Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 10:47:18 GMT -6
Hawg, are you new to this site or just under a new name? Your arguing style seems familiar. I used to be LTDC. Retired and no longer had a computer, cause I hate them, until recently. It's nice to see you back!
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 30, 2018 16:52:11 GMT -6
Thank you, Bernard, for your explanation. And, thank you, Hawg for your patience. You're welcome, and thank you for your openness. It is appreciated, and the nation could do with more of it. Well, I reckon nobody is "right" in the gun discussion. I can't think of a single good answer that would be politically possible, fair to everyone, respectful of the constitution and effective in reducing shootings and homicides. In fact, I struggle to think of a solution that would get 2 out of 4. But to start with we all have to talk. And "talking" means being respectful, not treating the other side like they're dirt on your shoe. I am not talking about you, but the conversation going on in the nation as a whole, in which gun owners are being spoken to as if they are the murderers themselves. It's out of line. I am mostly liberal on most things, and I have never owned a gun, but if I were asking someone else to give up or accept restrictions placed on their liberty, their sense of safety, or even their hobby, I would open with the word "please", especially if I were planning to make no sacrifices myself. I would follow up by indicating that any concessions from the gun owners would be beyond the call of duty and much appreciated, that I have no right to ask but we're kinda desperate, and I would also ask how we might make it up to them. Having said that, I have come to suspect that a little bit more gun control (unless the laws are very wisely thought through) might be the last thing we need, for reasons I can get into.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 19:25:23 GMT -6
Thank you, Bernard, for your explanation. And, thank you, Hawg for your patience. You're welcome, and thank you for your openness. It is appreciated, and the nation could do with more of it. Well, I reckon nobody is "right" in the gun discussion. I can't think of a single good answer that would be politically possible, fair to everyone, respectful of the constitution and effective in reducing shootings and homicides. In fact, I struggle to think of a solution that would get 2 out of 4. But to start with we all have to talk. And "talking" means being respectful, not treating the other side like they're dirt on your shoe. I am not talking about you, but the conversation going on in the nation as a whole, in which gun owners are being spoken to as if they are the murderers themselves. It's out of line. I am mostly liberal on most things, and I have never owned a gun, but if I were asking someone else to give up or accept restrictions placed on their liberty, their sense of safety, or even their hobby, I would open with the word "please", especially if I were planning to make no sacrifices myself. I would follow up by indicating that any concessions from the gun owners would be beyond the call of duty and much appreciated, that I have no right to ask but we're kinda desperate, and I would also ask how we might make it up to them. Having said that, I have come to suspect that a little bit more gun control (unless the laws are very wisely thought through) might be the last thing we need, for reasons I can get into. I would agree that respectful discussion is essential. That, and an understanding that there simply is no absolute ~ no perfect solution. But, that respect has to go both ways. Yes, I've seen liberals do exactly what you say, but I've seen the mud going the other way also, as though liberals are the cause, thus the murderers. In fact, I've heard it said that liberals are only pretending to care. And, yes, it's all out of line, and will bring nothing. I'm not sure asking responsible gun owners to give up their guns would be right. In fact, should the government require us to do so, I think I'd want one. If you'd like to get into your reasons to suspect a little bit more gun control would be a bad thing, I'd be listening.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 4, 2018 2:01:40 GMT -6
Well, I suspect (but don't know for a fact) that we live on a curve like the one below, caught in a political compromise between one solution (no soft targets) and the other (no guns). If so, then heading right, but not all the way right, may make things even worse. We might simply end up disarming more good citizens and creating more soft targets without significantly reducing the availability of guns to killers. We might make more of society like campus, where guns are banned, people carrying them will be fired/expelled/arrested, and so the only people carrying guns are the homicidal nut-jobs who don't plan to survive their own rampage, let alone graduate. Heading left will steadily reduce the number of soft targets, producing society wide deterrents and enhancing ordinary citizens' ability to defend themselves against rampage killers and other murderers. Active shooters would gun down fewer people before they encountered return fire and were incapacitated or killed. In such a world, we might reasonably expect the number of deaths per rampage to go down, and perhaps that would reduce the expected infamy that rampage killers seem to crave, reducing the incentive to go on a rampage in the first place. But on that side of the graph there will always be shootouts and people settling their differences with bullets. So it won't ever reach the very low level of firearm homicides that you would get from a complete gun ban.
Fig 1. A completely made-up graph, for which no empirical evidence whatsoever has been presented. Anyway, liberals who argue that "in the UK and Australia, the firearm homicide rate is really low" often conclude that, as we approach the levels of gun control had by the UK and Australia, things will simply get better and better. That is a fallacy. The curve may be like the one depicted, where gun control short of a full gun ban simply makes things worse. Moreover, it may not even be politically possible to get a UK style gun ban here. So by pushing for more gun control, we might be pushing the homicide rate to the top of the cliff, without any prospect of ever pushing it over.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 4, 2018 3:23:57 GMT -6
Yes, I've seen liberals do exactly what you say, but I've seen the mud going the other way also, as though liberals are the cause, thus the murderers. In fact, I've heard it said that liberals are only pretending to care. Well, I don't really want to go to the mat on this one. I mean, it would be better if everybody was respectful to one another. We can agree on that. However... technically speaking, the liberals have a greater obligation to be polite in this discussion. Why? Consider an analogy. In Gurneyville everybody lives in a brick house, except Lynne, who lives in a wooden house. One cold winter, there's a long power outage, and the good people of Gurneyville start to freeze. "We will have to tear down your house, Lynne," they argue, "and burn the pieces to stave off the cold." In the debate that follows, everyone ought to be extra nice to Lynne. She's the one who is being asked to give up her house. If Lynne is a bit ill-tempered, however, then that is completely understandable. Letting her blow off a little steam is the least we can do when we are asking her, and her alone, to make a sacrifice for everyone. Same thing. Liberals are asking law-abiding gun owners, who have done nothing wrong, to give up such things as their heritage, heirlooms, hobbies, liberties and values, their constitutional rights, property, privacy, pest control and physical equality, and their safety, sense of security, tradition and, in some cases, means of sustenance. Gun owners, on the other hand, are not asking the liberals to give up anything. They just want to be left alone, but they're being forced to have a debate they never asked for and cannot benefit from, in which they must address demands made by people who plan to sacrifice nothing. It seems obvious to me that liberals are the ones who should be polite. If the gun owners are also polite, then that is to their great credit.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Apr 4, 2018 10:34:05 GMT -6
Well, I don't really want to go to the mat on this one. I mean, it would be better if everybody was respectful to one another. We can agree on that. However... technically speaking, the liberals have a greater obligation to be polite in this discussion. Why? Consider an analogy. In Gurneyville everybody lives in a brick house, except Lynne, who lives in a wooden house. One cold winter, there's a long power outage, and the good people of Gurneyville start to freeze. "We will have to tear down your house, Lynne," they argue, "and burn the pieces to stave off the cold." In the debate that follows, everyone ought to be extra nice to Lynne. She's the one who is being asked to give up her house. If Lynne is a bit ill-tempered, however, then that is completely understandable. Letting her blow off a little steam is the least we can do when we are asking her, and her alone, to make a sacrifice for everyone. Same thing. Liberals are asking law-abiding gun owners, who have done nothing wrong, to give up such things as their heritage, heirlooms, hobbies, liberties and values, their constitutional rights, property, privacy, pest control and physical equality, and their safety, sense of security, tradition and, in some cases, means of sustenance. Gun owners, on the other hand, are not asking the liberals to give up anything. They just want to be left alone, but they're being forced to have a debate they never asked for and cannot benefit from, in which they must address demands made by people who plan to sacrifice nothing. It seems obvious to me that liberals are the ones who should be polite. If the gun owners are also polite, then that is to their great credit. I'm often asked why are you guys so obsessed with guns? I say, we're not, democrats (and ilk) are obsessed with guns.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Apr 4, 2018 15:58:20 GMT -6
I'm often asked why are you guys so obsessed with guns? I say, we're not, democrats (and ilk) are obsessed with guns. Good point! My guns are safely stored away in a gun locker and I don't think I've fired one in over 30 years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2018 21:53:48 GMT -6
Well, I suspect (but don't know for a fact) that we live on a curve like the one below, caught in a political compromise between one solution (no soft targets) and the other (no guns). If so, then heading right, but not all the way right, may make things even worse. We might simply end up disarming more good citizens and creating more soft targets without significantly reducing the availability of guns to killers. We might make more of society like campus, where guns are banned, people carrying them will be fired/expelled/arrested, and so the only people carrying guns are the homicidal nut-jobs who don't plan to survive their own rampage, let alone graduate. Heading left will steadily reduce the number of soft targets, producing society wide deterrents and enhancing ordinary citizens' ability to defend themselves against rampage killers and other murderers. Active shooters would gun down fewer people before they encountered return fire and were incapacitated or killed. In such a world, we might reasonably expect the number of deaths per rampage to go down, and perhaps that would reduce the expected infamy that rampage killers seem to crave, reducing the incentive to go on a rampage in the first place. But on that side of the graph there will always be shootouts and people settling their differences with bullets. So it won't ever reach the very low level of firearm homicides that you would get from a complete gun ban.
Fig 1. A completely made-up graph, for which no empirical evidence whatsoever has been presented. Anyway, liberals who argue that "in the UK and Australia, the firearm homicide rate is really low" often conclude that, as we approach the levels of gun control had by the UK and Australia, things will simply get better and better. That is a fallacy. The curve may be like the one depicted, where gun control short of a full gun ban simply makes things worse. Moreover, it may not even be politically possible to get a UK style gun ban here. So by pushing for more gun control, we might be pushing the homicide rate to the top of the cliff, without any prospect of ever pushing it over. *If* I understand, you're saying that we can't do half measures. Choose and go all the way?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2018 22:05:15 GMT -6
Well, I don't really want to go to the mat on this one. I mean, it would be better if everybody was respectful to one another. We can agree on that. However... technically speaking, the liberals have a greater obligation to be polite in this discussion. Why? Consider an analogy. In Gurneyville everybody lives in a brick house, except Lynne, who lives in a wooden house. One cold winter, there's a long power outage, and the good people of Gurneyville start to freeze. "We will have to tear down your house, Lynne," they argue, "and burn the pieces to stave off the cold." In the debate that follows, everyone ought to be extra nice to Lynne. She's the one who is being asked to give up her house. If Lynne is a bit ill-tempered, however, then that is completely understandable. Letting her blow off a little steam is the least we can do when we are asking her, and her alone, to make a sacrifice for everyone. Same thing. Liberals are asking law-abiding gun owners, who have done nothing wrong, to give up such things as their heritage, heirlooms, hobbies, liberties and values, their constitutional rights, property, privacy, pest control and physical equality, and their safety, sense of security, tradition and, in some cases, means of sustenance. Gun owners, on the other hand, are not asking the liberals to give up anything. They just want to be left alone, but they're being forced to have a debate they never asked for and cannot benefit from, in which they must address demands made by people who plan to sacrifice nothing. It seems obvious to me that liberals are the ones who should be polite. If the gun owners are also polite, then that is to their great credit. Um. Excuse me, but tearing down my house for firewood would only keep the people of Gurneyville warm for a very short while. I'll give up my house if ya'll plan to replace it, AND offer up other ~ long-lasting, far-reaching ~ solutions (that won't involve me being homeless).
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 5, 2018 12:52:13 GMT -6
*If* I understand, you're saying that we can't do half measures. Choose and go all the way? Exactly. Gun control like grape.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2018 15:17:04 GMT -6
I'm often asked why are you guys so obsessed with guns? I say, we're not, democrats (and ilk) are obsessed with guns. Good point! My guns are safely stored away in a gun locker and I don't think I've fired one in over 30 years. Does that make you feel safe?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2018 15:20:57 GMT -6
*If* I understand, you're saying that we can't do half measures. Choose and go all the way? Exactly. Gun control like grape. Or
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Apr 6, 2018 10:28:38 GMT -6
Well, I don't really want to go to the mat on this one. I mean, it would be better if everybody was respectful to one another. We can agree on that. However... technically speaking, the liberals have a greater obligation to be polite in this discussion. Why? Consider an analogy. In Gurneyville everybody lives in a brick house, except Lynne, who lives in a wooden house. One cold winter, there's a long power outage, and the good people of Gurneyville start to freeze. "We will have to tear down your house, Lynne," they argue, "and burn the pieces to stave off the cold." In the debate that follows, everyone ought to be extra nice to Lynne. She's the one who is being asked to give up her house. If Lynne is a bit ill-tempered, however, then that is completely understandable. Letting her blow off a little steam is the least we can do when we are asking her, and her alone, to make a sacrifice for everyone. Same thing. Liberals are asking law-abiding gun owners, who have done nothing wrong, to give up such things as their heritage, heirlooms, hobbies, liberties and values, their constitutional rights, property, privacy, pest control and physical equality, and their safety, sense of security, tradition and, in some cases, means of sustenance. Gun owners, on the other hand, are not asking the liberals to give up anything. They just want to be left alone, but they're being forced to have a debate they never asked for and cannot benefit from, in which they must address demands made by people who plan to sacrifice nothing. It seems obvious to me that liberals are the ones who should be polite. If the gun owners are also polite, then that is to their great credit. Um. Excuse me, but tearing down my house for firewood would only keep the people of Gurneyville warm for a very short while. I'll give up my house if ya'll plan to replace it, AND offer up other ~ long-lasting, far-reaching ~ solutions (that won't involve me being homeless). Good thing you had the "right" to say, ok or nay to using your wood house for firewood. What if they made the "moral"choice to take your house apart if you said no anyhow? Did they at the end save you too from freezing to death?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2018 20:54:17 GMT -6
Um. Excuse me, but tearing down my house for firewood would only keep the people of Gurneyville warm for a very short while. I'll give up my house if ya'll plan to replace it, AND offer up other ~ long-lasting, far-reaching ~ solutions (that won't involve me being homeless). Good thing you had the "right" to say, ok or nay to using your wood house for firewood. What if they made the "moral"choice to take your house apart if you said no anyhow? Did they at the end save you too from freezing to death? I believe the government actually does have the right to take your land, which means your house, too.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Apr 7, 2018 8:17:05 GMT -6
Good thing you had the "right" to say, ok or nay to using your wood house for firewood. What if they made the "moral"choice to take your house apart if you said no anyhow? Did they at the end save you too from freezing to death? I believe the government actually does have the right to take your land, which means your house, too. Government buy out?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2018 15:44:11 GMT -6
I believe the government actually does have the right to take your land, which means your house, too. Government buy out? Yeah, basically. Eminent domain allows them to take your land, but they have to pay for it.
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on Apr 15, 2018 18:12:58 GMT -6
Increase guns? Are you saying teachers would shoot a student when angry? Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying. Incredable! As has been previously noted....nothing would stop a teacher from doing this right now....thank God, I havn't heard of it. Notice? The murderer in Florida attempted to escape, hiding himself among the escaping kids? There is not a doubt in my mind that a well regulated (reminds one of the 2nd amendment doesn't it) teacher armament program were installed in the Florida school, or any other school, the killer-rampage would be over quick. I personally believe the arms should be concealed & no information leaked about WHO is armed....for the safety of the teacher AND the students.
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on Apr 15, 2018 18:16:55 GMT -6
Good point! My guns are safely stored away in a gun locker and I don't think I've fired one in over 30 years. Does that make you feel safe? All in a safe...except one....unless there are 2 responsible adults in the house...then two.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Apr 20, 2018 13:16:19 GMT -6
I see there are more school walkouts "supposedly" in support of stricter gun laws. I gotta wonder that if they held these things on saturdays, and didn't offer bus rides and lunch just how large they would be?? here in Utah there are a couple of schools contemplating giving students tardys for these things. of course the papers are going ballistic about it but it seems like a small price to pay for ones committed beliefs don't you think? what is the greater civics lesson here, demonstrating your support for a cause or demonstrating your support for a cause AND accepting/paying the price?? wonder what John Hancock and friends think about that?
yeah I know, it's not the liberal/progressive way.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Apr 20, 2018 15:52:37 GMT -6
they'll just do something "different" so why try? that's your plan? If I was in charge, I'd change gun laws. I'd make the age of owning a gun 21. I'd make it mandatory to be vigorously trained in gun safety and use to own a gun. I'd outlaw the sale of semi-automatic weapons like AR-15s. I admire you for wanting to make think things safer. However, would raising the age to own a gun really stop underage kids from bringing them to school? And realize I'm not arguing about what age a person should be to buy a gun, I'm bringing up the point to actually stop someone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2018 11:27:45 GMT -6
I see there are more school walkouts "supposedly" in support of stricter gun laws. I gotta wonder that if they held these things on saturdays, and didn't offer bus rides and lunch just how large they would be?? here in Utah there are a couple of schools contemplating giving students tardys for these things. of course the papers are going ballistic about it but it seems like a small price to pay for ones committed beliefs don't you think? what is the greater civics lesson here, demonstrating your support for a cause or demonstrating your support for a cause AND accepting/paying the price?? wonder what John Hancock and friends think about that? yeah I know, it's not the liberal/progressive way. I agree, the student movement wouldn't be near as large. I also doubt too many have weighed the issue heavily. There's a bandwagon rolling through.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2018 11:30:16 GMT -6
If I was in charge, I'd change gun laws. I'd make the age of owning a gun 21. I'd make it mandatory to be vigorously trained in gun safety and use to own a gun. I'd outlaw the sale of semi-automatic weapons like AR-15s. I admire you for wanting to make think things safer. However, would raising the age to own a gun really stop underage kids from bringing them to school? And realize I'm not arguing about what age a person should be to buy a gun, I'm bringing up the point to actually stop someone. True, Stormy.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Apr 22, 2018 11:48:18 GMT -6
I see there are more school walkouts "supposedly" in support of stricter gun laws. I gotta wonder that if they held these things on saturdays, and didn't offer bus rides and lunch just how large they would be?? here in Utah there are a couple of schools contemplating giving students tardys for these things. of course the papers are going ballistic about it but it seems like a small price to pay for ones committed beliefs don't you think? what is the greater civics lesson here, demonstrating your support for a cause or demonstrating your support for a cause AND accepting/paying the price?? wonder what John Hancock and friends think about that? yeah I know, it's not the liberal/progressive way. I agree, the student movement wouldn't be near as large. I also doubt too many have weighed the issue heavily. There's a bandwagon rolling through. I agree on the bandwagon. and that bandwagon is going to eventually be 100 million gun owners, whether NRA members or not, that are tired of being denigrated, scapegoated and blamed by lying press and politicians for events that they had nothing to do with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2018 12:18:04 GMT -6
I agree, the student movement wouldn't be near as large. I also doubt too many have weighed the issue heavily. There's a bandwagon rolling through. I agree on the bandwagon. and that bandwagon is going to eventually be 100 million gun owners, whether NRA members or not, that are tired of being denigrated, scapegoated and blamed by lying press and politicians for events that they had nothing to do with. In what way is the press lying?
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Apr 22, 2018 16:34:06 GMT -6
I agree on the bandwagon. and that bandwagon is going to eventually be 100 million gun owners, whether NRA members or not, that are tired of being denigrated, scapegoated and blamed by lying press and politicians for events that they had nothing to do with. In what way is the press lying? You can't be serious. How about the misleading, misnomer "assault weapon", then it's pretty much downhill from there. Say, by the way, you're not one of those that thinks the "AR" in AR-15 stands for assault rifle or automatic rifle are you? The press seems to think so.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Apr 22, 2018 17:19:10 GMT -6
I agree on the bandwagon. and that bandwagon is going to eventually be 100 million gun owners, whether NRA members or not, that are tired of being denigrated, scapegoated and blamed by lying press and politicians for events that they had nothing to do with. In what way is the press lying? I'm not meaning to beat up on you on this point, but I'm absolutely dumbfounded that you think the press is being unbiased and truthfull about the NRA. Have you seen even one positive story on the NRA? Let me put it into perspective. It's been a year or so since I checked but at one time African Americans made up about 13% of our population. They committed 50% of all homicides and I believe about 65% of all other major crimes. Does the press blame the NAACP? Why not? In the last decade or so drunk drivers killed from 11 to 15 thousand people each year. THOUSANDS not a couple hundred from AR15 rifles, THOUSANDS. Does the press blame the AAA? Ford? Chevy? Hell, we dont even blame Coors or Miller. But what are they saying about the NRA? An organization that has nothing to do with any of these shootings, none of their members has anything to do with them, they don't endorse or justify in any way "people" committing these killings. Not to mention manufactures who have nothing to do with these events. Now be honest with yourself when you tell me what the press is saying about the NRA.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 23, 2018 17:06:21 GMT -6
I agree on the bandwagon. and that bandwagon is going to eventually be 100 million gun owners, whether NRA members or not, that are tired of being denigrated, scapegoated and blamed by lying press and politicians for events that they had nothing to do with. In what way is the press lying? The press have a lot of tricks for misleading people that don't require them to outright lie. E.g. presenting facts selectively, obliquely pumping your prejudices, selective placing and emphasis, selectively fact-checking only one side of a debate and leaving the other side's lies unchecked, leading and loaded questions for discussion, using the headline to editorialize, and exploiting the fact that narratives are easier to remember, and more persuasive, than facts and statistics. There are certain topics on which the press can be relied upon to use as many of these tricks as they can. One of them is when making the case for yet another war that we don't want in a country that has nothing to do with us and where we will only make things worse. Another is gun control. As an experiment I just selected an article on gun control, semi-randomly. I googled "military style" "ar-15", knowing that this would give me the kind of article I wanted (that was the non-random part). I just selected the first news story that came up (that was the random part). Worth reading at the website first, before you hear my line-by-line commentary. Just because (I predict) it will read like an ordinary article on the topic. And that's the problem. www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/03/military-style-ar-rifles-market-saturated/19836755/The title and opening sentence both refer to "military style" rifles. This term is not defined anywhere the article. In what way was the Sandy Hook shooter's weapon "military style"? According to the official report, the shooter armed himself with several weapons on the day of the tragedy. A Sig Sauer P226 (a 9 mm semi-automatic pistol) an Izhmash Saiga-12 (a shotgun) a Glock 20 (a 10 mm pistol), a .22 caliber Savage Mark II rifle (an ordinary bolt action rifle) and a Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S. The first two of these were not fired. The shooter used the Glock on himself, the bolt action rifle on his mom, and the Bushmaster on everyone else. www.scribd.com/doc/187052598/Official-Sandy-Hook-Report The Bushmaster is presumably the weapon being referred to as "military style". Q: In what way is it military style? A: It looks like a machine gun. Q: Does that mean that it fires like a machine gun? A: No. It just looks like one. Q: Is this distinction made clear anywhere in the article? A: No. So the average reader might come away with the impression that a "military style" weapon is one that doesn't just look like a military weapon, but fires like one. That would be false, so it's good that the article never exactly says it. But it leaves that distinct impression. The author has correctly noted that "in some circles", ARs are seen as a menace. It is also the case that, in other circles, they are regarded as being no more dangerous than ordinary handguns. The author has made the choice to place the first opinion in this prominent place at the front of the article, and omit all opposing opinions entirely. The author has not technically drifted into writing an opinion piece. He is simply reporting other people's opinions. So it's straight reporting, see? Just the facts. However, he has been selective in which opinions he has chosen to report and emphasize. One other thing. He describes these weapons as "high powered". In what way? Can they shoot through body armor? The article doesn't say, and I am not sure what is being implied. But it does sound ominous. A "glut" according to the Oxford English dictionary is "an excessively abundant supply of something". In other words, if you have a glut, you have too many. Is that the author's opinion? No. This is just a fact piece. Straight reporting. Then whose opinion is it? According to the reporter, it is the opinion of " some". So this is the second time that the author has slipped an opinion into what is supposed to be a straight reporting piece by attributing the opinion to unnamed others. "Some say..." "in some circles". Huh? Says who? In what way will the battle be over? Will one side be outlawed from expressing their views? Will they be banned from voting? The article doesn't say. I guess you could say it's just writer's license. A bit of flourish. But this is where I begin to suspect that, though this is disguised as reporting, it is in fact an attempt at political agitation. It is designed to panic one side of the debate into thinking they're about to lose some important but unspecified fight, and thus kick them into action. Grenades? Rocket launchers? Oh the images! Why would either of these things make it difficult to gauge their numbers? The government doesn't keep track of the sales of SUVs, either, and many different models are available. But that doesn't make it particularly difficult to gauge the number of SUVs in the USA, provided you are willing to do some serious research. What the author is doing here is giving himself license not to use official stats and figures, but just to go ask some random folks what they think the numbers might be. Did you see that? " but without the full automatic capacity". I bet you woulda missed it, right? In other words, the AR-15 is based on the military's M-16 and M-4 models but without the features that make those guns so frightening. Note that you would only understand this caveat if you understood the difference between "fully automatic" and "semi automatic", and USA Today assumes there is no need for explanation or clarification. But how would their readers know the difference? Not from reading "USA Today", that's for sure. A responsible report would say that these weapons don't fire like military weapons. They are "military style" only in the way that they look. That never happens in this article, or in most articles in most mainstream outlets. ...which a good reporter would quickly point out is an openly left-wing publication, and hence has a bias... Here is one of my favorite media tricks. It doesn't show here in the quote, but on the page where the article is, the phrase "National Shooting Sports Foundation" is a hyperlink. One of several. Together, they create the impression that the article is well supported and backed up by links to original sources, government reports, etc; that you can check the reporter's claims for yourself, if you just click on the links. Of course, most people do not click on the links. But I sometimes do. I wanted the link to take me to the congressional testimony that verifies the reporter's claim, in which a representative of the NSSF says that, in their estimation, there are 5 million to 8.2 million assault weapons out there. But it didn't. It took me to the NSSF's website. What?? What f***ing use is that?? How does that back up Boyle's reporting? So if I want to verify Boyle's claims about the NSSF, I must go hunt down the congressional record. So he either didn't find the record himself, and is just reporting something he heard without verifying it, or he checked it and decided not to provide the link. If the latter, then I am willing to take a bet at evens that it either does not say what he says it says, or there is some qualification and context that makes the claim seem very different. I assume that the author mentions Denny's background in the Navy and the FBI in order to give him credibility when he makes an estimate on the number of assault weapons in circulation. But this is reasoning by association. Sure, "Navy" and "FBI" have firearm associations, but how does that make him into an expert on estimating the number of guns owned by Americans? How is he on other consumer goods? Could he give me a rough figure for how many hot dogs are sold in amusement parks every year? I am sure the FBI keep all kinds of relevant stats, but why not give me those, instead of the guesstimates of some dude who used to do an unspecified job for the FBI? The author should be consulting official statistics and studies, not canvassing the opinions of people who (to be fair) might make a better than average guess. Is it? Because the way the paragraph reads, Denny is saying that there are 8 or 9 million "assault-style weapons". But now the reporter is saying ... er... what? That there are 8 or 9 million AR-15s in Denny's estimation, plus a bunch of other assault style weapons? Earlier, the reporter counted the Bushmaster as an AR-15, even though it is technically just a related model. Was Denny including Bushmasters in the 8 or 9 million, or are there 8 or 9 million genuine, name-brand AR-15s, plus a bunch of Bushmasters and related models? I really can't tell. The author just seems to be trying to conjure up an image of a tidal wave of assault rifles, but the specifics disappear under scrutiny. It's only shocking if you think "military style" means "fires like a machine gun" and not merely "looks like a machine gun". So this quote really makes no sense unless the reader is making that mistake. And the author would be stupid to include the quote unless he was relying on the reader making that mistake. Oh but wait a minute. Most of it isn't quoted. The professor doesn't actually say "Groups such as the NRA, as well as the buying habits of American consumers, have essentially served to normalize something that to some people used to seem shocking — the ownership of a military-style rifle". He only says the red part. The reporter adds the misleading phrase "military-style rifle". So maybe the reporter is paraphrasing the professor incorrectly. Notice that the author has presented the facts in the following order: - You should be worried about the number of assault rifles out there.
- Why? Because there are so many of them. Some say a glut.
- How do you know? Well it's hard to get figures. But Steve at the gun shop said there were 8 or 9 million, and he ought to know. He was in the Navy.
- And that's just one type of nasty undefined gun. God knows what the final figure on nasty undefined guns is.
- (later in the article...) Some say that the cat is out of the bag. There are too many nasty undefined guns for a ban to work.
- But that's not true. Josh Sugarmann says just 2 to 3% of guns owned are nasty undefined guns.
So the author portrays a "glut" of assault weapons when he is stoking the fires of fear, then changes it to "not so many" when asking whether there are too many to ban.
...dressed in white hoods and flying the confederate flag? Seriously, why mention the race and gender of the gun buyers? Huh? There aren't enough buyers. So the industry has switched to making higher firepower, higher capacity weapons. I don't get it. Maybe the idea is that, instead of selling guns to more people, you sell new, different guns to your core market, to supplement the ones they already have. Dunno. The reporter asks no follow-up, and seeks and provides no clarification. Just gives the dude a mic and a platform, and lets him run. Taking his stats unquestioned from an advocacy group rather than an official or neutral source. Is she representative of all Asheville residents? If not, why was she chosen to be the one to be quoted in USA Today? Are there other Asheville residents who disagree? ( I set aside the choice of Asheville as the voice of America.) How about for forming a well regulated militia, as she herself um... just pointed out? Follow up please Mr Reporter. I shouldn't have to do all the work here. Is this the best random opinion John Boyle could find in the USA Asheville? Okay. We finally reach the part where the author pays lip-service to journalistic even-handedness by giving the other side a chance to speak. A few lines at the ass-end of the article is all that USA Today could afford, tucked away in the part of the article that many readers will not reach. But you, Mr Straight O. Reporter, choose to use a more frightening term. Why? Wait. The FBI /Navy guy from earlier doesn't blame the weapons? Why are we only hearing this now? Okay. I'm done. No lies as such. But what's clearly an agenda-driven piece disguised as a piece of straight reporting, structured so as to cause a sense of alarm, using ominous and misleading terms ("military style"), with clarifications hidden away or, more often, omitted entirely, and with stats taken unquestioningly from biased sources, or with the means of verification obscured, with insufficient space for counterpoints, relegated to the very bottom. Note, moreover, that it is a report without an event to report on. This was not published because there had been a new shooting. It was published on a slow news day, with a throwback line to Sandy Hook, and could have been published at any time, whether or not there had recently been a rampage shooting. It's in this way, by choosing the narratives to push when there's nothing on which to report, that news outlets reveal their agendas.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Apr 23, 2018 18:40:25 GMT -6
Does that make you feel safe? No, it makes me feel responsible. When I lived in San Francisco I always had a revolver within easy reach and kept my shooting skills up. However, I now live in a very small, rural, and very affluent community with a crime rate that is next to ZERO. In fact, the last vicious killing here was about eight years ago when a Mountain Lion killed a deer about 200 yards from my front door. So, I don't feel any need to keep a firearm nearby.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 23, 2018 19:04:26 GMT -6
Funny I should come across this today. Not to do with guns, but how the media are able to manipulate information to the advantage of special interests (including their own) without technically lying. CNN runs a story on how "Ads from over 300 companies and organizations -- including tech giants, major retailers, newspapers and government agencies -- ran on YouTube channels promoting white nationalists, Nazis, pedophilia, conspiracy theories and North Korean propaganda, a CNN investigation has found." It perhaps goes without saying that cable news is losing its audience to independent youtube channels, and the advertisers are following. So it is in CNN's interests to scare advertisers away from youtube and back into their loving arms. After opening the article with white nationalists and pedophiles, they end with "Ads also appeared on The Jimmy Dore Show channel, a far-left YouTube channel that peddles conspiracy theories, such as the idea that Syrian chemical weapons attacks are hoaxes." I watch Jimmy Dore. His "conspiracy theories" consist of asking "where's the evidence", and asking why channels like CNN don't ask for it before beating the drum for war. Though of course they never said he was either a Nazi or a pedophile, and hence there is no outright "lie" here, to bundle one of their most persistent critics in with the scum of the Earth is an obvious attempt to smear by (tenuous) association. money.cnn.com/2018/04/19/technology/youtube-ads-extreme-content-investigation/index.html
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Apr 23, 2018 19:23:29 GMT -6
good reads, Bernard, good reads. but since we are a society of "headline" readers we will remain forever ignorant. say, what is Chloe going to do?
|
|