'm starting to lean towards vinnetes (?sp) being the simplest method of getting through to someone. Like this scenario, for me:

I am 5'6, 150 lb, and not terribly athletic. I consider myself to be an average person in that respect. Above average, I have had training in Tae Kwon Do, and I do know a few moves to use if someone comes at me with a knife. Let's say that I am unarmed, and a man (5'10 with an athletic build) walks up and pulls out a knife (because this is an anti utopia where nobody has a gun). He intends to take my personal property and/or injure/kill me with the knife as my reason to comply. In this scenario, my options are:

1) Run. But he'll catch me and I'll be tired, less able to defend myself. I am not a strong runner to begin with. So much for "you can outrun a knife, but can't outrun a bullet."
2) Comply. I have no guarantee that if I comply I will not be harmed, and even if I comply - I lose personal property in this scenario. This gives him the power to do it to the next person, and the confidence that nothing bad will happen to him.
3) Defend myself. I am still very likely to get injured, and if I do succeed in what I would do to defend myself, it would result in my attacker having a gut wound. This would be painful, and if it killed him the process would be slow. Meanwhile, due to the physical laws of knife fights, I would probably be injured myself. Worst case scenario is my defenses fail and he gets the better of me and kills me.

Now, let's assume I have a gun, but the scenario is otherwise the same. I can draw my gun and say "back off." Now the burden is on him to decide what his options are. He can walk away, or he can pursue the attack. If he pursues the attack, then I am much more capable to stop him by having my own weapon.

That is why I carry. And I don't feel like making an account on CNN to say this there so I thought I might as well vent here.

TurtlePhish
April 17, 2012, 03:34 PM
Similarly, people who carry guns are more likely to be shot and killed than those who are unarmed. A University of Pennsylvania study found that people carrying guns were 4.5 times more likely to be shot and 4.2 times more likely to be killed.

.....how does carrying a gun make a wound more likely to kill you? :scrutiny:

Skribs
April 17, 2012, 03:45 PM
Turtle, the anti belief is that if you have a gun, you are more likely to provoke a violent confrontation than if you don't. They believe we're a bunch of cowboys who go around and insult everyone's mothers, and if anyone takes offense we draw and see if they take the bait for a duel. Thus, more likely to get shot.

In reality, I think this means that people who get shot are more likely to have a gun than not. According to comments, this study included a lot of:

Criminals who were armed and got shot by other criminals or police (a situation your average CCW won't be involved in).
Police who were shot by criminals while serving a warrant (a good reason for ME to be armed, those dang armed criminals).

The anti argument is broken up, the way I see it, into 2 points: 1) that normal, everyday people are somehow in danger of their own guns through ineptitude or the "fact" that having a gun in the home suddenly makes someone a violent sociopath that will commit murder-suicide, and 2) that if we ban all guns, then criminals won't have guns and can never hurt anyone.

The first is a strawman that is hellaciously innaccurate, and the second ignores two major things: 1) criminals will get guns anyway, 2) if everyone is unarmed, then the criminals can pick on smaller people and most likely succeed. Despite that simple logic, antis can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that I should be able to protect myself.

TurtlePhish
April 17, 2012, 03:53 PM
Turtle, the anti belief is that if you have a gun, you are more likely to provoke a violent confrontation than if you don't. They believe we're a bunch of cowboys who go around and insult everyone's mothers, and if anyone takes offense we draw and see if they take the bait for a duel. Thus, more likely to get shot.


I understand that part. What I was commenting on was the "more likely to be killed" part which was a separate "fact" from the "more likely to be shot" part, which implies that the mere act of carrying a gun makes you more likely to die if shot.

Midwest
April 17, 2012, 03:58 PM
I'm surprised CNN still has any audience. Anyway I stopped watching all mainstream and cable and satellite news networks long ago..including Fox. I understand 'conservative' commentator Bill O'Reilly was FOR the New Orleans gun confiscations. nuff said

I wonder how many innocent victims died over the decades because they weren't allowed by the state to protect themselves with a firearm? Where is the outrage?

The Sullivan law in NY (and other laws like it in no carry states) are culpable for assaults and rapes including the loss of lives because the people did not have a means to defend themselves because the state passed laws forbidding people to defend themselves. How many people would still be alive today if they had the means to defend themselves?

Why aren't there protests against the Sullivan law in NYC and others laws like it in other states? Where are the victim rights groups protesting anti-gun laws? AARP and women's groups are the ones that should be in full support for conceal carry laws.

We don't send our police officers out on patrol disarmed, we don't send our troops to fight a war disarmed, and there is absolutely no reason for law abiding citizens to be defenseless because they just happen to live or visit the wrong state or city!

Skribs
April 17, 2012, 04:05 PM
Actually less likely to be killed if shot. 4.5x to be shot, 4.2x to be killed. I can see why: if your hands are up in a position to fire, they add to the amount of tissue the bullet needs to penetrate to reach vital organs. Whereas if you're running or not in a combat stance, your vitals are more exposed. #devilsadvocatereachingatstraws

rajb123
April 17, 2012, 04:07 PM
CNN also interviewed Bill Cosby on the Trevon Martin shooting.... Cosby said we should get rid of all guns that are used outside the home...

Really? According to the Boston Globe, Bill Cosby is one of a very few who are licensed to carry concealed guns in NYC - since at least 1993.

Apparaently, the gun control applies to all others except me.

whalerman
April 17, 2012, 04:08 PM
Tipro. Those are very good thoughts. I appreciate what you have to say about the presence of a gun serving to DEescalate tense situations.

blackguns
April 17, 2012, 04:15 PM
Lies, damned lies and statistics. It's all in how you look at it. They aren't independent variables so in order to be counted as "shot and killed" one must first be "shot". The way I read it is that not everyone that was shot, died. Only most of them.

That ratio seems way to high and cause for skepticism, then again I could be totally wrong.

FIVETWOSEVEN
April 17, 2012, 04:17 PM
People with guns in their homes are much more likely to be killed with their own gun

What a stupid statement. If you own one, of course you are more likely to be killed with your OWN gun. After all if you don't own one, you can't be killed by your OWN gun.

People who use the internet are more likely to view online child pornography than those who don't use the internet.

Skribs
April 17, 2012, 04:17 PM
It's just like the idea that violent video games cause school shootings. I majored in psych, and my professors said (and I'm paraphrasing):

The media implies causation, all we can see is a correlation that kids attracted to violence enough to commit school shootings are also attracted to violent video games. Then they had stats about decrease in violence in schools over time (during the time period that violent video games became more popular). Yet the media still disagrees.

Canfield
April 17, 2012, 05:27 PM
I've spent a lot of time working with data. I'm a decent judge of what you can and cannot get out of a certain data set. At some point I decided to look into the data used by academic research on both sides of "more guns, more/less crime" debate, and I can tell you that it's all lousy. I have seen no reliable evidence for either side. And the lowest quality work is typically found in medical or public health journals.

All of this filters down to the public through journalists, who are no more qualified to report on anything involving statistics than "the man on the street" is.

JFrame
April 17, 2012, 05:40 PM
I'm surprised CNN still has any audience. Anyway I stopped watching all mainstream and cable and satellite news networks long ago..including Fox. I understand 'conservative' commentator Bill O'Reilly was FOR the New Orleans gun confiscations. nuff said

Bill's a little erratic on that matter. He's an apologist for the gun confiscation on the basis that it was an "emergency" circumstance. By the same token, Katrina woke him up to the need for citizens to be able to defend themselves in the absence of law. He said that people are responsible for their own safety, and "if you don't already have a gun -- get one!" He even announced that he purchased a handgun post-Katrina. In that sense, he became pro-2A.

Yeah -- I don't quite see how you reconcile those two sentiments -- but there it is.


.

JohnBiltz
April 17, 2012, 06:57 PM
I have not watched CNN since they made up that story about nerve gas in Vietnam.

Hacker15E
April 17, 2012, 08:00 PM
NPR is really biased in their reporting on Stand Your Ground laws too. They have had plenty of people talking about the law since the Zimmerman incident, and not once have they even given a basic statement of what the law says. They refer to the law in very vague terms, and state that "some oppose it because they believe it could protect an aggressor who starts a physical confrontation and then uses deadly force."

Not totally correct -- I heard a very good NPR story late last week (it was either "Fresh Air" or "The Story") which had a fantastic discussion of exactly what the SYG law said, compared to simple castle doctrine and other basic laws allowing self defense.

It's actually they only place that I've heard a logical, rational discussion on the topic anywhere in the media at all.

Both of the gents who were guests felt that the SYG law was completely irrelelvant to the Martin/Zimmerman incident: either Zimmerman's case would stand on it's own with basic self defense law/doctrine (and would not have to invoke the SYG rule) based on the idea that Martin was on top of him beating him, or SYG would not apply at all (if Zimmerman initiated the scuffle or was the aggressor in any way).

Vern Humphrey
April 17, 2012, 08:08 PM
The bad thing in this case is we will never know what happened -- the media and political opportunists have muddied the water so much that it will never be sorted out.

coalman
April 18, 2012, 12:04 AM
Violent crime is decreasing (http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2010/nyfo122010.htm) as gun ownership is increasing (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx). Pretty much covers it IMO. Isolated occurances may counter the trend and characterizing the exception as the rule is the oft used manipulation.

pwhfirefighter
April 18, 2012, 01:07 AM
I have decided that most anti-gun, anti-SYG law, or whatever you want to call the liberals against an individual's right to defend one's self are so skewed in their way of thinking that no amount of factual data or logical thinking is gonna change their stance on guns. I think it boils down to an individual choosing whether to allow one's self to be a victim or not. A recent conversation with a coworker has led me to the conclusion that some people would rather allow themselves to be a victim than to protect themselves or their family. I felt dumber after trying to talk to him, walking away scratching my head.

An old saying came to mind, "Don't argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level an beat you with experience!" So if they don't mind being a victim, fine, just don't expect me to.

Just my thoughts

alsaqr
April 18, 2012, 07:49 AM
Many gun folks put down the "mainstream" media, and rightly so. When MSNBC comes along with its "dangerous Remington rifles" extravaganza; many of those same people act like its the equivalent of the Gospel of Mark.

Carl N. Brown
April 18, 2012, 08:21 AM
Actually fresh air on guns from NPR is so rare it is refreshing. Usually it's the usual. If you have read anti-gunner Carl Bakal from 1959 and gun control skeptic H.L. Mencken from 1925, you can anticipate all the arguments.

Pilot
April 18, 2012, 08:39 AM
The mainstream media is TOTALLY unwatchable and vehemently against the LEGAL use of guns. Alternative media is changing the views of many, however. Note the large number of first time gun buyers, AND women gun buyers. They aren't listening to the MSM anymore.

Sky
April 18, 2012, 08:58 AM
Might be comforting to those who do not like the network.

For the month of March, CNN was down -50% in total viewers and down -60% in A25-54 viewers (Total Day). The net was down -21% in Total Viewers and down -26% in A25-54 viewers (Primetime) compared to March 2011."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/wait-did-cnn-just-lose-half-of-its-viewers-2012-3#ixzz1sOdCEvk2

Double Naught Spy
April 18, 2012, 09:09 AM
Many gun folks put down the "mainstream" media, and rightly so. When MSNBC comes along with its "dangerous Remington rifles" extravaganza; many of those same people act like its the equivalent of the Gospel of Mark.

You are blurring the lines between the network and the story. The dangerous 700 series rifle story presented a lot of information that is verifiable including Remington's own internal memos on the faulty Walker fire control.

JFrame
April 18, 2012, 09:44 AM
Might be comforting to those who do not like the network.


Well -- that warmed my heart a bit... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/grin.gif


.

Sky
April 18, 2012, 10:27 AM
Well -- that warmed my heart a bit...


There are more computers in American homes now which allows people to view many different news sources. Like one of our previous posters said about CBS..I too tried to never watch them again; my choice and feel like I have not missed CBS or any relevant facts about the news that affects me/mine/ or our country in any meaningful way. Not saying all their news is worthless so no reason to nit pick; just saying I would rather watch someone else at breaking a news story.

The GOP election coverage and bias reaffirmed (in my mind) how occasionally agenda outweighs the truth with many of the MSN net works. Does that mean they never report the truth of a situation....certainly they do. Seems like I remember a German Station during WW11 that pushed the Nazi agenda but was actually a psyop that every once in a while would "code word" broadcast pertinent info to the resistance.

Many people have first hand knowledge of a news event and; in their own mind think the reporting of the event contains half truths and out right lies; over time individuals decide to disregard the perceived propaganda. This is why private publishing and the web are constantly attacked by 'debunkers' that say the information was gleaned from the web, and therefore is invalid or a conspiracy.

Psyops (conditioning) is alive and well in any country, organization; starts with schools and continues through out ones life. It is up to individuals to evaluate and decide who to listen to and what to believe.

TarDevil
April 18, 2012, 11:31 AM
Lot of good points being made here. Should be repeated in the comment section of the column.

Skribs
April 18, 2012, 11:48 AM
An old saying came to mind, "Don't argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level an beat you with experience!" So if they don't mind being a victim, fine, just don't expect me to.

Right now, this works. We can say that. What most antis want, however, is that nobody can defend themselves. That's why I argue with them, is to prevent that from happening.

I don't take the 2A as a right, I personally take it as a responsibility. I think that every home should be required to have one.

JERRY
April 18, 2012, 11:53 AM
youre tired of the Communist News Network? what took you so long to see the light?

Neverwinter
April 18, 2012, 03:10 PM
Violent crime is decreasing (http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2010/nyfo122010.htm) as gun ownership is increasing (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx). Pretty much covers it IMO. Isolated occurances may counter the trend and characterizing the exception as the rule is the oft used manipulation.
*Insert chart linking decrease in pirates to global warming here*

Sent using Tapatalk 2

Neverwinter
April 18, 2012, 03:45 PM
Might be comforting to those who do not like the network.
It's not comforting when observed in the context of the big international stories which hogged the coverage for this year, namely the Arab spring and Japanese tsunami. See http://www.businessinsider.com/these-time-magazine-covers-explain-why-americans-know-nothing-about-the-world-2011-11 for a demonstration of how print media adapted to the situation regarding domestic lack of interest in international news which hit cable news.

Explaining it as a diversification of news ingestion is overly optimistic. The availability of coverage from the net which reverses the information available on the news doesn't automatically impart credibility due to lining up better with the prejudices of the reader or not being from the "mainstream media".

Sent using Tapatalk 2

8654Maine
April 18, 2012, 09:14 PM
One thing I hope folks learn from this is to learn to read these studies.

The following is the original research article that is quoted: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=dennis_culhane

It is important to read the methods. Table 1 is a summary of all the data.

Case-Control study means that they compare those that are involved (Case) vs. placebo folks (Control). A reliable study means that they try and match the 2 groups for all variables (age, sex, etc...) except for what they are looking at. In this case, it's gun possession (hence the title: "Investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault."

For all gun assaults, 5.92% of those involved (Cases) possessed guns. 7.16% of Controls possessed guns. Hmm, this is the opposite of their claim. (my bold)

For fatal gun assaults, 8.80% of Cases possessed guns & 7.85% of Controls possessed guns. Not exactly 4x/the number.

Neither of these were of any statistical significance.

What no one is mentioning is the statistical significance:

The cases had greater alcohol & illicit drug involvement, were outdoors, black, younger, unemployed, less educated, higher risk occupations and...surprise, surprise..., had more prior arrests.

Also, a big flaw is that they didn't look at anyone under 21. I suspect a huge flaw.

Hmm, it seems societal ills are worse than gun possession.

MarkDido
April 18, 2012, 10:24 PM
Similarly, people who carry guns are more likely to be shot and killed than those who are unarmed. A University of Pennsylvania study found that people carrying guns were 4.5 times more likely to be shot and 4.2 times more likely to be killed.

The only people carrying guns who are 4.2 time more likely to be shot and killed are criminals.

medalguy
April 19, 2012, 12:39 AM
You don't like the reporting of CNN? Seriously? Quit watching. I did. :neener::D

Bill_Rights
April 19, 2012, 01:06 AM
You can be pretty much sure everything the left-wing media puts out is beside the point. For example:
Carl N. Brown: CNN wants to make it a meme of protecting minorities against "vigilantes" with guns

henschman: NPR is really biased in their reporting on Stand Your Ground laws

In fact, minorities have a strong history in the USA of protecting themselves by standing their ground with guns. Ann Coulter starts out making that point in her column today in Human Events (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50941) with this arresting pitch for the NRA:
Ann Coulter:
We don't know the facts yet, but let's assume the conclusion MSNBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black.

If that were true, every black person in America should get a gun and join the National Rifle Association, America's oldest and most august civil rights organization.
Coulter goes on to recount events in 1957 in North Carolina in which the KKK was uh... discouraged by blacks wielding guns. Writing about these events later, one of the gun rights leaders, Robert F. Williams, a World War II Marine veteran from Monroe, N.C., said, in the preface to "Negroes With Guns": "I have asserted the right of Negroes to meet the violence of the Ku Klux Klan by armed self-defense -- and have acted on it. It has always been an accepted right of Americans, as the history of our Western states proves, that where the law is unable, or unwilling, to enforce order, the citizens can, and must act in self-defense against lawless violence."
In this world, the way it is, not the way we would have it be, some in social and political power will try to use mobs to do their violent dirty work. This ploy doesn't work if law abiding citizens are armed. So, at root, what you see in the news media reporting on the OP subject, is some in power trying to disarm us normal citizens, for the purpose of (sad to say) keeping their potential mobs from becoming uh... discouraged.

Neverwinter
April 19, 2012, 02:56 AM
We don't know the facts yet, but let's assume the conclusion MSNBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black.

If that were true, every black person in America should get a gun and join the National Rifle Association, America's oldest and most august civil rights organization. Ann is determined not to let facts get in the way of claiming that a minor should have defended himself with a gun that he couldn't legally have. Unless she is talking about having other armed people enacting retribution on behalf of the slain youth, which is completely contrary to the civilized rule of law.

In this world, the way it is, not the way we would have it be, some in social and political power will try to use mobs to do their violent dirty work. This ploy doesn't work if law abiding citizens are armed. So, at root, what you see in the news media reporting on the OP subject, is some in power trying to disarm us normal citizens, for the purpose of (sad to say) keeping their potential mobs from becoming uh... discouraged.
If there are two oft repeated facts, it's that firearms make two people equal and that law abiding citizens don't have a monopoly on arms. This talismanic role being envisioned for arms is indefensible.

Lucifer_Sam
April 19, 2012, 04:21 AM
Not totally correct -- I heard a very good NPR story late last week (it was either "Fresh Air" or "The Story") which had a fantastic discussion of exactly what the SYG law said, compared to simple castle doctrine and other basic laws allowing self defense.

It's actually they only place that I've heard a logical, rational discussion on the topic anywhere in the media at all.

Both of the gents who were guests felt that the SYG law was completely irrelelvant to the Martin/Zimmerman incident: either Zimmerman's case would stand on it's own with basic self defense law/doctrine (and would not have to invoke the SYG rule) based on the idea that Martin was on top of him beating him, or SYG would not apply at all (if Zimmerman initiated the scuffle or was the aggressor in any way).

Yeah, NPR is a good news outlet. About the only one left that actually takes the role of journalism seriously, unlike CNN, faux news, ect.

To compare and contrast opinion articles (CNN to NPR), heres an opinion piece by NPR about the Martin shooting. Except it ends up not being a piece about the martin shooting and more about race issues and a study that found its just not white males that are more likely to shoot a black male, its everybody. I thought it was pretty interesting.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/20/149006684/trayvon-martin-shooting-what-if-shooter-was-black

Heres a typical NPR article about the case.

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149805129/fla-cases-test-stand-your-ground-laws-limits

I'm not sure what the criticisms of NPR in this thread mean, since its apparent from that article that what you can and cant do under the law arent well defined in the first place. Sounds like more of an effort to find bias than any actual bias.

Hacker15E
April 19, 2012, 07:36 AM
I'm not sure what the criticisms of NPR in this thread mean

Unfortunately, it means that a number of posters here on THR are just as biased in their own views of news outlets as the news outlets they criticize in their posts.

We all have natural biases and even prejudices -- that is human nature. The use of logic to evaluate information, recognize biases, and attempt to maneuver around/through those biases are where we can separate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom.

JFrame
April 19, 2012, 07:53 AM
NPR did not ennoble their brand when two of their executives were caught in a sting video, dining and laughing it up with people (the "stingers") they thought were members of the Muslim Brotherhood wanting to give them $5 million.

In the course of the video, one of the NPR executives referred to the Tea Party as "white, Middle America, gun-toting," and added, "They're seriously racist people." This executive also referred to an "anti-intellectual component of the Republican Party," and said, ""Liberals today might be more educated, fair and balanced than conservatives." Not surprisingly, the executive also agreed with anti-Semitic comments made by the "Arab," and offered anti-Semitic observations of his own.

This video went a long way in prompting members of Congress to call for a de-funding of NPR.

With executive leadership like that, I imagine the suspicions of a leftist tilt by NPR are not unfounded.


.

303tom
April 19, 2012, 10:13 AM
And everyone wonders why Uncle Ted said what he said.........:cuss::cuss::cuss::banghead:

kb58
April 19, 2012, 10:22 AM
... the liberal media is against guns and they are making the most out of this opportunity to push their agenda.
I get so tired of reading this, like it's always someone elses fault and trying to turn it into an "us vs. them" thing. No, it's just us. The media, like any business, is all about money. If their shock-value "news" is dismissed as unimportant and people stopped consuming their product, they'd shape up or go out of business. So, this "liberal media" you speak of is in fact your neighbors - get upset at them.

When I'm in a checkout line and see someone pick up a National Enquirer to get their news, I feel like knocking them outside the head with a frozen trout for taking stupid pills.

Lucifer_Sam
April 19, 2012, 02:45 PM
NPR did not ennoble their brand when two of their executives were caught in a sting video, dining and laughing it up with people (the "stingers") they thought were members of the Muslim Brotherhood wanting to give them $5 million.

In the course of the video, one of the NPR executives referred to the Tea Party as "white, Middle America, gun-toting," and added, "They're seriously racist people." This executive also referred to an "anti-intellectual component of the Republican Party," and said, ""Liberals today might be more educated, fair and balanced than conservatives." Not surprisingly, the executive also agreed with anti-Semitic comments made by the "Arab," and offered anti-Semitic observations of his own.

This video went a long way in prompting members of Congress to call for a de-funding of NPR.

With executive leadership like that, I imagine the suspicions of a leftist tilt by NPR are not unfounded.


.

You mean that video by that worthless little skidmark? It was a lie.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576218543378702266.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-raw-video-of-npr-expose-reveal-questionable-editing-tactics/

Granted, the executive did act like an idiot on occasion in the unedited video.

It kind of telling about the another of the real biases of modern "journalism" that you didnt hear much about that. $eem$ there wa$nt enough intere$t.

JFrame
April 19, 2012, 03:03 PM
You mean that video by that worthless little skidmark? It was a lie.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576218543378702266.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-raw-video-of-npr-expose-reveal-questionable-editing-tactics/

Granted, the executive did act like an idiot on occasion in the unedited video.

It kind of telling about the another of the real biases of modern "journalism" that you didnt hear much about that. $eem$ there wa$nt enough intere$t.

We're probably straying a little too far from the 2A component of this discussion, but...

Raw or un-raw, the executives' biases and prejudices toward liberalism and against conservatism stand as is. The outright statements are hard to parse any other way. One executive resigned (euphemistically called "took another position") as a result of the video and subsequent publicity.

The net message of that sting operation stands on that basis.



.

X-Rap
April 19, 2012, 03:13 PM
The media has an obvious agenda that it is following and you can see it clearly by the volume of the stories that they report the most on. The only SYG case they care to report is the one in the headlines because they put it there. In the time since the Florida incident I'm sure there have been dozens of SYG cases that simply haven't been reported because it doesn't work to their end. The same can be said about young minority males being killed only statistically there is no racial component so it doesn't warrant national exposure. Jesse and Al would be worn to death if they had as much concern for young black men that are killed by other young black men.

Hugo
April 19, 2012, 05:08 PM
Attention CNN or other media organizations that might read this. Remember Edward R. Murrow who created that journalism award you want to win? Remember how he called out the scaremongering BS artist Senator Joseph McCarthy who ruined people lives to scare people into voting for him? Act more like Murrow and tone down the bias and "tweaking" the story and do some real reporting.

Stop acting like TMZ and be real reporters again. Were it not for the chain smoking, Edward R. Murrow would still be alive to chew you out on Larry King or Adam Carolla's podcast, or some other news show. Guns and self-defense aren't the problem. Criminals and "wannabe cops" in a badly run neighborhood watch (what is your neighborhood watch like?) who make mistakes and lie about it are the problem.

wannabeagunsmith
April 19, 2012, 05:14 PM
Me too. I hate CNN with a growing passion.

Steel Horse Rider
April 19, 2012, 06:21 PM
Senator McCarthy was right. He may not have gone about his business in a smooth manner but he was correct in calling out the communist agents and their motives. We still have communist agents in our own Congress, they are called the "Progressive Caucus". Several members of FDR's cabinet travelled to the Soviet Union in the late 1920's in order to study how Joe Stalin was able to control the population of the country. These men (and a woman anarchist who was demoralized when she discovered that Stalin tended to execute anarchists) served openly and spread their roots deeply in the bureaucracy.

fxstchewy
April 19, 2012, 06:49 PM
I can't stand to watch any mainstream news, too much agenda.

kb58
April 19, 2012, 10:12 PM
We disconnected broadcast TV 10 years ago, life is so much better now, and there are more hours in the day.

Positivity
April 19, 2012, 10:30 PM
I have never even taken a statistic class before, but even I know that correlation does not mean causation.

SpringfieldArmoryXD
April 19, 2012, 10:32 PM
I don't mind watching FOX news, just to keep up on whats going on in the world. They are more of a Republican news station, but at least they are always bringing the "other" side onto their shows to discuss their opposing ideas. I find that more times then not, FOX always presents numbers and factual data that the "other" side can never come up with a real argument against. They instead try and make everything a personal attack on whoever they are talking to.

Watching MSNBC or CNN makes me sick, because they just sit there with there "own" kind and discuss about how bad things are, with no credible factual data to back up there often ridiculous claims. I often find my blood begin to boil and I have to turn it off, it will drive you crazy!

rajb123
April 19, 2012, 10:35 PM
The dangerous remington rifle story was from cnbc, not msnbc

Neverwinter
April 20, 2012, 12:13 AM
I find that more times then not, FOX always presents numbers and factual data that the "other" side can never come up with a real argument against.
Can't argue against this kind of data. :cool:
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fnc-an-20111212-markedchart.jpg
Unfortunately, Fox seems intent on continuing to provide more than enough rope for media watchdogs to hang them by.

And it's the continual reliance of people on Fox as their primary source which provides for data like this: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/john-farrell/2010/12/22/university-study-fox-viewers-more-misinformed

Lucifer_Sam
April 20, 2012, 03:09 AM
We're probably straying a little too far from the 2A component of this discussion, but...

Raw or un-raw, the executives' biases and prejudices toward liberalism and against conservatism stand as is. The outright statements are hard to parse any other way. One executive resigned (euphemistically called "took another position") as a result of the video and subsequent publicity.

The net message of that sting operation stands on that basis.

.

I think were ok, were still on the media and bias.

I disagree. The crux of the NPR issue was the whole muslim connection, sympathies with Sharia law, ect. From what I've seen and read of the unedited video, he does say some kind bad things about the tea party (which doesn't bother me much) but he also talks about his pride in his conservative heritage and how hes financially conservative.

The reason they let they him go is in the video. NPRs policy is when a journalists political leanings are publicized they are considered compromised.

But none of his personal opinions really matter b/c he feels strongly that his role as a journalist is to report unbiased news, something he repeats over and over. Every news executive is going to have political opinions, but its supposed to be their job to keep those opinions out of the news. In my experience NPR does this pretty well.

Its an interesting video. I've been watching it instead of just excerpts. He really doesnt have much good to say about any of the current news stations, left or right.

JFrame
April 20, 2012, 07:14 AM
I think were ok, were still on the media and bias.

I disagree. The crux of the NPR issue was the whole muslim connection, sympathies with Sharia law, ect. From what I've seen and read of the unedited video, he does say some kind bad things about the tea party (which doesn't bother me much) but he also talks about his pride in his conservative heritage and how hes financially conservative.

The reason they let they him go is in the video. NPRs policy is when a journalists political leanings are publicized they are considered compromised.

But none of his personal opinions really matter b/c he feels strongly that his role as a journalist is to report unbiased news, something he repeats over and over. Every news executive is going to have political opinions, but its supposed to be their job to keep those opinions out of the news. In my experience NPR does this pretty well.

Its an interesting video. I've been watching it instead of just excerpts. He really doesnt have much good to say about any of the current news stations, left or right.

Hi Sam -- thanks for the additional input. I actually wasn't concerned with the whole Muslim thing in the context of this thread, because the issue being discussed is purported liberal bias in the media vis-a-vis firearms and the 2A.

I can appreciate the additional texture being gleaned by watching the raw footage, but I have to believe that certain key declarations stand out more than others, and are more revealing of the core narrative. The executive's dismissal of the Tea Party was certainly carried out with a broad brush, and his characterization of the movement as filled with white racists is virtually a caricature of the leftist elitist. And in a 2A context, let's not ignore that he includes "gun-toting" as a pejorative. In this regard, we must also incorporate your attitude toward the Tea Party as representative of the bias that you are bringing to the analysis of the proceedings (hey -- we all have them...).

And regardless of any protestations that the executive might have about his pride in his conservative heritage, they do not reconcile with his assessment that liberals are "today" more educated and intelligent than conservatives. He sounds like someone who can "appreciate" the hard, by-the-bootstraps work that got his family to where it is, but now has seen the light -- and a higher calling -- in a liberalism that is the path to a better future. I know quite a few people like that, personally. Even if, as you suggested previously, his talk was largely motivated by a desire to glom onto what he thought was Arab money, he was certainly over the top in selling his case. Sometimes, Occam's Razor says that it is what it is.

I suppose the one thing we can come to an agreement on is that, as you also noted previously, he sounded like an idiot. :)


.

wannabeagunsmith
April 20, 2012, 02:01 PM
I'm not anti gun. I am pro-american


Seriously, read it here:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/18/opinion/granderson-nugent/index.html

Vern Humphrey
April 20, 2012, 02:40 PM
I'm not anti gun. I am pro-american
How can one be pro-American and anti-Constitution?

The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution. It is a civil right, just like freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Tommygunn
April 20, 2012, 07:29 PM
And it's the continual reliance of people on Fox as their primary source which provides for data like this: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...re-misinformed

A rather bizarre article. Fox News has rarely covered the idiot "birther controversy" and I am hard pressed to understand how anyone listening to Fox would come away with the idea that Obama was not born in Hawaii .... unless they just plain didn't believe what Fox reported.
Fox has covered "global warming" stories. I have heard it claimed on various sources that "most scientists" believe it's real. Other reports draw into question just what that means. A climatologist's opinion might be more informed on the issue than, say, a nuclear physicist's. Yet some of these reports lump together the opinion of many scientists from a variety of disciplines.
And so on.
Fox news may not be perfect but I hardly think that report is necessarily any more ......"perfect."

Vern Humphrey
April 20, 2012, 08:04 PM
Originally Posted by Neverwinter
And it's the continual reliance of people on Fox as their primary source which provides for data like this: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...re-misinformed

Originally posted by Tommygunn
A rather bizarre article. Fox News has rarely covered the idiot "birther controversy" and I am hard pressed to understand how anyone listening to Fox would come away with the idea that Obama was not born in Hawaii .... unless they just plain didn't believe what Fox reported.

In fact, Bill O'Rielly has attacked the "birthers" and poured scorn on them.

But hey, what does the truth matter? All of us on the left know how bad, evil and unfair Fox is -- so they must have supported the "birthers.":rolleyes:

Bojangles7
April 20, 2012, 10:00 PM
I'm done with that channel.


Just now? I wasn't aware anybody still watched them.

Bill_Rights
April 21, 2012, 12:33 AM
Ann is determined not to let facts get in the way of claiming that a minor should have defended himself with a gun that he couldn't legally have. Unless she is talking about having other armed people enacting retribution on behalf of the slain youth, which is completely contrary to the civilized rule of law.


If there are two oft repeated facts, it's that firearms make two people equal and that law abiding citizens don't have a monopoly on arms. This talismanic role being envisioned for arms is indefensible.
Were you intending to be sarcastic in the phrase "oft repeated facts"?
Did you complete all your thoughts in this last line of comments?

a) On the point "firearms make two people equal", whether firearms do or do not make two people equal (which in my opinion they do not, since there are factors such as surprise, skill, etc.), firearms raise the stakes for the attacker. If the subject of an attack has or may have a firearm, the attacker is much more likely to at least be severely wounded, or to fear being wounded. Equality doesn't matter. What matters is that the subject of an attack is better off with a firearm than without.

b) On the point "law abiding citizens don't have a monopoly on arms", so what? Again, the law-abiding prospective subject of an attack is better off with a firearm than without.

c) On the judgement: "This talismanic role being envisioned for arms is indefensible", the only role I asserted for firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens was "discouragement" of individual mob members. A .45 cal 230 grain hollow-point "talisman" moving at 900 feet per second is fairly discouraging. There! I just defended my assertion, so it was not "indefensible".

All in all, I do not see the relevance of your statements to my assertion that Leftists are trying to disarm law-abiding citizens to empower the Leftist's mobs. And I also said/implied that many media outlets are complicit with Leftist "elites" in this effort.

Bill_Rights
April 21, 2012, 01:05 AM
Regarding the video of the NPR exec, JFrame wrote:Hi Sam -- thanks for the additional input. I actually wasn't concerned with the whole Muslim thing in the context of this thread...[but] even if, as you suggested previously, his [the NPR exec's] talk was largely motivated by a desire to glom onto what he thought was Arab money, he was certainly over the top in selling his case.
JFrame, Sam and others:

I think I can tie up together for you the Muslim/Arab and 2A aspects. I am no Middle East expert, but I have read enough Fouad Ajami, Fahreed Zacharia, etc. to know that even secular, Westernized, educated natives of the Arab Middle East have a political philosophy we Americans would recognize as statist, socialist, fascist, leftist, elitist or thereabouts. They do not believe much in individual freedom, especially for us "little people". And, in particular, they are absolutists in denying their own countrymen gun rights. And, of course, their state-controlled media outlets go right along with this line.

So...... in that context, our brown-nosing NPR exec might have been playing up to his Middle Easter dinner guests by hyper-displaying an abhorance of gun rights and the typical American parties (tea) that support gun rights. Perhaps our NPR exec is really a regular deer hunter who keeps his household well armed, but, for the sake of the Arab money, put on a show of anti-gunnery?

Do we believe that? Naaaahhhh :rolleyes:

Neverwinter
April 21, 2012, 12:10 PM
Were you intending to be sarcastic in the phrase "oft repeated facts"?
Did you complete all your thoughts in this last line of comments?
More tongue in cheek regarding how pithy and overplayed they are

a) On the point "firearms make two people equal", whether firearms do or do not make two people equal (which in my opinion they do not, since there are factors such as surprise, skill, etc.), firearms raise the stakes for the attacker. If the subject of an attack has or may have a firearm, the attacker is much more likely to at least be severely wounded, or to fear being wounded. Equality doesn't matter. What matters is that the subject of an attack is better off with a firearm than without.

b) On the point "law abiding citizens don't have a monopoly on arms", so what? Again, the law-abiding prospective subject of an attack is better off with a firearm than without.

c) On the judgement: "This talismanic role being envisioned for arms is indefensible", the only role I asserted for firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens was "discouragement" of individual mob members. A .45 cal 230 grain hollow-point "talisman" moving at 900 feet per second is fairly discouraging. There! I just defended my assertion, so it was not "indefensible".
You claimed that it made them better off. I simply provided the observation that it has a marginal effect which doesn't significantly alter the outcome.

Vern Humphrey
April 21, 2012, 12:30 PM
Let me ask you a simple question -- there are some areas that are very dangerous. One neighborhood in Little Rock, Arkansas, is among the top 25 neighborhoods in the nation for homicide.

If you had to walk through that neighborhood regularly at night, would you perfer to be armed or unarmed?

DammitBoy
April 21, 2012, 12:44 PM
Violent crime is decreasing (http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2010/nyfo122010.htm) as gun ownership is increasing (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx). Pretty much covers it IMO. Isolated occurances may counter the trend and characterizing the exception as the rule is the oft used manipulation.

This +11

Nushif
April 21, 2012, 01:31 PM
Leprosy decreasing as vacation time is increasing. Pretty much covers it IMO. Isolated occurances may counter the trend and characterizing the exception as the rule is the oft used manipulation.

Fixed that for you. Right?

I am (obviously) all for making valid, logical and well founded arguments, but we do ourselves a disservice by repeating *every* argument that is pro gun simply because it is pro-gun.

Vern Humphrey
April 21, 2012, 01:35 PM
Fixed that for you. Right?

I am (obviously) all for making valid, logical and well founded arguments, but we do ourselves a disservice by repeating *every* argument that is pro gun simply because it is pro-gun.
No, it isn't right to put words in someone else's mouth.

There is no logical link between leprosy and vacation time. There is a logical link between carrying arms and decreasing crime. There is the old saw about the difference between correlation and causation, to be sure. But the fact is, as concealed carry goes up, crime goes down -- in direct opposition to the predictions of the anti-gunners.

Nushif
April 21, 2012, 01:40 PM
I have yet to see a study that actually proves that.

The reduction of crime, for instance could be linked to the improvement of the economy, which also allows for people to get permits and guns. Or it could be linked to a new set of residents moving into a given neighborhood, or any other of the million factors that determine both crime rate and registered concealed carry. Simply put the argument is way too complex to attribute these two characteristics directly to each other.

As for "putting words into people's mouths" I gather you have never seen the meme "fixed that for you?" 8)

[edit]
Here ya go, quick info from the urban dictionary
"1. "There, fixed that for you." Used on message boards when you quote someone but change what they said to make it funny or true."

Vern Humphrey
April 21, 2012, 01:54 PM
I've yet to see a study that any particular theory of aerodynamics explains how airplanes fly.

The fact is, the antis predicted that with liberalized concealed carry, violent crime would go up. But it has gone down.

Concealed carry continues to gain ground -- more and more states have passed liberalized concealed carry laws. And violent crime continues to go down.

If you say concealed carry and gun ownership cause violent crime, the burden of proof is on you.

Nushif
April 21, 2012, 02:05 PM
If you say concealed carry and gun ownership cause violent crime, the burden of proof is on you.

Too bad I don't.

I am saying that gun ownership being directly linked either positively or negatively to a decrease in crime is a myth.

Nothing more, nothing less.

X-Rap
April 21, 2012, 02:18 PM
Incarceration is probably the biggest deterrent and repeat offenders probably account for a good number of violent crimes. It would be interesting to see the stats of crimes committed by those previously imprisoned.
The presence of a gun probably derails some crimes that would otherwise be committed either by shooting and disabling the criminal or by dissuading them to complete the act none of which would likely fall under the statistics for criminal acts committed.

Nicky Santoro
April 21, 2012, 02:45 PM
I'm tired of CNN and their 2A/SYG rhetoric

Are they still on the air? Memory fails as it has been that long. I haven't watched CNN since they unabashedly carried water for the Clintons.

Sky
April 21, 2012, 02:55 PM
I am saying that gun ownership being directly linked either positively or negatively to a decrease in crime is a myth.


Rather long reading but according to this Harvard study there is a direct correlation.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf



“where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest,
and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”

"The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the trait which favor that theory".

Quote:
National Institute of Justice surveys among prison inmates
find that large percentages report that their fear that a victim
might be armed deterred them from confrontation crimes.
“[T]he felons most frightened ‘about confronting an armed
victim’ were those from states with the greatest relative
number of privately owned firearms.” Conversely, robbery
is highest in states that most restrict gun ownership.88 .

Quote:
A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders committed in
that city in the years 2003–2005 found that “[m]ore than 90 percent
of the killers had criminal records.”70 Baltimore police figures show
that “92 percent of murder suspects had [prior] criminal records in
2006.”71 Several of the more recent homicide studies just reviewed were done at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and
found almost all arrested murderers to have earlier arrests.

Alaska444
April 21, 2012, 02:59 PM
Today, 09:44 AM #76
DammitBoy
Member


Join Date: March 19, 2009
Location: Meridian, Mississippi
Posts: 1,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by coalman
Violent crime is decreasing as gun ownership is increasing. Pretty much covers it IMO. Isolated occurances may counter the trend and characterizing the exception as the rule is the oft used manipulation.
This +11
__________________
"I shoot my gun at the moon like a primitive hick!" ~ dammitism


I was told several years ago by the lead detective in our small city of 200,000 that they do NOT publicly report the real crime statistics. He stated that if people really knew how bad it is, there would be vigilantes in the streets.

I do NOT have any trust in the so called reduction of crime in the stats published. If you know any cops, ask them how accurate the crime stats are. I suspect they will confirm that truth.

X-Rap
April 21, 2012, 03:04 PM
I suspect that the crime stats are much like the unemployment stats in that they evolve to fit the needs of those who are responsible for minimizing them.

Nushif
April 21, 2012, 03:19 PM
I suspect that the crime stats are much like the unemployment stats in that they evolve to fit the needs of those who are responsible for minimizing them.


While I agree, this opens up another problem in trying to make a good argument. 8(

If we can't take any of the pubished numbers at face values, and we are trying to avoid making unbacked statements ... we can't say anything about this whole issue at all!

I mean, let's assume all these statistics are doctored, much like for instance the unemployment rate that doesn't actually represent the percentile of the population unable to find or unwilling to do so, what can we base our arguments on?

And that's why make any kind of good argument about gun ownership using statistics at least to me is pointless.

The better argument for gun ownership arguably would have to be based on something other than statistics from susect data. 8)

X-Rap
April 21, 2012, 03:26 PM
There should be no argument for or against gun ownership just as there should be no argument on which news paper I wish to read or church I wish to worship in.
The justification lies with our fundamental rights and putting them up for debate only lessens the right and subjects it to some kind of privilege.

Vern Humphrey
April 21, 2012, 03:31 PM
I am saying that gun ownership being directly linked either positively or negatively to a decrease in crime is a myth.
In which case, you are wrong, since there is a correlation. Too bad bat it runs contrary to the anti-gunner's predictions.

Nushif
April 21, 2012, 03:32 PM
The justification lies with our fundamental rights and putting them up for debate only lessens the right and subjects it to some kind of privilege.

Pretty much it, but there is folks out there who would love nothing more than to tell all of us whether we get to own guns, which paper we read and where we worship.

And this board is kind of a resource to discuss with them about gun ownership. Reality is, sadly we do on the odd occasion have to defend our right to own personal firearms. We shouldn't have to, but we do. 8(

Bill_Rights
April 21, 2012, 03:49 PM
Nushif and some others:

Nushif said: I have yet to see a study that actually proves that. [that = as concealed carry goes up, crime goes down]

and

I am saying that gun ownership being directly linked either positively or negatively to a decrease in crime is a myth.
I don't think we need a study. Nor is it true that all things not humanly provable in the past are "myths". Here is the way someone who's thought about it a while put it:Ted Nugent wrote: As always, I also conducted numerous media interviews [at the St. Louis NRA convention] providing unlimited self-evident truth and the inexhaustible evidence supporting the beauty of keeping and bearing arms for defense of self, family and liberty. Unarmed helplessness is ... an embarrassing, irresponsible, crime-inducing condition [and] is inexcusable.
(Enjoy the full article here (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/19/st-louis-nra-party-rocked/).)In other words: It is self-evident that unarmed helplessness induces crime.
Therefore, it stands to reason that armed preparedness discourages crime. We pro-gunners freely admit that armed preparedness does not stop all crime. We freely admit that there are also other things that discourage crime (such as being accompanied by a 150 pound Dobermann Pinscher dog).

Not all things need a study. But is looks like Sky may have found a valid one. I feel sure if you contacted the NRA, they would be able to provide professionally researched data and credible interpretation of it. I live within rifle shot of the NRA National Headquarters, so maybe I will amble on over and ask on your behalf, if you want?

Nushif
April 21, 2012, 04:07 PM
I'm not entirely sure Ted is the ultimate source of quantifiable data correlation between crime and private weapon ownership.

As for a professionally researched study in this I would absolutely love to see an organisation that has no dog in the fight do one. I trust the NRA about as much as the Brady Campaign when it comes to reliable data on gun ownership. Why? Because both of them are a large, very large business model with a lot of money on the line and a built in bias, which is healthy in an organisation with an endstate. But it's still not reliable.

I am honestly quite surprised that nobody else is seeing some of these issues in the consruction of meaningful arguments. I do believe that logical, well founded reasoning and arguments can make the hysterical rantings of the antis seem utterly unfounded and paint them in a bad light.
But it's entirely too easy to go and throw some argument from authority out there, which is no more valid than an argument from emotion or hyperbole.

We, as a community in the public arena have a history of arguing a lot from authority. When that fails, we argue by using data that is often not meaningful or verifiable.
The Antis have a history of emotional arguments not grounded in reality. When that fails, they argue by using ... guess what ... data that is neither verifiable nor meaningful.

Neither of these are good aruments.

BLOOD IN THE STREETS! PANIC!

'MERICANS GOT GUNS! FREEDOM LIBERTY TED NUGENT!

I don't think either of these two rallying cries will serve to convinve everyone in the middle that gun owners are quite rational, normal everyday people who just happen to have a gun in case they get attacked.
On the flipside they won't convince anyone either that every gun owner is a killer with a short fuse just waiting to shoot someone.

We do have to take the higher road. And that means doing some critical thinking and constructing a good argument. Not repeating any argument in our favor just to counter the BLOOD IN THE STREETS cries.

In any case, peace out folks. I have some studying to do. You don't get the nifty Regimental Crest on your chest without it.

Vern Humphrey
April 21, 2012, 04:23 PM
When you put words in other people's mouths, you are either not being honest, or you are not being rational.

Bottom line: The antis predicted shootouts over parking spaces and soaring violent crime rates when liberalized CCW took effect -- and just the opposite happened.

The right to keep and bear arms is a basic civil right, enshrined in the Constitution. Anyone who says it should be infringed must say why, and prove his case.

Nushif
April 21, 2012, 04:28 PM
Vern, are you even reading what I write?

Tommygunn
April 21, 2012, 05:18 PM
Nushif (I am just asking here, not trying to be tendentious) what are your opinions on the studies by Gary Kleck and the Lott/Mustard, AKA Univ. of Chicago studies that (IIRC) do tend to suggest that there is a correlation between the ease of obtaining legal guns and a low(er) crime rate? Are they bogus?

Vern Humphrey
April 21, 2012, 05:29 PM
Vern, are you even reading what I write?
Nushif, are you even reading what you write?:rolleyes:

X-Rap
April 21, 2012, 05:49 PM
I believe there are no doubt correlations in the lawful presence of guns in society but so many of them are have demographics that lean towards decency to start with.
I would love to see DC, LA, Oakland, NYC. or Chicago allow very simple CCW with few restrictions or better yet Constitutional Carry and see what the stats said after a year or 2.
Big Texas or Florida cities would probably be an adequate study.

Gato Montés
April 21, 2012, 05:59 PM
Nushif is correct, 100 percent.

The golden rule is; Correlation DOES NOT equal casualty.

One cannot make a reasonable assumption based off correlations, ever.

Why? Third factor variables. Since this is not a true experiment which controls for outside variables nothing can be derived from these studies.

So why do we still use them? Sometimes an issue we wish to study is simply impossible to do in the confines of an actual experiment. Perhaps the study would be unethical, maybe the scope just to large. Or sometimes people who have an agenda wish to post some garbage stats to make their case seem legit, so they commission one.

Correlations can be interesting and they can hep inform a grander study, but one cannot make any honest statement using correlations alone.

Vern, he's not putting words in your mouth, simply showing the fallacy that is making facts out of correlations. It does not matter your logic behind those correlations, for those are your notions, perceptions which can skew any example to serve your own bias. I'm not insulting you, we all do it and that is why we must be ever so careful when we see data presented in an argument.

For an example, did you guys know that there is a positive correlation between violent crime and number of churches in a given area? Wonder why that is?

Vern Humphrey
April 21, 2012, 06:14 PM
The golden rule is; Correlation DOES NOT equal casualty.

One cannot make a reasonable assumption based off correlations, ever.

Actually, one can -- you make the mistake of assuming that to prove a point you must prove casualtiy. And you compound that mistake by applying it to only one side in the debate (thus conceding that the antis don't have to prove their position.)

The secret is the Null Hypothesis. It works like this:

First we test the Positive Hypothesis, "More guns equals more violent crime." The statistics we have completely refute that hypothesis. We can definitively say that "More guns do not equal more violent crime."

Next we test the fall-back position of the antis, "There is no correlation between liberalized CCW and violent crime." (That's the Null Hypothesis.)

The statistics refute the Null Hypothesis. There is a negative correlation between liberalized CCW and violent crime. (As liberalized CCW goes up, violent crime goes down.) Therefore the Null Hypothesis is rejected.

The rejection of the Null Hypothesis puts us in the position of being able to say with a very high degree of confidence, "You cannot reduce violent crime by reducing availability of guns in the general population."

And that scientifically cuts the ground out from under "gun control."

Gato Montés
April 21, 2012, 06:51 PM
If all you are doing is disproving a positive correlation between liberalized CCW and violent crime, then yes, you are absolutely correct. Statistics have not shown this to be true, the exact opposite in many cases. But what does this tell us?

That there is no correlation between liberalized CCW and increase in violent crime. That is all. You cannot infer anything other from that. It's true you wouldn't really need to in this case for that's really the only stat the anti's have in their arsenal.

What I'm talking about is someone stating "there is a positive correlation between increase in firearm ownership and decrease in violent crime, therefore, guns keep violent crime down." This cannot be inferred from a correlation, cause and effect cannot be identified.

So yes, if all you were saying is the primary stat anti's use to show a negative effect of firearm ownership is false, then you are correct and I misunderstood you.

Vern Humphrey
April 21, 2012, 07:19 PM
If all you are doing is disproving a positive correlation between liberalized CCW and violent crime, then yes, you are absolutely correct. Statistics have not shown this to be true, the exact opposite in many cases. But what does this tell us?
It tells us there is no justification for "gun control."
That there is no correlation between liberalized CCW and increase in violent crime. That is all. You cannot infer anything other from that. It's true you wouldn't really need to in this case for that's really the only stat the anti's have in their arsenal.
Actually there is a correlation between liberalized CCW and increase in violent crime. It is a negative correlation -- as one goes up, the other goes down.

What I'm talking about is someone stating "there is a positive correlation between increase in firearm ownership and decrease in violent crime, therefore, guns keep violent crime down." This cannot be inferred from a correlation, cause and effect cannot be identified.
That, however, is irrelevant to the discussion.

As I pointed out, there is no way to prove the theories of aerodynamics -- yet we can build airplanes that fly very well. It is the flying that counts, not the theory or the proof.

Similarly, it is the change in violent crime that counts, not the theories or suppositions.
So yes, if all you were saying is the primary stat anti's use to show a negative effect of firearm ownership is false, then you are correct and I misunderstood you.
That is exactly my point -- that they are violating our civil rights and citing "preventing violent crime" as their "justification." And we can show that justification is false.

Our airplane flies, theirs doesn't.

Bill_Rights
April 22, 2012, 01:03 AM
Vern, Gato/Nasser, Nushif and others:

Thank you! You have successfully parsed the logic of the relationship between
A1) the anti-gunners' assertion that more guns = more crime
and
B1) the pro-gunners' position that more guns (or at least an adequate number of guns) in the hands of law abiding citizens is a good thing for ordered society of free men and women.

And the relationship is..... (drumroll)...... NONE! ---> BECAUSE Proposition A1 is proven false, and everyone knew it going in!

Second, you have successfully parsed the logic of the relationship between
A2) the assertion that more guns = less crime
and
B2) the pro-gunners' position that more guns (or at least an adequate number of guns) in the hands of law abiding citizens is a good thing for ordered society of free men and women.

And the relationship is..... (drumroll)...... NONE! ---> BECAUSE the value or worth of Proposition B2 in no way depends upon the truth of Proposition A2. It might be nice if A2 were true, and there is some evidence that it is true (the airplane flies), but it doesn't matter. Therefore, we could skip even making such an argument as A2. If we engage in such an argument, we must be scrupulously correct, which is very difficult to do. If we make such an argument badly, we hurt the pro-gun case. Some would say we fall into a trap to even publically discuss A2 - it is a distraction suggested by the antis, to the detriment of pro-gunners'. [THIS EXPLAINS, by the way, WHY ANTIS PERSIST IN PUTTING FORTH A PATENTLY FALSE ARGUMENT, A1. :scrutiny:]

The actual work we pro gun rights folk have before us is to put Proposition B on a firm footing. Vern's assertion that Prop B is a "basic civil right, enshrined in the Constitution" appears to us not satisfactory. Why? Because i) Our opponents do not believe in the Constitution nor accept it as authority, ii) We are nice people and wish to win over our opponent on terms pleasing to the opponent, iii) We are prideful people and passionately desire to crush our opponent on his own turf (which is the same as "ii") and iv) We are not all that sure of the truth claims of (or underlying) the Constitution and we wish help our tired old Constitution along as it tries to survive in this post-modern age.

C'mon folks, we can do better than this!

I now bow out for the cool Spring night, to take my rest. Peace.

Gato Montés
April 22, 2012, 02:34 AM
That is exactly my point -- that they are violating our civil rights and citing "preventing violent crime" as their "justification." And we can show that justification is false.


Yeah, in my attempts to play catch up with the thread I mistakenly took other user's posts as part of your argument. My bad.:o

If we make such an argument badly, we hurt the pro-gun case.

When I was just entering college I was as anti as one could be. Guns kill people, blood in the streets, all that jazz. At the time, the state legislature was looking to pass CCW in Wisconsin (2004 or around there). It terrified me. How could we let this occur in our civilized society! We'll turn into a war zone, or so my media sources would inform me.

I got into a debate one night in a coffee house about CCW with a middle aged man who was all for it. How could he, couldn't he see the blood on the walls already?

"What about all the other states that have CCW and they experienced none of this massive bloodshed?"

You see, all these wonderful local media outlets didn't even MENTION the fact that most of the other states had CCW on the books already, something I was therefore completely oblivious about. I went home, did my research and sure enough all this was done before without any ill consequences. But how, I wondered.

It really got me thinking, and eventually I saw the light so to speak and joined the NRA. I was dead wrong in my notions, thanks in large part to a media base which hides fact in order to frame narratives and push agendas. I don't much care for lies, and I absolutely hate looking like a fool in a debate. From that point on I had a disregard for ANYTHING printed or otherwise, regardless if it agrees with my world paradigm or not.

The great (IMO) sociologist Max Weber had a concept known as Verstehen, which simply means understand. What he was saying is that looking at actions by themselves is useless; that the motivations behind those actions are what ultimately characterize and define the action itself. Violence is an action, but to understand violence is to understand the reasoning and motivation behind it. We know that placing a firearm into someone's hand will not all of a sudden turn them into a raging lunatic. Concurrently, we also know that simply banning firearms will not improve the situation of many folks who live in the roughest parts of town. To help prevent violence we have to target instigating variables that help bring violence about and alleviate them as much as possible. A vast majority of the Democratic Party's constituency live in these poor areas, and instead of taking an honest look at what causes violence, they instead pigeon hole the cause as the availability of firearms. This is a debate they could have forever, making it seem like they are doing their job guaranteeing reelection all the while deferring from any true progress in those areas.

Self defense is a natural right, and to adequately arm yourself is fulfillment of that right. The mere fact that it's guaranteed in the Constitution should be then end of that argument, but it's not, and as such I feel we have to prove the merits of the 2A in order to keep it alive.

It's late and I don't know if any of that made sense, but I'm to tired to go back and correct it. Stupid me, can't sleep so I go and check THR, end up writing a thesis.

Vern Humphrey
April 22, 2012, 03:26 PM
Thank you! You have successfully parsed the logic of the relationship between
A1) the anti-gunners' assertion that more guns = more crime
and
B1) the pro-gunners' position that more guns (or at least an adequate number of guns) in the hands of law abiding citizens is a good thing for ordered society of free men and women.

And the relationship is..... (drumroll)...... NONE! ---> BECAUSE Proposition A1 is proven false, and everyone knew it going in!

Wrong, and here's where you went wrong -- "more guns (or at least an adequate number of guns) in the hands of law abiding citizens is a good thing."

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right. It is enshrined in the Constitution. Therefore by definition it is a good thing.

And the negative correlation between CCW and violent crime shows there is no justification for restricting that fundamental right.

rajb123
April 22, 2012, 03:48 PM
President Regan gave an executive order that the metric system would not be taught in our schools.

How does CNN measure air temperature? ....

Celsius not Fahrenheit.... BOOO!

Straight Shooter 47
April 22, 2012, 09:48 PM
It is good to see the OP come around to the propoganda that is CNN. We older folks have known this for decades now. They, along with others, notably NBC & ABC, have been caught more than once over the years actually staging factually false reports on everything from autos to guns. To many to list here. All one has to do is look at the inventor and original founder of CNN, Ted Turner, and that alone should tell you how the
network was originally set up. The networks controlled all info that the general public recieved for many, many decades. CNN came along and was the only kid on the block for years. But, once other cable news networks showed up..notably FOX NEWS..like them or not, they lost the utter stranglehold theyve had on public/political influence fr so long. look into the background of the "hosts" they have on CNN. Sanjay GOOPTA or whatever the hell his name is, is an outright Anti-American son of a bitch,period.
That Brit bastard Piers Morgan should be slapped every hour, on the hour. He just cannot/will not accept that we dont want to be " more like Britain".
Anyway...thank God for the internet and cable news, i say.

Hacker15E
April 22, 2012, 10:09 PM
President Regan gave an executive order that the metric system would not be taught in our schools.

As a side note, do you have a citation for that?

All I can find is that Reagan disbanded the US Metric Board.

Bill_Rights
April 23, 2012, 02:05 AM
Vern,

When you saidWrong, and here's where you went wrong -- "more guns (or at least an adequate number of guns) in the hands of law abiding citizens is a good thing."

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right. It is enshrined in the Constitution. Therefore by definition it is a good thing.

And the negative correlation between CCW and violent crime shows there is no justification for restricting that fundamental right. you seem to be thinking that I am against your position. But, in fact, I am on our side. If you read my previous post carefully (which is painful to do, because I write too detailed, dense prose), you will see that we are saying the same thing.

I do go farther, though, by pointing out that some people do not accept our Constitutional warrant for "more guns (or at least an adequate number of guns) in the hands of law abiding citizens is a good thing."

I go on to analyze why some of our pro-gunner forum members feel inclined to make other supporting arguments, along side the Constitutional warrant. Maybe they think the Framers had their reasons for putting the 2A in the Constitution, but those reasons may not be the only ones nor the best ones. I said they "wish help our tired old Constitution along as it tries to survive in this post-modern age". I would like to see even a good summary of the Framers' reasons, as they were, for the 2A, as it is. Never mind finding even more reasons beyond what the Framers used.

awgrizzly
April 24, 2012, 12:54 AM
All very thoughtful Bill_Rights, but I'm a more simple man, you might even say simple minded. :p The framers stated why they single out the right to bear arms, realizing that it does not constitute a granting of a right but is an admonishment against the government messing with this right. That's very important, something few realize. The right exists from birth, it's inalienable, meaning that the rights cannot be assigned to us nor can they be removed... they naturally exist.

In view of this I contend that what the founders intended was exactly to keep the government's sticky fingers off our gun rights, and everything else pertaining to the number of guns we should own, what kind of guns, and the reason we choose to own these are our business only and none of anyone else's, especially the government's. That I think is key to this issue and many others... it's just none of their damned business.

Bill_Rights
April 24, 2012, 01:41 AM
Yeh, grizzly, our gun rights are a sub-set of our right to self defense. Self defense is a natural right, according to classical thinkers. Natural rights are not granted by any government, any person or any collection of persons. They pre-exist. (According to the Judeo-Christian version of classical thought, natural rights are God-given. They existed even before divine revelation or the Bible.)

You are exactly right, our Constitution does not grant us 2A rights. They pre-exist and are ours. It tells the government that nobody can take those rights away, least of all the government itself. In fact, I think the Constitution obligates the U.S. federal government to make war to protect its citizens gun rights against other governments that want to remove them (the UN comes to mind as an alien government).

Of course, our Founders recognized a need for self defense beyond preventing sudden bodily damage. Tyranny by a government is slow torture leading to the same death, just more painfully. Or slow torture leading to endless slavery, which is worse because the pain never stops. Surprizingly, the old lead slingers (guns) are still quite effective against tyranny. This must frustrate the heck out of the anti-freedom gun-grabbers ---> maybe they thought they would have death rays or something that would make guns meaningless.

Skribs
April 24, 2012, 10:42 AM
One thing we have to remember, folks, is that just because it is an amendment to the Constitution, doesn't mean it will always be an amendment. Look at the 18th and 21st amendments. Even if it was in the Constitution, that doesn't mean it can't be amended - that is why the Founding Fathers provisioned for the amendment process and desired that we have a living document.

I'm obviously pro-2A, so don't think I'm trying to say "you hide behind the Constitution." But if the Constitution is the only justification we have for RKBA, then we have lost. Saying "it's in the constitution, therefore it will never go away" is, IMO, a lazy way of looking at it. You've found a justification that works based solely on one document, and you're ignoring the fact that it can be changed (or worse, left the same but interpreted differently by a judge).

Actually, now that I think about it, I think the 2A should be amended. It should have stronger wording that makes it absolutely clear we're talking about the rights of individual citizens and not just a militia.

Sky
April 24, 2012, 12:28 PM
Actually, now that I think about it, I think the 2A should be amended. It should have stronger wording that makes it absolutely clear we're talking about the rights of individual citizens and not just a militia.
__________________

Wow that could work......Naw, by the time they got finished with the lawyer speak, the rewriting and the obligatory 8000 pages we would have to pass it just to see what was really in it. Maybe better to appoint Supreme Court Justices who know the purpose of the Constitution as written, no? Very dry sense of humor sorry.

Skribs
April 24, 2012, 01:21 PM
I'm suddenly reminded of the bit on Family Guy where the FF are writing the Bill of Rights.

"Don't you think we should reword #2? People might get confused as to what we're talking about."
"How? I don't see how anyone could take it to mean anything besides that everyone has the right to hang a pair of bear arms over their mantle."

rajb123
April 24, 2012, 03:20 PM
In the early 1990s CNN was fabulous and it had the highest TV ratings in the industry.

Their liberal non-scence, half-truth reporting and political smears have reduced their TV ratings to the bottom of the pile along with Microsoft-NBC (MSNBC).

They are not fair and balanced.

HGUNHNTR
April 24, 2012, 05:24 PM
You know what CNN stands for don't ya, "Communist News Network", after all their preaching about anti American traditions such as using deadly force to protect one self, and wait for the police to do it; what else could it stand for?
\Sorry but that's the most imbecilic comment I've seen in a while/

Nushif
April 24, 2012, 05:24 PM
They are not fair and balanced.

And next up, a message from our sponsors ...

Vector
April 25, 2012, 09:49 AM
I remember some of us speculating what would happen if the race of the shooter/victim were reversed. Most assumed it would get nary a peep from the national media, much less the race baiters.

http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/black-male-guns-down-white-hispanic-with-mental-capacity-of-12-year-old-national-media-curiously-disinterested/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

http://www.kpho.com/story/17347651/az-gun-laws-questioned-after-deadly-shooting

One wonders if this will devolve into the three ring circus that the Zimmerman/Martin case did.
By three ring circus I mean;

Online petitions

Media shenanigans injecting race

Marches with leashed Golden Retrievers chanting no justice no peace

A member of Congress taking the podium with a Golden Retriever

How about the Phoenix Suns doing a picture in support of Adkins all holding leashes with Golden Retrievers

Media pictures of Adkins from years ago showing him being cared for

Contrasted with media pictures of the shooter in a mug shot

Altered 911 tapes

Media speculation that the shooter said F'ing spic/honkey under his breath

JUST TO NAME A FEW.

I guess we will know soon but I'm not holding my breath.

Neverwinter
April 25, 2012, 01:56 PM
I remember some of us speculating what would happen if the race of the shooter/victim were reversed. Most assumed it would get nary a peep from the national media, much less the race baiters.

http://www.kpho.com/story/17347651/az-gun-laws-questioned-after-deadly-shooting

I guess we will know soon but I'm not holding my breath.
It would be unfortunate to die holding your breath due to a case of false equivalence.

Did the shooter have a history of problems with white Hispanics with dogs? Was the near accident precipitated by the appearance of Adkins? During the 911 call after the shooting, did the shooter describe his justifications in terms of perceptions which didn't match up with what a reasonable person would assume?

Or was this simply a road rage incident in which the races happened to be different, with the racial elements inserted by people who claim to be racially desensitized? ;)

Sent using Tapatalk 2

Vector
April 25, 2012, 04:01 PM
It would be unfortunate to die holding your breath due to a case of false equivalence.

Did the shooter have a history of problems with white Hispanics with dogs? Was the near accident precipitated by the appearance of Adkins? During the 911 call after the shooting, did the shooter describe his justifications in terms of perceptions which didn't match up with what a reasonable person would assume?

Or was this simply a road rage incident in which the races happened to be different, with the racial elements inserted by people who claim to be racially desensitized? ;)

Sent using Tapatalk 2
Well I don't accept your perceptions of the Zimmerman incident when you imply he had a problem with the race of Martin.
As to what a reasonable person would assume, how on earth do you know what Martin was doing to make Zimmerman come to the conclusions he did? All we have is Zimmerman's account of what happened and nothing more.

Regardless the overall point is that the media could have made this international news about how SYG laws were responsible for "innocent" people being killed.
The reason they didn't was because the races were reversed. Had this been a black person walking his dog with the mentality of a 12 year old, rest assured the media and the race baiters would have been on this story like flies on dung.

GambJoe
April 25, 2012, 10:09 PM
I been trying to understand the philosophies of both sides here and am always at a loss. The NRA does not encourage youth's to shoot each other and by the looks of things they don't need any outside help.

Guns do get certain "law abiders" to think stupidly and act stupidly. Yes, I have had guns flashed at me and once drawn on me by people who in my estimate should not be carring guns.

Hugo
April 25, 2012, 11:40 PM
Figuring out what is correlation and what is causation on planet Earth is very tough and very limited. You can't model 7 Billion people or even one country with 300 million people very accurately. All you can do is use logic and some case studies from a city or state and it's decisions on laws and crime. New Jersey has draconian and foolish gun laws and crime is kind of higher there vs. New Hampshire which has reasonable and sane gun laws. Reading between the lines much more than that is where things get blurry fast.

The media (any channel, but some clearly have bias in one direction) is very ADD and "must fill time with endless speculation". This goes very, very badly like with Richard Jewel (Atlanta Olympics park bombing hero who was horribly blamed as a villian), and the Duke Lacrosse fake rape mess are two examples but likely many more are not uncovered.

Again, Edward R. Murrow would be pretty fracking angry with the media today. Reform is needed and fast. One good comedy show that points out this absurdity is "The Soup" with Joel McHale.

Neverwinter
April 26, 2012, 12:11 AM
Well I don't accept your perceptions of the Zimmerman incident when you imply he had a problem with the race of Martin.
As to what a reasonable person would assume, how on earth do you know what Martin was doing to make Zimmerman come to the conclusions he did? All we have is Zimmerman's account of what happened and nothing more.We also have the past "suspicious person" call history and the consistent racial details of those. The interview with the couple from the gated community regarding his repetition of color. The account from the girlfriend complements the unremarkable comments from Zimmerman's call, and they lessen the relevance of Martin's behavior.

Regardless the overall point is that the media could have made this international news about how SYG laws were responsible for "innocent" people being killed.
The reason they didn't was because the races were reversed. Had this been a black person walking his dog with the mentality of a 12 year old, rest assured the media and the race baiters would have been on this story like flies on dung.
It wasn't because the races were reversed. It was because the lack of the racial motivation for the confrontation, compared to a road rage incident. Championing that road rage incident as being racially motivated itself is race baiting unless similar data as the Zimmerman case emerges.

Vern Humphrey
April 26, 2012, 06:50 PM
We also have the past "suspicious person" call history and the consistent racial details of those. The interview with the couple from the gated community regarding his repetition of color. The account from the girlfriend complements the unremarkable comments from Zimmerman's call, and they lessen the relevance of Martin's behavior.
That's incorrect. Zimmerman, as a neighborhood watch captain would naturally make calls at night -- but never did he call in based on race. In every recorded call, the only we know the race of the suspicious person is when the dispatcher asks him about race.

But, hey, don't let me interfere with your lynching party!

Vector
April 27, 2012, 12:48 AM
We also have the past "suspicious person" call history and the consistent racial details of those. The interview with the couple from the gated community regarding his repetition of color. The account from the girlfriend complements the unremarkable comments from Zimmerman's call, and they lessen the relevance of Martin's behavior.


I guess you are either not fully aware of all the details of the case, or are just choosing to be selective. Zimmerman did make a multitude of calls to police, some involving blacks, some not. However if the majority of those arrested(which some were) happen to be black, it does not mean Zimmerman was guilty of anything other than reporting crimes in progress. If I live near Little Havana and most all of the crimes are committed by Latins who live and work in the surrounding area, it does not make me a racist or racial profiler.That is an assumption on your part which the media went out of it's way to create.

Zimmerman was also a person who not only looked after some black youths, he was on a crusade to get justice for a black homeless victim. He apparently also has black roots in his racially mixed genes. The bottom line is that the media tried to make him out to be a wannabe cop who was a white racist. In reality he was a Democrat voting Hispanic, who seems to have friends in the black community, and was helpful to them more than the average person.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

Not exactly what the liberal and biased media wanted everyone to believe.

BTW - The NBC guy who doctored the 911 tapes to make it seem as if Zimmerman mentioned race without being asked by the dispatcher was fired today even though he does not even think he did anything wrong.


As to Martin's supposed girlfriend, it has come out that not only was she not his girlfriend, but she went to McDonalds the next day and did not grieve for Martin.


It wasn't because the races were reversed. It was because the lack of the racial motivation for the confrontation, compared to a road rage incident. Championing that road rage incident as being racially motivated itself is race baiting unless similar data as the Zimmerman case emerges.

I never said nor did the newscast imply race was a factor. However the point is that the media could have just as easily turned it into a racial issue that people such as yourself would assume to be true had the races been reversed. This notion about it being road rage seems laughable since it involved a man walking his dog, and another man coming out of a drive thru.

If you want to be obtuse regarding how the media framed the Zimmerman/Martin incident from the beginning there is little anyone can do to get you to stop drinking the koolaid. However this case has opened a lot of peoples eyes that were otherwise closed when it comes to trusting the media to bring us a neutral and unbiased story.

Neverwinter
April 27, 2012, 10:01 PM
However if the majority of those arrested(which some were) happen to be black, it does not mean Zimmerman was guilty of anything other than reporting crimes in progress. If I live near Little Havana and most all of the crimes are committed by Latins who live and work in the surrounding area, it does not make me a racist or racial profiler.Except when the selection of the people reported is primarily on the basis of the race as opposed to behavioral criteria which are exhibited.

The bottom line is that the media tried to make him out to be a wannabe cop who was a white racist. In reality he was a Democrat voting Hispanic, who seems to have friends in the black community, and was helpful to them more than the average person.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425Thank you for posting that link. It provides good insight into the behavior which I am pointing out. Start reading at A NEIGHBORHOOD IN FEAR. It recounts several cases of young black men victimizing a neighborhood, stealing a bike and laptop among other things. Things were so bad in the neighborhood that one of the kids living there was accused of stealing a bicycle, and had to prove it was his to police checking the serial number. It just so happened to be that he was a black kid. Maybe it wasn't racial and they went to every kid to check bicycles...

*http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249_p2/trayvon-martin-shooter-a-habitual.html

As to Martin's supposed girlfriend, it has come out that not only was she not his girlfriend, but she went to McDonalds the next day and did not grieve for Martin.
Going to McDonalds the next day doesn't preclude grieving. Unless you're talking about social grieving, not psychological grieving. And not altogether helpful to your argument in the first place.

I never said nor did the newscast imply race was a factor. However the point is that the media could have just as easily turned it into a racial issue that people such as yourself would assume to be true had the races been reversed. This notion about it being road rage seems laughable since it involved a man walking his dog, and another man coming out of a drive thru.
It's only laughable with a poor understanding of road rage. Road rage can happen between a motorist and a pedestrian. Aside from that, your assumption is false regarding the turning of it into a racial issue if they had been reversed. There is enough information to support the argument that there were racial issues present when Martin was shot. Your own linked article corroborates that argument. That would not happen for the Adkins incident, unless for some reason similar information was uncovered.

If you want to be obtuse regarding how the media framed the Zimmerman/Martin incident from the beginning there is little anyone can do to get you to stop drinking the koolaid. However this case has opened a lot of peoples eyes that were otherwise closed when it comes to trusting the media to bring us a neutral and unbiased story.My argument was never predicated on the idea that he was a white racist wannabe cop. The wannabe cop argument stands on it's own without having to involve how white he is, with the "aoles who always get away" comment.
As much as the media is drinking their own koolaid, I have no desire to get koolaid of a different flavor from the people who are doing their best to make every mental contortion from poor analytical psychology red herrings to avoid any discussion that might look poorly on SYG.

Vector
April 28, 2012, 01:02 AM
Except when the selection of the people reported is primarily on the basis of the race as opposed to behavioral criteria which are exhibited.

Thank you for posting that link. It provides good insight into the behavior which I am pointing out. Start reading at A NEIGHBORHOOD IN FEAR. It recounts several cases of young black men victimizing a neighborhood, stealing a bike and laptop among other things. Things were so bad in the neighborhood that one of the kids living there was accused of stealing a bicycle, and had to prove it was his to police checking the serial number. It just so happened to be that he was a black kid. Maybe it wasn't racial and they went to every kid to check bicycles...


I am not sure you and I are taking the same language. If a particular neighborhood is being plagued by crime, and it is all or mostly by a particular race, what exactly are the people living there suppose to do?

Another words if a stranger who is green is seen lurking around at night when it is cold and raining, and it just so happens that most of the crimes have been caused by green people, should that not make the people living there suspicious?
Or should they say to themselves, gee, I do not want to think the worst of green people, so I am going to ignore this person because assuming they might be up to no good is wrong.
That maybe the Utopian world you wished we lived in, but in the real world it would be asinine to think and react that way.



Going to McDonalds the next day doesn't preclude grieving. Unless you're talking about social grieving, not psychological grieving. And not altogether helpful to your argument in the first place.


First of all I am not arguing. Second, I did not bring up the "girlfriend", you did. I am simply pointing out that according to the latest reports, she is denying being his girlfriend, and her lack of grieving goes well beyond her going to McD's the next day. In reality she will play little to no roll in the case since what she has to say is limited in scope.


It's only laughable with a poor understanding of road rage. Road rage can happen between a motorist and a pedestrian. Aside from that, your assumption is false regarding the turning of it into a racial issue if they had been reversed. There is enough information to support the argument that there were racial issues present when Martin was shot. Your own linked article corroborates that argument. That would not happen for the Adkins incident, unless for some reason similar information was uncovered.


My goodness you are being obtuse. Of course the Adkins situation should not be considered racial, just as the Martin case should not have. My only point is that the media picks and chooses which stories they will frame as racially motivated based on their own inherent biases and political thinking. Why are you so unwilling to accept that?

My argument was never predicated on the idea that he was a white racist wannabe cop. The wannabe cop argument stands on it's own without having to involve how white he is, with the "aoles who always get away" comment.
As much as the media is drinking their own koolaid, I have no desire to get koolaid of a different flavor from the people who are doing their best to make every mental contortion from poor analytical psychology red herrings to avoid any discussion that might look poorly on SYG.

I will be happy to discuss any aspect of the Martin case you wish. However I also want to discuss how the liberal media frames and distorts most of what we read and watch. The only difference in this case is that they are in large part responsible for stirring racial animus in the Martin incident when it did not exist.
More importantly, most black kids that are shot on a regular basis are killed by fellow blacks, yet the media does not turn those incidents into international news. Instead they are willing to misidentify the race of the shooter and imply that another innocent black has been killed at the hand of white people, ignoring the fact it is a statistical rarity.

So ask me questions and/or discuss the case with me, but also answer and discuss the medias role in this as well if you want some back and forth.

Vern Humphrey
April 28, 2012, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Neverwinter. Except when the selection of the people reported is primarily on the basis of the race as opposed to behavioral criteria which are exhibited.
That's not what happened.

The tapes of all the calls Zimmerman made have been made public. Zimmerman never reported a suspicious person by race. The only time he mentioned race is when the dispatcher asked him the race of the person.

JFrame
April 28, 2012, 11:52 AM
That's not what happened.

The tapes of all the calls Zimmerman made have been made public. Zimmerman never reported a suspicious person by race. The only time he mentioned race is when the dispatcher asked him the race of the person.

Of course, in the widely circulated first-cut "news" report, the question by the dispatcher was mysteriously edited out -- an "oversight" for which an NBC "Today" show producer, and an NBC-affiliate "reporter" who compiled a similar sound bite, were both fired.

But of course, no "journalists" are guilty of lack of clarity, ethics, or other mundane attributes in pursuit of a juicier story...


.

Neverwinter
April 28, 2012, 12:01 PM
If a particular neighborhood is being plagued by crime, and it is all or mostly by a particular race, what exactly are the people living there suppose to do?

Another words if a stranger who is green is seen lurking around at night when it is cold and raining, and it just so happens that most of the crimes have been caused by green people, should that not make the people living there suspicious?

The article does not mention that the majority or all of the incidents were perpetuated by such. Maybe that's a failing of the media in accurately conveying the data.
Does that justify reporting all young black males that are seen in the community? Observe from outside the lens of privilege, that not all young people have access to a car for when they go to the convenience store.

My goodness you are being obtuse. Of course the Adkins situation should not be considered racial, just as the Martin case should not have. My only point is that the media picks and chooses which stories they will frame as racially motivated based on their own inherent biases and political thinking. Why are you so unwilling to accept that?
The point is that your Adkins case doesn't prove that statement because the reasons that Martin was identified as being racial are not present in the Adkins incident. Your own statement was that race should play a factor in determining whether people are suspicious. There is nothing so far to suggest that Adkins was selected to be almost run over and shot because of racial animus.

I will be happy to discuss any aspect of the Martin case you wish. However I also want to discuss how the liberal media frames and distorts most of what we read and watch. The only difference in this case is that they are in large part responsible for stirring racial animus in the Martin incident when it did not exist.
Except that there was racial animus in the Martin incident, as corroborated by the Reuters article you provided. You even agreed with the concept of the racial animus. Claiming that the media is biased by not injecting racial issues into the non-racial Adkins case doesn't make sense. There are racial issues with the Martin case, and the media is reporting on them.

Neverwinter
April 28, 2012, 12:05 PM
That's not what happened.

The tapes of all the calls Zimmerman made have been made public. Zimmerman never reported a suspicious person by race. The only time he mentioned race is when the dispatcher asked him the race of the person.
Reporting is different than selection.

Vector has kindly provided ample evidence for the role of race in selection.

DammitBoy
April 28, 2012, 12:12 PM
Except when the selection of the people reported is primarily on the basis of the race as opposed to behavioral criteria which are exhibited.



Incorrect. Zimmerman reported behavior, the police asked questions about race.

You are claiming he made his selection on who to report, based on race. There is no evidence to support your assumption.

Vern Humphrey
April 28, 2012, 12:19 PM
Quote by Neverwinter. The article does not mention that the majority or all of the incidents were perpetuated by such. Maybe that's a failing of the media in accurately conveying the data.
Or maybe it's also the fault of people who believe what they want to believe, and keep repeating it long after it's been refuted.
Quote by Neverwinter.
Does that justify reporting all young black males that are seen in the community?

You have evidence of that? Can you give us a cite that shows he reported all young black males who were seen in the community?

Or is that just your imagination?
[QUOTE]Quote by Neverwinter. Observe from outside the lens of privilege, that not all young people have access to a car for when they go to the convenience store.
Nor do all White people.

Neverwinter
April 28, 2012, 12:37 PM
Or maybe it's also the fault of people who believe what they want to believe, and keep repeating it long after it's been refuted.Oops. You're right. CNN reports it (http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/03/zimmerman-neighbor-fmr-neighborhood-watch-captain-prior-burglaries-were-by-young-black-males-if-you-plant-corn-you-get-corn/):
Zimmerman neighbor, fmr. Neighborhood Watch captain: Prior burglaries were by 'young black males;' 'if you plant corn, you get corn'

"Frank Taaffe, George Zimmerman’s neighbor and former Neighborhood Watch captain, tells CNN’s Soledad O’Brien that prior robberies in area were by young black males and that Zimmerman protected his residence from a potential burglary on February 2nd. Taaffe denies telling The New York Times that the prior burglaries were done by “Trayvon-like dudes with their pants down."

Taffe says, “We had eight burglaries in our neighborhood all perpetrated by young black males in the 15 months prior to Trayvon being shot. It would have been nine - there would have been nine, but George Zimmerman through his efforts of being a neighborhood watch captain helped stop one in progress, documented in the 911 calls February 2. My house was being robbed, and George on his nightly rounds watched this burglary in progress, called Sanford P.D., waited for them, and helped ensure that nothing bad happened to my house. And it's documented the 911 call for February 2. That was my residence that George Zimmerman helped stop.”

Taaffe continues, “All of the perpetrators of the burglaries, the prior burglaries, were young black males.”"

You have evidence of that? Can you give us a cite that shows he reported all young black males who were seen in the community?

Or is that just your imagination?
Sorry, the selection of ALL vs ANY was poor word choice that doesn't correctly describe it. It was that his selection of Martin was based on race since walking instead of driving a car in the rain was the behavior observed for Zimmerman's perception of suspicion.

Vern Humphrey
April 28, 2012, 12:59 PM
Oops. You're right. CNN reports it:
Zimmerman neighbor, fmr. Neighborhood Watch captain: Prior burglaries were by 'young black males;' 'if you plant corn, you get corn'

So if your neighbor says something that someone might interpret as racist, that would make you a racist?

There is no evidence that Zimmerman ever called in to report someone as Black. In every incident in which he mentioned race, it was in response to a question by the dispatcher.

It was that his selection of Martin was based on race since walking instead of driving a car in the rain was the behavior observed for Zimmerman's perception of suspicion.
What evidence do you have that he "selected Martin based on race?"

DammitBoy
April 28, 2012, 02:16 PM
What evidence do you have that he "selected Martin based on race?"

He has none. Merely conjecture and assumptions based on a personal bias.

Vector
April 28, 2012, 03:05 PM
The article does not mention that the majority or all of the incidents were perpetuated by such. Maybe that's a failing of the media in accurately conveying the data.


WRONG

Now I see why you are having trouble comprehending what I am saying because you have selective reading and listening problems. Here is a quote from the link I provided;

"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."

Does that justify reporting all young black males that are seen in the community?

Another incorrect assumption on your part. You have no way of knowing how many calls Zimmerman made about people of different races except what is reported.
Regardless the Miami Herald reported that some of the calls Zimmerman made that they knew about did not relate to black males.
As to this incident, if he saw any young guy he did not recognize walking around townhouses back yards at night in the cold rain, he certainly sounds like the type of person who would report it, regardless of race.
Wouldn't you, especially if there had been a rash of burglaries in your neighborhood and you were part of the neighborhood watch?

The point is that your Adkins case doesn't prove that statement because the reasons that Martin was identified as being racial are not present in the Adkins incident.


Wrong again. The non existent racial aspect was not relevant in either.
So I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the media in that if they were going to frame the Martin incident as racial, then they should be consistent and do the same for the Adkins incident. he fact that they didn't, and typically don't when minorities are the shooters just goes to further my point.


Your own statement was that race should play a factor in determining whether people are suspicious. There is nothing so far to suggest that Adkins was selected to be almost run over and shot because of racial animus.


You have again gotten it wrong. I said race should only play a factor in the event that enough prior incidents reflected that a majority of the crimes in a neighborhood were committed by a particular race(i.e. Little Havana example). The same would relate to gender in that I'd be much more suspicious of boys and men than girls and women. I guess that would make me a gender profiler in your mind, right?


Except that there was racial animus in the Martin incident, as corroborated by the Reuters article you provided. You even agreed with the concept of the racial animus. Claiming that the media is biased by not injecting racial issues into the non-racial Adkins case doesn't make sense. There are racial issues with the Martin case, and the media is reporting on them.

:rolleyes:
Read above as to the apparent conflict in your mind regarding the two incidents. Lastly, the racial animus I speak of is related to what the media and the race baiters created by turning it into a racial incident, which it clearly was not.

LongTimeGone
April 28, 2012, 03:17 PM
Neverwinter always shows up with his strawmen in these types of posts.

Vern Humphrey
April 28, 2012, 03:31 PM
He has none. Merely conjecture and assumptions based on a personal bias.
You hit the nail right on the head.

It's the Dan Rather syndrome: "Yes, the document is a forgery, but what it says is true."

"How do you know that, Mr. Rather?"

"Well, I believe it!"

Vector
April 28, 2012, 04:32 PM
You guys seem to know him, and him either being obtuse and/or trying to obfuscate the subject is a pattern with him?

Vern Humphrey
April 28, 2012, 04:56 PM
He mostly spends his time sitting under a bridge and waiting for the Three Billy Goats Gruff to come by.:rolleyes:

Ky Larry
April 28, 2012, 05:16 PM
Getting back to the o.p; Yes, all news reporting should be fair and unbiased.Also

1. The world should be full of rainbows and unicorns.
2. The husband should be the master of his home.
3. Pedestrians should always have the right of way.
4. Everyone should always have a parking space.
5, All pregnancies should be planned.:rolleyes:

Vector
April 28, 2012, 05:24 PM
He mostly spends his time sitting under a bridge and waiting for the Three Billy Goats Gruff to come by.:rolleyes:

I assume he is a gun owner, just of the liberal persuasion then?

Getting back to the o.p; Yes, all news reporting should be fair and unbiased.

What I would love to to know is how the average American citizen which tends to be center-right can effect positive change on an industry that is fairly far left for the most part?

Vern Humphrey
April 28, 2012, 05:25 PM
What I would love to to know is how the average American citizen which tends to be center-right can effect positive change on an industry that is fairly far left for the most part?
By watching another channel, of course. As the audience drops off, so does revenue.

Ky Larry
April 28, 2012, 05:40 PM
Amen, Vern. To paraphrase Peter Finch in "Network":

"We'll tell you any sxxx you want to hear."

Great movie. It was made in 1976 and still rings true today. The line between news and entertainment is gone.

DammitBoy
April 28, 2012, 09:16 PM
It's the Dan Rather syndrome: "Yes, the document is a forgery, but what it says is true."

"How do you know that, Mr. Rather?"

"Well, I believe it!"


“Opinion has become the new truth. And many people who already have opinions see in the ‘news media’ an affirmation of the opinion they already had, and that confirms their opinion as fact.” ~ Orson

Vector
April 28, 2012, 10:03 PM
By watching another channel, of course. As the audience drops off, so does revenue.

I agree with that, but it is not enough. People think FOX is conservative because they are so use to left wing news sources. However if we had a channel that was as extreme right as most of the media is left, many would begin to see FOX as genuinely moderate or as they say "fair and balanced". I am of course talking about their actual news, not the talking head and commentary shows.

So aside from changing the channel or not buying the only newspaper in town, what other things can we do to affect change?

Neverwinter
April 29, 2012, 10:07 AM
So if your neighbor says something that someone might interpret as racist, that would make you a racist?How did you get to calling Zimmerman racist? That link was to a CNN article with a neighbor noting that all of the burglaries were committed by young black males, despite the Reuters article only using the words "several". This was a thread regarding CNN's coverage.

What evidence do you have that he "selected Martin based on race?"From his own call with a number of false perceptions, namely drug use and being one of "those aoles who always get away" that were based on behavior which is normal for someone without a car who has to walk. If we are to take that behavior as being suspicious, then countless white/black, young/old people are now suspicious in their daily life. Either that or race played a significant factor in his selection of Martin as suspicious, which is what is assumed to be the case given that "race should only play a factor in the event that enough prior incidents reflected that a majority of the crimes in a neighborhood were committed by a particular race".

"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."
That quote only indicates that there were black boys robbing houses in that neighborhood. Nothing about how many of the total robberies were committed by them, unless the reader assumes that white/latino/etc were not also significantly represented among the thieves.


Regardless the Miami Herald reported that some of the calls Zimmerman made that they knew about did not relate to black males.
As to this incident, if he saw any young guy he did not recognize walking around townhouses back yards at night in the cold rain, he certainly sounds like the type of person who would report it, regardless of race.The fact that not all calls were regarding black males doesn't preclude the selection of suspicious people on the basis of being black males.

ABC: Trayvon Martin Shooter Zimmerman’s Audio Tapes Show Calm (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/04/trayvon-martin-shooter-zimmermans-911-audio-tapes/)
Since August 2011, Zimmerman has called in to a non-emergency police line seven times, according to documents released by the Sanford Police Department. Of those calls, five were made to report a “suspicious person.” In the audio released by Seminole County Sheriff’s Department, he describes the suspicious characters as black or African-American, though never mentioning race until after he was asked to describe the characters. These five calls all began similarly, with Zimmerman saying that he was calling as a result of past break-ins or robberies.

Wrong again. The non existent racial aspect was not relevant in either.
So I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the media in that if they were going to frame the Martin incident as racial, then they should be consistent and do the same for the Adkins incident. he fact that they didn't, and typically don't when minorities are the shooters just goes to further my point.
You're asking them to report on something that doesn't exist, as opposed to a case where it does exist and multiple sources corroborate it.

I said race should only play a factor in the event that enough prior incidents reflected that a majority of the crimes in a neighborhood were committed by a particular race(i.e. Little Havana example). The same would relate to gender in that I'd be much more suspicious of boys and men than girls and women. I guess that would make me a gender profiler in your mind, right?If all other variables are the same. I'm not sure why you're picking a fight with a dictionary here. If you select boys as being suspicious primarily on the basis of them being a boy, you are profiling by definition.

Lastly, the racial animus I speak of is related to what the media and the race baiters created by turning it into a racial incident, which it clearly was not.Except for the people in the that community who agree that it was, among the other available information.

I agree with that, but it is not enough. People think FOX is conservative because they are so use to left wing news sources. However if we had a channel that was as extreme right as most of the media is left, many would begin to see FOX as genuinely moderate or as they say "fair and balanced". I am of course talking about their actual news, not the talking head and commentary shows.Their "fair and balanced news" quotes their commentary and talking head shows as sources.

If the new channel does happen, we'll finally know the answer to the question:
"Is a sufficiently right wing source indistinguishable from Colbert?"

DammitBoy
April 29, 2012, 10:41 AM
based on behavior which is normal for someone without a car who has to walk. If we are to take that behavior as being suspicious, then countless white/black, young/old people are now suspicious in their daily life.

That's a pantload of crap and you know it.

Big difference between "walking" and "walking at night, in the rain, through all your neighbors backyards". One activity is normal, the other - not so much. Especially for people living in a gated community.

Neverwinter
April 29, 2012, 10:48 AM
That's a pantload of crap and you know it.

Big difference between "walking" and "walking at night, in the rain, through all your neighbors backyards". One activity is normal, the other - not so much. Especially for people living in a gated community.
It seems that being out at night in the rain and taking shortcuts to go home should not be acceptable in a gated community.

geekWithA.45
April 29, 2012, 10:54 AM
...

Nushif
April 29, 2012, 10:56 AM
It seems that being out at night in the rain and taking shortcuts to go home should not be acceptable in a gated community.

Well, to point out another elephant in the room ... they didn't invent gated communities so the people in them can mingle with the poor, ugly, exotic and strange people.

So arguably it isn't.

DammitBoy
April 29, 2012, 03:35 PM
It seems that being out at night in the rain and taking shortcuts to go home should not be acceptable in a gated community.

Did not say that. Your intellectual dishonesty is showing.

It is unusual behavior that could easily be considered suspicious. Have you lived in a gated community? I have, nobody walks anywhere - especially late at night, in the rain, through everyone's backyard.

If someone was walking through your backyard, at night, in the rain - I'm sure you'd (maybe not you, but at least anyone who is honest) consider that behavior that might warrant closer inspection.

No racial bias required (neither that made up by the media, the race baiters, or you).

Vector
April 29, 2012, 05:11 PM
How did you get to calling Zimmerman racist? That link was to a CNN article with a neighbor noting that all of the burglaries were committed by young black males, despite the Reuters article only using the words "several". This was a thread regarding CNN's coverage.

You are the one who wants us to accept that Zimmerman was racially profiling, therefore a racist on some level. Even if you could accept that racial profiling does not automatically make a person a racist, your dogged assertion that race played a role is based on your own inherent biases.

From his own call with a number of false perceptions, namely drug use and being one of "those aoles who always get away" that were based on behavior which is normal for someone without a car who has to walk. If we are to take that behavior as being suspicious, then countless white/black, young/old people are now suspicious in their daily life.

Maybe Martin was acting or walking funny. Then again maybe Zimmerman used a few terms that he knew might get the police out sooner. Believe me that when you make calls for non emergencies in a decent sized town, police response can take hours. So it is not beyond experienced people to embellish the possibilities to get a faster response without causing it to be escalated to an emergency response.
Also most people, young or not, do not walk around at night in the cold rain.
Lastly his expression of frustration did not indicate anything racial. On the contrary he had probably experienced waiting on the police to arrive only to find that the person he called about had already left.
I myself sometime call the police when I see able bodied people abuse the Handicapped Parking space system. Rarely does a LEO arrive before the person hops in their car and drives off. I would not be surprised if my recording expressed a similar sentiment.


Either that or race played a significant factor in his selection of Martin as suspicious, which is what is assumed to be the case given that "race should only play a factor in the event that enough prior incidents reflected that a majority of the crimes in a neighborhood were committed by a particular race".

I have never claimed to know what was in Zimmerman's heart, only assuming based on his own statements coupled with the 911 call, what might be going on in his head.
I just do not understand why you cannot see how this could have happened without race being a factor.
Let's say you live in a neighborhood that has had a rash of burglaries and you are part of a neighborhood watch to help protect your neighborhood. You see a stranger (race irrelevant) walking in between townhomes backyards on a cold rainy night. Wouldn't that strike you as strange? Or would you actually think this could be a poor young guy who has no car, so it is understandable he must go out in the cold rain at night to get from point A to B. If it is the latter, you are certainly not the person people would want to be on the watch.

It has been assumed from day one that Martin was merely walking from the store to where he was staying. While that very well may be true, it does not exclude the possibility that he was looking around at things which made him look suspicious. It could have been anything from admiring peoples backyard gardens, being a Peeping Tom, or even casing a place to steal something. I wont assume the worse, but neither will I assume it was beyond the realm of possibility. So while I can accept he probably was not doing anything wrong, based on some of his past, he certainly could have been. Clearly whatever he was doing raised the suspicion of Zimmerman.


That quote only indicates that there were black boys robbing houses in that neighborhood. Nothing about how many of the total robberies were committed by them, unless the reader assumes that white/latino/etc were not also significantly represented among the thieves.

Nice try at a dodge, but it is a failure nevertheless.
You said, and I quote;
"The article does not mention that the majority or all of the incidents were perpetuated by such."

Which was inaccurate on your part, so I then posted the relevant portion you denied existed. Why can't you even admit the factual mistakes you make, much less the ones that are based on common sense?



he describes the suspicious characters as black or African-American, though never mentioning race until after he was asked to describe the characters. These five calls all began similarly, with Zimmerman saying that he was calling as a result of past break-ins or robberies.

The highlighted portion says all that needs to be said to dispel your incorrect assumption.

You're asking them to report on something that doesn't exist, as opposed to a case where it does exist and multiple sources corroborate it.

Incorrect again.
Show me any source where it is a fact. All you will likely to be able to come up with from your "multiple sources" is speculation or assumptions that Zimmerman was racially profiling and/or racist in some way.



It seems that being out at night in the rain and taking shortcuts to go home should not be acceptable in a gated community.

It certainly is not normal or common on a cold rainy night. Why you have such trouble comprehending such things are beyond me. Yet maybe when you answer the question about what you would do in a similar situation, it might shed some light on your thought process.

Vern Humphrey
April 29, 2012, 05:20 PM
It seems that being out at night in the rain and taking shortcuts to go home should not be acceptable in a gated community.
I gather you're taking this position because you've already bought the rope and you're afraid there will be no one to lynch.

Carl N. Brown
April 29, 2012, 05:42 PM
It seems that being out at night in the rain and taking shortcuts to go home should not be acceptable in a gated community.

See X-Files "Arcadia": in a gated community, painting your mailbox Desert Coral in stead of Desert Sienna will get you disappeared.

Yes, I have had guns flashed at me and once drawn on me by people who in my estimate should not be carring guns.

Once I had a .38 held between my eyes, cocked and uncocked, with the noses of the bullets in cylinder making a sixth of a rotation with every click. Another time I had a loaded .45 shoved in my gut. (1) The people who did that did not acquire their guns legally. (2) The people who did that did not have a carry permit.

Laws against legal sales and laws banning legal carry would not have disarmed the people who threatened me. Such laws would only disarm me, and then only if I put obedience to senseless laws above my own personal safety.

Both incidents occurred when Tennessee had CLEO sign-off required on application for permission to purchase with maximum 15 day waiting period, and carry by a "special deputy badge"-only which some sheriffs refused to issue. The result was a handgun black market cash-n-carry no questions asked.

Nushif
April 29, 2012, 05:54 PM
See X-Files "Arcadia": in a gated community, painting your mailbox Desert Coral in stead of Desert Sienna will get you disappeared.

While that is a bit drastic, the point is that in a gated community walking without a dog in decent weather *is* actually suspicious.
So using a gated community as a measure of acceptable behavior is kind of a logical error.

Those places are *not* the average street in an average town. People voluntarily live there, pay a lot of money and abide by a certain set of "normality" rules in order to keep some sort of population out.

There truly is this disconnect between what is suspicious in the normal wrld and in the artificial environment that is a gated community.
Is this an excuse to chase someone down actively on foot, after exiting a vehicle? I don't think so, but that's a differerent discussion.

If the discussion is about whether it was suspicious that a lone teenager (of any color, really) in a dreaded hoodie walking in the rain is indeed suspicious in a gated community .... then I would say that *is* suspicious. But I think this thread is quite derailed already.

Skribs
April 30, 2012, 11:05 AM
They have a new one now, where a 29-year-old mentally handicapped man was shot by a driver after he blocked the road.

IF CNN is reporting the events accurately, then the man had, IMO, no legal justification for use of lethal force at that point in the interraction. However, CNN seems to jump from "someone was shot, and the shooter claims self defense, and according to the evidence we present, it wasn't self defense" to "self defense laws are evil."

Robert
April 30, 2012, 11:57 AM
Ok this is done. I should have been paying closer attention to this mess.

If you enjoyed reading about "I'm tired of CNN and their 2A/SYG rhetoric" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!