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

[Vern Humphrey]

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]

logic parsed on micro-issue; now what?

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. ]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Vern,

When you said

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.

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]

All very thoughtful Bill_Rights, but I'm a more simple man, you might even say simple minded. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

They are not fair and balanced.

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

 

[Vector]

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-...ed/?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]

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]

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]

CNN what the Philosophy?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

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...

*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.