ALERT: Fareed Zakaria going on CNN tonight about gun control

Status
Not open for further replies.
The comments calling out this "expert" brought a smile to my face. Maybe there is hope for CNN after all. Hey, I can dream.
 
CNN pushing gun control? You don't say.

It's part of the game. They will never stop. Fight back at the ballot box, by supporting pro gun organizations, and by getting involved.
 
I am equally as worried that people think that the United States should shape its policies on what other nations do, or what citizens of other nations think.
 
The only thing of even slight interest about this "educated" twit was/is his fine wine collection. Other than that? Just visit any dormitory and ask a clueless sophomore their views on grand strategy, international economics, etc. You'll get a similar result. Distilled shallow Beltway conventional wisdom (wisdom content: 0%). Now, to keep this gun-related: what are the odds this fellow knows which end of a firearm is which, and further has any familiarity with the realities of violent crime, lawful gun ownership, or law enforcement?

CNN might as well interview me about 17th Century Italian furniture design, or the migration patterns of rockhopper penguins.
 
So far at least, the gun control rumble in the media on the anniversary of Sandy Hook has been significantly more muted than I expected.

Even this stupid piece.
 
But guns are the one issue where it helps to know less about the subject when forming opinions, lest you be tainted by sin. When you think of it in terms of zealous demagoguery it makes a little more since why they do what they do. Knowing the enemy is for them, a sign of sympathy for the enemy and not to be tolerated.

And I prefer the term "conventional wisdumb" for things like this ;). Check the Wikipedia links for "groupthink" and "cognitive dissonance" for a rather interesting and enlightening breakdown of how these groups form their bogus opinions, keep their members in line, and attract new recruits (our side does it too, btw, but our representatives/leaders seem to be less of a pure product of adherence to illogical principles than the heads of the opposition --though that could just be bias talking :D)

"So far at least, the gun control rumble in the media on the anniversary of Sandy Hook has been significantly more muted than I expected."
I, too, am perplexed by this. Especially since it is such a predictable ratings bonanza for all involved, it makes little sense no one wants to push the issue :scrutiny:. All I can guess is who ever is giving them their marching orders (and at this point I do believe they are given straight up marching orders from time to time) really doesn't want gun control being whipped up to force the Democrats into action which we all know will be self-destructive, right before congress gets around to immigration legislation and the next round of budget can-kicking.

TCB
 
Queen_of_Thunder said:
Some advertisers

Jos. A. Bank

Humana

Cisco

Lexus

TD Ameritrade

ChristanMingle.com

Pfizer

Mazda

Liberty Medical Supply
Click to expand...
Advertisers to do not buy time like that knowing the context of the show. They buy to a price point and time slot over a period of time.
 
So far at least, the gun control rumble in the media on the anniversary of Sandy Hook has been significantly more muted than I expected.
Click to expand...

The month ain't over yet! :scrutiny:
 
barnbwt: Well-spoken.
They don't want tainted icing on the sour cake of their "Affordable" Care Act, with lots of nervousness on one side of the aisle about the 2014 Mid-Term elections.

After the recent State Senator recalls in Colorado on Second Amendment issues, the major mass media cheerleaders for the WH seems to be mostly silent, not only on approx. how many ACA successful enrollments received valid Insurance Coverage, but on any issues which will prevent the water pumps from bailing out a very leaky boat with a very high center-of-gravity.
 
Wow. The ignorance of some of these people is astounding. His stats and examples were certainly chosen purposely to promote his agenda! The truth is, the only way for gun violence to not exist is for guns to never have been invented. As long as there are guns and people there will always be those that use them in a bad manner. That includes everyone, citizens, police, military, etc. Does that mean that everyone that has a gun does wrong with them? Of course not, the gun is just a tool. It's the individual that makes the decision to use it for right or wrong. The irony of all of this to me is that a government that has no problem going into other parts of the world and starting violet turmoils under the guise of anti-terrorism wants its own citizens to be disarmed. So, the government has the right to protect its interests and itself yet its people do not have the basic right to protect themselves from harm? That's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. One could argue that the developed nations of the world have committed more murder and crime than any of their civilians combined. And I don't care what kind of argument they make, I don't like the idea of giving one person or group that much control. If the gov can have them then the people should be allowed to have them. It's that simple or dare we repeat a not so distant Jewish fate? Just because the government is supposed to take care of and protect its citizens, history shows that they can also do quite the opposite. Now if you explain it that way how many people do you think want to give up their rights? If they do, then they have been brainwashed.
 
This made it seem like the U.S. is the sole proprietor of mass shootings, and that once these laws were passed in Aus. and elsewhere, the violence stopped. He conveniently forgot to add that just like the Aussies, the rate of violent crime has been going down since the 90's in the U.S. as well.
I also found it odd that he started this with Sandy Hook, then ended by stating that governments have a duty to protect kids in their schools, yet while expounding on Israel's superiority he declined to show how they protect their schools.
Nothing surprising here.
 
bigfinger76 said:
ended by stating that governments have a duty to protect kids in their schools, yet while expounding on Israel's superiority
Click to expand...

He also failed to note how incredibly rare incidents at schools are. They have taken a few extremely isolated incidents and are making it into an "epidemic" that statistically does not exist.

Tragic, of course...and nobody WANTS to see it happen...but you don't fundamentally change a Constitutionally-protected right to "fix" a statistically rare occurrence. You don't burn the house down intentionally to make sure someone avoids getting shocked by one of the electrical outlets.
 
The truth is, the only way for gun violence to not exist is for guns to never have been invented.
Click to expand...

A woman was stabbed to death in the boarding house just a block from my apartment in 2004; in 2006 a man beat a couple to death in their home with a baseball bat. He was apprehended and evidence linked him to the 2004 stabbing. This spring an Iraq war vet was murdered by home invaders with a hammer and a knife. A bunch of druggies beat a suspected snitch to death with a rock. Remove guns from society, and the brutal individual or the gang will still be able to kill. It is true that in 2011 68% of US homicides are by shooting, and only 6% (800+ a year) are by unarmed assailants using just hands or feet. That is because a person intending to kill will often select the most lethal weapon. However, criminologist Marvin Wolfgang who studied 588 homicides in detail concluded motive and opportunity were more important than means. "It is the contention of this observer that few homicides due to shooting could be avoided merely if a firearm were not immediately present, and that the offender would select some other weapon to achieve the same destructive goal." Add to this that without the prospect that a victim might be armed, especially at home, removal of all guns from the equation would embolden the brutal individual and the criminal gang to attack the weak or the outnumbered.

Piers Morgan likes to harp that England only has XX number of shooting murders a year (he uses different years from rant to rant). About 10% of British homicides are by shooting. That proportion existed before Britain had any gun laws to speak of (pre-1920 Firearms Act). The last year I have handy on British Homicides broken down: year 2003, homicide: 858 of which 68 were with firearms. Homicide in Britain in recent years has run 1.2 to 1.4 per 100,000 per year. The rates per 100,000 per year in El Paso Texas, the State of Vermont, and several other large gun-friendly US jurisdictions often run lower than that. As Archie Bunker would ask, does it make CNN happy to know it was Col Mustard with a firepoker rather than a pistol?
 
Yes El Paso Texas has a very low murder rate. Just as CNBC said in their piece on the AR15 that Juarez Mexico was the most dangerous city in the world and just across the river is El Paso Texas the safest large city in America and they are armed to the teeth. They then cut to film of a local gun show. Are we safe? Of course. Our PD's biggest worry are beer runs. Then again it helps that this city is full of law enforcement. Every single state and federal agency is here. Are we armed? I think one would be on solid ground if they said yes.
 
I was most interested in one of his solutions: that everyone and anyone on the street should be stopped and searched for guns as they are in Bogota. Way to go Fareed, lets just discard not only the 2nd, but the rest of the Bill of Rights as well. Yeah, that one would go over very well with liberals and conservatives alike, as we've seen in the much more limited New York stop and frisk campaign.
 
The dean of the Chicago Law School Norval Morris proposed unwarranted random stop'n'frisk in a 1970 book ("Honest Politician's Guide to Crime Control") on the grounds there can be no right to privacy when it came to arms. According to "Restricting Handguns: the Liberal Skeptics Speak Out" 1979, that stance cost Morris a government job when he was called to defend that policy in a Congressional hearing. Yet today stop'n'frisk is staunchly defended in New York City ... and Bogota, Columbia.
 
Luckily the courts in NY are willing to call stop&frisk illegal.
 
Tragic, of course...and nobody WANTS to see it happen...but you don't fundamentally change a Constitutionally-protected right to "fix" a statistically rare occurrence. You don't burn the house down intentionally to make sure someone avoids getting shocked by one of the electrical outlets.
Click to expand...

One might if it it's somebody else's ugly house, and it's obstructing his view. (The part about the electrical outlets is just an excuse.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top