Anybody see anti-gun USA Today editorial?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

In today's paper (Dec. 14, 2007) the editorial staff at USA Today call for stricter gun controls and suggest that arming more people is not the answer. Oddly enough they seem to think that renewing the 1994 AWB would somehow have been useful in preventing these shootings - which seems to indicate to me that they know less than nothing about that particular law or firearms in general.

On the plus side, that was the only new law they asked for - otherwise they limited their wish list to things that already part of federal law (again suggesting that they don't know what the hell they are opining about).

Also Wayne LaPierre did a nice rebuttal to the editorial pointing out that USA Today had vigorously opposed concealed carry in the past and was now in the ludricrous position of arguing that allowing it would allow "too many" to have guns while at the same time saying it wouldn't prevent anything because "too few" would have guns when needed. He goes on to point out that USA Today also opposed the law that allowed Jeanne Assam to be armed and asked them whether they still supported that editorial or whether they wanted to acknowledge that concealed carry did save lives.

 

[CountGlockula]

don't know less than nothing about that particular law or firearms in general.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Dorryn]

And besides, USA Today is a newspaper for 6-year olds. Its like a picture book with the occasional article and tricky 3-syllable word.

 

[Cougfan2]

USA today is good for cat box liner and not much else. News for the dimwittted.

 

[Mannlicher]

is it any different than the anti gun editorial they ran last week, or the week before, or the week before that?

 

[RoadkingLarry]

So what about the tired old mantra - "if it only saves one life" Maybe we ought to steal that and use it more.

 

[Hypnogator]

News for the dimwittted.

I've always characterized it as the newspaper for people who move their lips when they read.

Sounds like Wayne got in some good shots. So to speak.

I e-mailed their ombudsman on a previous story that initially ignored the fact that a potential mass shooter was stopped by a citizen with a concealed weapon. Never got a reply, but their follow-up story was at pains to make plain the fact that the citizen was armed. At least this was an editorial, and they did give our side a chance to respond adequately.

 

[Rumble]

o what about the tired old mantra - "if it only saves one life" Maybe we ought to steal that and use it more.

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

That's a great idea. "Concealed carry - if it saves just one life, it's worth it."

 

[SuperNaut]

That's a great idea. "Concealed Carry - if it saves just one life, it's worth it."

That needs to be a t-shirt.

 

[Prince Yamato]

The best part of the article was "Renew the assault weapons ban" because "we will arrive at a solution that doesn't trample on 2A rights"... umm... yes it does.

 

[Old Fuff]

The anti-gun movement and their allies in the mass media are between a rock and a hard place.

At Virginia Tech some 30-odd people died because an armed responder was not present. In Colorado 2 died at one church because there was no one to stop the killer, but in the second only 2 were killed because a civilian with a CCW stopped the killing before it could really get started, and well before the police arrived on the scene. It is interesting to note that in the anti-gun media, they on one hand emphasize that the lady is “a former police officer,” and therefore not your run-of-the-mill concealed weapons license holder, but on the other attack her viability by claiming she was fired by the Minneapolis Police Department. Typical of them I think.

The saying, " when seconds are critical, the police arrive in minutes," couldn't be truer. Clearly there is a relationship between the body count on one hand, and the number of minutes - or more - that the killer has before a responder stops him.

If preventative measures before the act worked we wouldn't have any crime. After all, it is a crime to commit murder, regardless of what the weapon.

Gun Control is ineffective, and it can get innocent people killed.

We have always said this, now we can prove it.

 

[RPCVYemen]

And besides, USA Today is a newspaper for 6-year olds. Its like a picture book with the occasional article and tricky 3-syllable word.

Way off topic, but I read your sig.

Did you mean it to be an oxymoron?

At lead to the Yemeni's I knew, if you are a "misaheen" - a follower of the messiah, you are not a "kafir" - an unbeliever. At least for Yemeni's, kafir was reserved for people who did not worship the G-d of Abraham. Jews, Christians and Moslems were "people of the book", not unbelievers. A "Christina unbeliever" was to them (Zaydi Shia?) a contradiction.

A local Imam told me that the Qoran call Jesus of Nazareth "The Messiah", and teaches that he will come back at the end of time to judge the living and the dead. I didn't know that before I talked to the Imam (I am a Jew).

Don't want to hijack the thread. Your sig just reminded me of what the Imam said. It was more interesting than more whining about USA Today.

Mike

 

[The Cavalry]

I heard USA Today referred to as "McPaper" a few years back, and the title seems increasingly appropriate.

 

[Big45]

I'm sorry if I offend the resident NRA haters here with this one but....Wayne did hand them their a#$ today.

 

[Mr White]

Yes, USA Today is a paper for those who can't understand a real paper, but the scary thing is...they have the largest circulation of any paper in the US, so apparently there are far too many people in this country who can't understand a real newspaper. These people take what USA Today says as the truth... and therein lies the threat to our freedom.

I will say I was pretty amazed that they let Wayne do the rebuttal. I could see them letting Ted, or maybe the owner of Bubba's Guns of Podunk, WV write the rebuttal, but letting Wayne LaPierre write it really surprised me.

 

[v35]

Boycott the McPaper

You don't waste your money on that inane rag, right?

Read on.

the scary thing is...they have the largest circulation of any paper in the US, ...

How this can be is a marvel since its target market is apparently illiterate, but I digress.

It's possible they're able to claim this because the USAToday is typically distributed "for free" to hotel guests. I travel a lot and there's usually one outside my door every morning.

Now, the reason I wrote "for free" in quotation marks is that (surprise!) it's not free. Read your hotel's fine print. It states that by staying there, you agree to a charge of 75 cents to be added to your bill for delivery of the alleged newspaper, and if you don't want it tell them and they'll waive the 75 cents. I always tell them I don't want it, not because I'm a cheapskate, I just object to paying for anything I don't want. No matter, they always deliver it and they never remove the 75 cents, until I tell them again upon checkout. This always results in some confusion until I point out the fine print to them, after which they roll their eyes, get out the magic codes to the computer kingdom, and reluctantly credit my three quarters.

I suspect this may contribute to the circulation figure that they claim. It's stealth marketing to business travelers who don't really care about 75 cents.

Now - assuming your attention hasn't waned due to my long-winded lead-in - if you don't like this editorial, and you stay in hotels, do as I do: tell the hotel you don't want the pseudonewspaper. Be sure to get the charge removed when they charge you anyway.

 

[Prince Yamato]

they have the largest circulation of any paper in the US,

That's because it's a quick read for sports, business, and weather. I don't know anybody who reads page one and takes it as comprehensive information. I don't even think you could cite an article from USAToday as a professional reference in a research paper.

 

[scout26]

So what about the tired old mantra - "if it only saves one life" Maybe we ought to steal that and use it more.

I've writtten several letters to the editor of the local fishwrap. Surprisingly, they get published. (but then again maybe not so, as they'll pretty much publish anything to fill the pages.) I used that as the final line.

http://www.chicagosuburbannews.com/wheaton/letters_to_the_editor/x1855993284

Conceal carry laws help reduce crime

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GateHouse News Service
Thu Nov 15, 2007, 02:58 PM CST

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wheaton, IL -
Gun control has proven to be both a policy and moral failure.

Cities with the highest violent crime rates (Chicago; Washington, D.C.; New York; and Los Angeles) also have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

The evidence of studies done by the Clinton Justice Department, the Centers for Disease Control and most recently Harvard Law School show that gun control laws do not produce their desired effects but in fact induce more crime.

There has been a growing counter-tide sweeping through Illinois although not reported in the media outlets of Chicago. Fifty-three of 102 counties in Illinois have passed resolutions stating they will not enforce any gun control legislation passed by the General Assembly. You can see the map and get information at www.Pro2aresolution.com.

As pointed out repeatedly by these researchers and civil rights supporters, when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

The law-abiding, who previous had the means of defense and deterrence, are now left unprotected and subject to the depredations of those who would do them harm.

As gun control rolled through the nation in the late 1960 and 1970s, crime rates soared.

Then something happened.

Recognizing that crime rates were low in those states where law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry firearms for self-defense, other states began enacting concealed carry laws.

Recall that in the early 1980s, news of murder, robberies and assaults in Florida were nightly news.

Rather then passing more gun control measures, Florida looked to its citizens and was the one of the first states to pass small-issue concealed carry in the 1980s.

The gun control advocates predicted “blood in the streets,” “the wild west returns” and other dire predictions of anarchy and doom.

The reality is that none of their predictions materialized.

Law-abiding gun owners, not surprisingly, remain law-abiding, while the criminals were forced to reconsider their career choice as they discovered that could no longer assault, rape, rob and murder with impunity, as their intended victims possibly could and would fight back.

Crime rates dropped.

Other states observed this and began passing their own concealed carry laws.

What had been legal in19 states in 1980 became legal in 48 states by 2006.

Only Illinois and Wisconsin still deny the right of individual citizens the means to protect themselves and their loved ones from criminals.

In the 48 states that have some form of concealed carry law, those states have observed significant decreases in the violent crime rate, while in areas that have enacted more gun control legislation crime rates remain high and those areas further suffer from social and economic effects of the breakdown of a lawful society.

One need look no further then the city of Chicago to see the terrible consequences of gun control.

Citizens live in terror while armed gangs of criminals roam without fear.

Innocent children are shot and killed indiscriminately because the gang-bangers know that no one can stop them.

If law-abiding Illinois citizens are able to protect themselves and their loved ones by being allowed to carry concealed guns, there would be less crime; fewer rapes, robberies and murders.

If it saves just one life, it will be worth it.

Scout26, Wheaton

 

[doc2rn]

Any paper written in Blog style does not interest me. It gives blurbs of opinion, which is what blogs are, from one point of view. No two people see things in the same way, so this is a rag that gives as little info as possible to sway opinion to that of the author.
Let's just say it is a waste of good tree bark.

 

[Mr White]

I don't even think you could cite an article from USAToday as a professional reference in a research paper.

Agreed, but the people who take this paper as gospel aren't looking for something that can be cited in a research paper. They're looking for color graphs and a whole section on what Paris and Britney are up to. And if they can learn what's going on in the rest of the world while their at it, that's all the better for them.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

For what its worth, Yahoo News apparently ran the exact same editorial; but without the LaPierre rebuttal:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=323651

 

[Fly320s]

but the scary thing is...they have the largest circulation of any paper in the US

Only because every hotel that caters to business travelers gives a paper to every guest. If the Portsmouth Herald (small paper) did that, then they would have the largest circulation.

In other words... quantity does not equal quality.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

USA today is good for cat box liner and not much else. News for the dimwittted.

It's awfully expensive cat box liner, though ...

 

[scout26]

Security on campuses, shopping malls, airports, churches and other public places is best left to professionals

Like the Chicago PD maybe ????

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-cop_shotdec13,0,1207360.story

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/northwest/chi-milan_12dec12,0,1669720.story

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-weems_webdec12,0,6816961.story

http://www.chicagotribune.com/servi...thursday/chi-shield_day2dec06,0,5332908.story

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...lstory,1,5301758.htmlstory?ctrack=1&cset=true

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...lstory,1,5301758.htmlstory?ctrack=1&cset=true

 

[TCB in TN]

That's a great idea. "Concealed Carry - if it saves just one life, it's worth it."

And that one life you save MAY be your own.