http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/16/opinion/bishop-osler-guns-trayvon-case/index.html
I'm done with that channel.
I'm done with that channel.
I'm tired of CNN and their 2A/SYG rhetoric
- Thread starter CDR_Glock
- Start date
- Status
AirForceShooter
Member
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
How can anyone figure out what to think based on fact?
AFS
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
And yet folks on both sides of the argument do it all the time.
Carl N. Brown
Member
I'll repeat myself.
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
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?
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.
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.
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
Member
^ 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.
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
Member
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.
That said, we still need to keep fighting and keep our guard up.
henschman
Member
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
.....how does carrying a gun make a wound more likely to kill you?
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.
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
Member
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.
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!
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
That ratio seems way to high and cause for skepticism, then again I could be totally wrong.
FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
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.
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.
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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.
.
- Status
