R.I.P. those affected by the school shooting in CT

[pk500]

Why do you think I only mean the modern day media? Hell, they sensationalized the Son of Sam and Helter Skelter, too. You seem to be operating under the delusion that the American media was once non sensationalist. That's laughable.

I'm just curious how you get your non-sensationalized news. Smoke signals? Morse code?

What American media do you consider to be non-sensationalist or non-partisan?

[wco81]

What good is attention if he offed himself?


If he wanted attention, he would have surrendered himself.

He would have gotten all kind of interview requests in prison -- and probably like serial murderers in prison, get a lot of mail and marriage proposals.

[Teal]

wco:

The idiots are almost always deranged. What good is it to ask reasonable questions about unreasonable people?

PK:
None of them. But that's the point.

[Teal]

Because it's apparent that some still haven't read this VITAL piece, a couple pages back, I am re-inserting it here:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/ ... n-control/

[Teal]

[Teal]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... rt+Feed%29

[pk500]

Here's the hypocrisy, Teal: If you paid attention to "none" of the media, you wouldn't link to stories by full-time author and part-time firearms instructor Larry Correia and noted conservative columnist Andrew Breitbart. Correia is a fringe media member as an author of fantasy books. But Breitbart most certainly is part of the "media elite" you decry.

I guess media outlets are not "sensational" when they write viewpoints with which you agree.

No question the Correia and Breitbart pieces are well reported, especially Correia's. Would equally well-researched stories advocating gun control -- there are just as many stats favoring that side of the street as those used by Correia and Breitbart -- be "sensational" in your eyes? Or would they just be valid viewpoints with which you disagree?

Sorry, but I just get so fed up with the conservative branch of American society blaming the big, abstract "media" as the boogey man. Conservatives rule the leading cable news network in the nation, while Al Gore's liberal Current TV was sold this week to Al Jazzeera because it's struggling so mightily. Conservative voices rule talk radio. Beck. Limbaugh. Hannity. Meanwhile, Al Franken's liberal Air America went belly-up after six years.

Newspapers are about the only non-Internet medium still controlled by liberals in America. And newspapers are dying.

Conservatives have the No. 1 network in cable news. They rule talk radio. Yet "the media" is still evil?

Sorry, I don't get it.

I don't vent this frustration as a Republican or Democrat, as I'm neither. I spew bile as a former print journalist who knows that the First Amendment is more precious than any other. It's why the Founding Fathers put it atop the Bill of Rights. While an objective, free media is idyllic, I'd rather have a free media that sensationalizes than a censored media that plays all stories close to the vest.

[Teal]

You know what I get fed up with? Absolutely asinine ideas like new, draconian gun control measures, that only affect law abiding citizens, having ANY effect whatsoever upon the lawless. It's idiotic, and I have zero idea how it EVER gains any traction at all. It's simply mind boggling. So no, I'm not linking to anything from the Daily Beast or Huff'n'Puff Post...sorry. If they posted something on this subject worth a damn, I would. WAIT. I DID. A couple pages back, when huff'n'puff stumbled on a bit of truth for once, as far as dealing with the mentally ill issue. I linked to it because it was a good piece. So you can walk back your charge just a little.

That said, I'm an unashamed, unabashed, conservative, second amendment hawk, an NRA member, a gun owner...and, horror of horrors, I link to articles that actually agree with my personal stance?!?! Who the hell DOES that???

C'mon dude...

You say you love the first amendment. Great. Imagine the government 'banning' certain words, statements, articles, or artwork. Then you'd be on to why I can't stand tragedies like this being used as political fodder, either way. Believe me, I'd rather not even HAVE these stupid discussions, but I'm for certain not going to sit by and let idiots like Diane Feinstein and whomever believes her garbage throwing out the constitution just so that they can 'feel' better for 'doing something'.

And yeah, yeah, yeah....so 'words don't kill, dude' (I can almost hear you saying it, so I thought I'd pre-empt it ). Neither do guns. Guns are tools, just like pencils, pens, and computer keyboards. In the right hands, they save lives. In the wrong hands, they risk or take lives. But it's the hands, not the tools, that are to blame.

I keep editing because I keep re-reading your post. Grr. When the hell did I make this political? And yet, there you are, spouting a bunch of anti-conservative nonsense, as if it has anything to do with anything. YES, I'm a conservative. HELL NO, it has not one damned thing to do with anything. I know LOTS of democrats-even liberals-who are gun owners, who oppose any infringement upon our 2nd amendment rights. When did I excuse FOX NEWS of wrongdoing? Hell, their TMZing of tragedies like this is almost unparalleled.

This seems to be your go-to line of attack with me; you haven't used it in awhile, but it has been used more than once...and I'm tired of it.

[pk500]

No, my line of attack is that you claim you're tired of all media. But when you find media that supports your position, you're happy to point to a link.

Let's face a fact: Blaming the media is a conservative canard, yet conservative media is a more powerful combined force in the U.S. than liberal media. Conservatives lead the No. 1 cable news network and dominate talk radio. So how can the media be so evil?

I'm just as tired of criticism of the media as you are about demands for gun control. Knee-jerk criticism of the media has become your go-to alibi just as much as my perceived anti-conservative slights have made your eyes turn red with rage.

And when in my post did I CRITICIZE the conservative-controlled media, i.e. Fox News and talk radio? I did not. I simply stated the FACT that conservative viewpoints dominate those outlets.

I'm VERY conservative in fiscal matters and lean liberal in social matters. I guess that makes me a freak in the eyes of most Americans, who must be firmly entrenched on one side or another.

Anyways, this thread is tiptoeing very close to the edge of politics. So this is my last politically tinged response on this issue.

Fire away, NRA man.

[Teal]

"Blaming the media is a conservative canard, yet conservative media is a more powerful combined force in the U.S. than liberal media. Conservatives lead the No. 1 cable news network and dominate talk radio. So how can the media be so evil?"

1. You are absolutely, laughably, out of your mind with this quote.

2. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with my criticism of the media. Riddle me this: Did Larry Correia's piece plaster that bastard idiot's face all over the place, his name, his family life, his supposed mental illness, 24/7, wall-to-wall? NO. Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSLSD, et al did. Spare me the whole 'liberal vs. conservative' idiocy, brother. It has NOTHING (read: NOT A DAMNED THING) to do with some perceived political whateverism. STOP IT.

You criticized ME for some conspiracy theory-conservative nonsense about my lambasting of the media saturation of idiots like this. I hate when ALL of them do that. I'm an equal opportunity hater of all things that even remotely smell like TMZ-style 'reporting'. So, rather than painting my viewpoint with a single colored brush, how's about reading what I actually said, which is that the media (notice, I didn't say 'drive-by media' or 'lame-stream media' or 'Obama-mania-media' or whatever catch all that is used by SOME (again with the generalization)) acts irresponsibly when they make pseudo-celebrities out of these damned monsters...especially one that isn't still on the lamb. He's dead, he's room temperature, he's no threat to anyone else, he wanted his name remembered...so just f*cking forget about him. Refuse to keep his name on the lips of everyone in the world. But no...because "it's interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry"...

Bottom line, and the one question I have yet to see a rational, believable, or sane answer to:

How does passing gun control laws, which only the law abiding will adhere to, stop the lawless from killing innocents? HOW?

BTW: Blaming guns for violence seems to be a 'liberal canard'...and that's MY last politically-tinged post on the matter. Of course, that's the infuriating part...I wasn't trying to be political to begin with.

[greggsand]

The media is like farts, everyone likes their own brand. If banning guns was up for vote, I'd vote for it in heartbeat. If one day it looked like a mistake, I'd gladly vote it down. I don't own guns & probably never will. I could care less if others had their guns takenaway. The fact people have guns "legally" today has absolutely no effect on how "safe I feel" on a daily basis.

[DivotMaker]

Let's face a fact: Blaming the media is a conservative canard, yet conservative media is a more powerful combined force in the U.S. than liberal media. Conservatives lead the No. 1 cable news network and dominate talk radio. So how can the media be so evil?

And when in my post did I CRITICIZE the conservative-controlled media, i.e. Fox News and talk radio? I did not. I simply stated the FACT that conservative viewpoints dominate those outlets.

I'm VERY conservative in fiscal matters and lean liberal in social matters. I guess that makes me a freak in the eyes of most Americans, who must be firmly entrenched on one side or another.

Paul,

You and I are pretty similar in beliefs (from what I can tell on this forum) as I am conservative in fiscal matter, still conservative in social, but do have liberal leanings, but I can't agree that conservatives dominate the media. Do conservatives dominate talk radio? Maybe. Maybe it is because the mainstream media outlets are very liberal (ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc) and there are many conservatives voicing their opinions in those outlets that are frustrated with the current situation. I cannot agree however, that conservative viewpoints dominate the news media. In fact, I feel strongly it is the exact opposite.

[DivotMaker]

Just saw this YouTube video on FB....not sure if this has been posted, if it has, please excuse.



Not as relevant to the school shooting in CT, but it does expose some myths about gun control.

I don't have the answer to the gun control issue and this is definitely a polarizing issue with tons of emotions on both sides. We need to find a middle ground that does not interfere with 2nd Amendment liberties, yet addresses the assault weapons availability as well as the root causes of WHY some people kill others. Gun "control" is not addressing the root cause of these acts of violence. We need to be looking at the root cause (again another divisive subject) and looking for a cure instead of using BandAid's to treat the symptoms.

[Teal]

Required viewing, especially if you don't think the media (AND political theater) creates whatever template they want, and intentionally leaves out whatever information that doesn't fit their narrative:

[MERACE]

For those that like to read here is a study that I Googled called "WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE
MURDER AND SUICIDE?" done by a couple of Harvard professors. You can skip to the conclusion on the last page:

"If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did
not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” hand‐
guns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a nega‐
tive finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us
where not to aim public health resources.
150"
  


-MERACE

[Brando70]

Required viewing, especially if you don't think the media (AND political theater) creates whatever template they want, and intentionally leaves out whatever information that doesn't fit their narrative:

Some interesting stuff, but he glosses right over the murder rate issue, which is the crux of the gun control argument. In 2012, according to The Guardian, England and Wales had 551 homicides. Chicago alone topped 500 last year. Plus, the England and Wales murder rate has also dropped by about half in the last 10 years:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... land-wales

When you start digging into homicides by firearm, there is no question we outpace everyone else in the Western world and the first-world Asian countries by a lot. More guns may not necessarily equal more crime, but more access to guns certainly means more murders will be committed by firearms. I recall reading something about Switzerland years ago that, while they have a low murder rate, their rate of murders committed with a firearm is high because most households have a firearm due to Switzerland's reliance on civilian militias. Like anything else, people will reach for the most efficient tool available to them.

I think the reasonable, realistic issue illustrated by Sandy Hook is gun responsibility. Regardless of my personal feelings about guns, Rob's post a few pages back was spot on: I have to accept the country I live in. However, it seems to me that there's a very important argument being overlooked, which is how can we secure legally owned firearms in a way that could help prevent their misuse by criminals? Because regardless of being pro or con regarding concealed carry as a way to stop killers, that's not a real solution. If someone has to draw a weapon to stop a killer, we've failed on a number of earlier points before that final step. It's like when a terrorist is thwarted after they make it on a plane--that's a security failure even if the attempt is unsuccessful.

[Teal]

I don't see it as 'glossing over' murder rates; rather, he's touting the entirety of the statistics, in order to bring some balance to what is being touted in an extremely unbalanced way, so as to push a particular agenda. It's very clear that gun control laws aren't about controlling those who, by definition, will not keep the laws we already have. So the agenda doesn't ever match the situations that the gun-control crowd try to use to further their agenda. It never does. Which is why you really don't hear about any of the shootings that are stopped by an armed citizen, with nearly the degree of emphasis. Because it doesn't fit the template.

In any case, you make a valid point, one that I alluded to earlier, that the best kind of gun control is self-control and responsibility, and we SEEM to have precious little of it. However, I would point out again that perception, in this case, is not reality (as is alluded to in the video, and Larry Correia's piece), simply because the media, by nature, gravitate toward the negatives, toward doom, despair, and agony, because we humans, for some reason, want to see, hear, and read about that far more than anything 'good'. There's some philosophical stuff to all that, but that's for another time.

Truth is, the ratio of legal gun owners to gun crime is really, really low, if you look at it as it is. And it isn't limited to the US, or to countries with armed citizens, as the video attests to. So passing laws that only affect legal gun owners is counterproductive, at its core. It's a non-starter.

Speaking, ironically, of philosophical stuff, your last paragraph is more about that, I think, than any pragmatic steps to protect society from itself. "How did we come to this?" and "What 'real' solutions are out there?" are age-old questions, and they've never really been answered. However, on a pragmatic level, in order to play with the cards we are dealt, conceal carry and a stop to the idiocy of gun control laws that don't deter the lawless are the best things we have to deal with what is right in front of us.

One 'solution' that the powers-that-be have made a requirement are 'gun locks'. I recently purchased a Glock .27 for conceal carry. The gun shop was required by law to include a gun lock that operates much like a bicycle chain-you've probably seen them-in that it runs through the chamber and the clip compartment, locking together where they meet. When you are simply storing run-of-the-mill weapons (shotguns, hunting rifles, etc) it makes perfect sense. However, for a pistol used for self defense in the home, it's completely counterproductive, because if you have a break-in, you don't have time to get your key, unlock the chain, pull the chain out, load the clip, put the clip in the weapon, force a round into the chamber, and all that. It therefore, solves nothing. It creates more problems. That's the nature of a great number of gun control laws we already have on the books, and everything I've heard floated concerning the new round of draconian nonsense from Diane Feinstein's new (old) bill is just the same: They will solve nothing, and create all sorts of new problems.

Personal responsibility is about the only thing that we turn to in instances where evil twists, distorts, and misuses a thing. The solution can never be to remove the thing from those who exercise personal responsibility, nor to punish a society for the actions of its lowest common denominator.

[Brando70]

Gun locks are completely unrealistic for CCW purposes. Totally agree. I was thinking more like biometrics, which are also not flawless, but much more secure.

I also don't see guns being banned. Like Rob said, the Supreme Court has pretty much struck that down. So I think we have to accept that we will have gun ownership.

However, I think the problem that gun-rights advocates overlook is how damn easy it is for ANYONE to get guns. Regardless of whether law-abiding citizens commit crimes with guns, criminals have no problem obtaining them in this country. Why is that? That's something that I don't know anyone has answered. Regardless of whether there is a statistical correlation between crime and gun laws or gun ownership, why is it so easy for criminals to obtain firearms, and what can we do to stop it? Throwing our hands up and offering CCW as a solution seems like an admission of failure to me.

[Teal]

Nah...more of an admission of reality. Evil will find a way. I'd like to think that the Feinstein's and their ill-thought out, counterintuitive campaigns would not see the light of day, but she got it done once, so...

I think a biometric deal where the gun won't fire for anyone but the owner is a good idea. But apparently, we aren't there quite yet. SO, we deal with what we've got the only way we realistically can...and that's not by making it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns. And Illlinois is quite close to instituting a complete ban on guns, so I'm not breathing as easily as I should be able to over that. Though the passage of something so idiotic will have the exact opposite effect that the legislators imagine: gun violence will INCREASE, and law abiding citizens will draw a line in the sand, refuse to give up their guns, and become law-breakers...all for no reason.

And I will be one of them. Like the marine told Feinstein in an open letter: An unconstitutional law is not a law. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty cut and dry.

[Inuyasha]

PK and Teal - how come you guys didn't tell us you'd be on CNN last night

[Macca00]

Crap, I've been prescribing mass murder pills!

FYI: Piers should still be deported.

[dougb]

Crap, I've been prescribing mass murder pills!

FYI: Piers should still be deported.

Just as long as you aren't prescribing the penis enlargement pills...

Doug

[Feanor]

For those that like to read here is a study that I Googled called "WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE
MURDER AND SUICIDE?" done by a couple of Harvard professors. You can skip to the conclusion on the last page:

You can just skip reading the whole thing since it's not even a study, just propaganda for a conservative law review with glaring factual errors such as giving a homicide rate for Luxembourg 10 times higher than it actually is. This kind of shoddy research would never have made it past an actual peer-review.

However, I think the problem that gun-rights advocates overlook is how damn easy it is for ANYONE to get guns. Regardless of whether law-abiding citizens commit crimes with guns, criminals have no problem obtaining them in this country. Why is that? That's something that I don't know anyone has answered. Regardless of whether there is a statistical correlation between crime and gun laws or gun ownership, why is it so easy for criminals to obtain firearms, and what can we do to stop it? Throwing our hands up and offering CCW as a solution seems like an admission of failure to me.

They like to pretend that gun crime and gun violence being far more prevalent in America than in any other developed country has nothing to do with absurdly easy it is for anyone here to get a gun. Including people like Jared Lee Loughner who was a law abiding citizen right up until he went on his murderous rampage. These rate of gun deaths per 100,000 people are not a coincidence, and I know that mentally ill people fall thru the cracks just as much in a country like New Zealand as they do in America. The difference is, they find it much more difficult to obtain firearms.

Japan 0.07
South Korea 0.13
Hong Kong 0.19
Singapore 0.24
UK 0.25
Taiwan 0.42
Spain 0.63
India 0.93
Ireland 1.03
Australia 1.05
Germany 1.10
Greece 1.50
Italy 1.28
Norway 1.78
Israel 1.86
New Zealand 2.66
Austria 2.94
France 3.00
Switzerland 3.50
Finland 3.64
Canada 4.78
USA 10.2

[Teal]

Feanor, you put up all sorts of slanted crap, so you calling something 'propaganda for a conservative' yada yada yada is pretty ridiculous. Yeah, I do, too, but I'm not trying to pretend to be 'objective'. Give it a rest.

Give up whatever rights you want to. Fine by me. But I won't be, no matter if they pass some unconstitutional law. "Not infringed" means "not infringed". Simple as that.

BTW, are you for the legalization of drugs?

[pk500]

PK and Teal - how come you guys didn't tell us you'd be on CNN last night

Come on: Cut Teal a break. Even in the drunkest moment of his life, Teal was a Rhodes Scholar compared to Alex Jones.

Calling Alex Jones an idiot is an insult to idiocy. He is a walking, talking straw man.

Morgan is trumping up the gun control issue for ratings, nothing else. But Jones' irrational rants make Morgan look like an elegant, genuine statesman.