LIBERAL CENSORSHIP PREVAILS

@parados,

Let me spell it out for you.

His analogy:

Quote:

A dog bites a man, it's not newsworthy -- dogs do that all the time. A man bites a dog in public -- now you've got a story. (because it's so rare -- my addition)

My re-wording to make the analogy apply to why reporting people saved by guns never makes the news (the topic of this thread).

maporsche wrote:

Someone saves a life by brandishing a firearm and demanding a criminal stop committing a crime, it's not newsworthy -- people do that all the time. Someone shoots and kills someone else -- now you've got a story. (because it's so rare)

2 Replies

U can all claim that its a function of rarity ( not u, maporsche )
but its politically motivated; some journalists
have admitted downplaying a story wherein passive or active
use of firearms defeated a violent criminal for reasons of sociology
because it contradicts their mantra that the possession of guns is intolerably dangerous.

Thay wanna sculpt their readers' brains.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

So, David, what did you think of Randolph Roth's research results?

I've been waiting for you to come back to this thread.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Are you suggesting that if guns were banned this number would drop?

If so, would any other numbers rise, say violent crimes such as rape or armed robbery.

The majority of those murders are due to gang activity; from what I understand this is a problem that Canada does not have to deal with as greatly.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

U can all claim that its a function of rarity ( not u, maporsche )
but its politically motivated; some journalists
have admitted downplaying a story wherein passive or active
use of firearms defeated a violent criminal for reasons of sociology
because it contradicts their mantra that the possession of guns is intolerably dangerous.

Thay wanna sculpt their readers' brains.

Funny thing is, I don't see articles about people stopping crimes with guns on ANY news source with any regularity, regardless of their orientation. Surely Fox News, the New York Post and the WSJ should be full of these sorts of stories; however, they are not.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I always knew you were a anti-spanking liberal at heart!

No, no: that is a fully conservative application
of the law against assault and battery (in tort)
and of criminal assault.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

birth control is a good way to stop abortions
birth control is a good way to stop abortions
birth control is a good way to stop abortions
birth control is a good way to stop abortions
birth control is a good way to stop abortions
birth control is a good way to stop abortions
birth control is a good way to stop abortions

Guns are a good way to stop crime.

Guns are a great way to commit crime.

I don't think birth control is a great way to commit abortion.

Guns r a great way to DEFEND
from crime; I 've DONE it and survived

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

U can all claim that its a function of rarity ( not u, maporsche )
but its politically motivated; some journalists
have admitted downplaying a story wherein passive or active
use of firearms defeated a violent criminal for reasons of sociology
because it contradicts their mantra that the possession of guns is intolerably dangerous.

Thay wanna sculpt their readers' brains.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Funny thing is, I don't see articles about people stopping crimes with guns on ANY news source with any regularity, regardless of their orientation. Surely Fox News, the New York Post and the WSJ should be full of these sorts of stories; however, they are not.

Cycloptichorn

I 've posted some of them here;
I 'll c if I can step that up for demonstrative purposes.

I am in doubt that those media r on my side
qua full freedom of personal armament of the populace
to restore the status quo ante.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Rather than post more examples here, how about a new thread that argues that guns prevent 200 million crimes per year. You've already acknowledged that both liberal and conservative outlets don't carry these kind of stories. Your title is drawing more discussion about "liberal" than about the impact of guns on crime. If you had titled it "Gun Censorship Prevails", I think you would have a better thread. You mentioned that 200 million number and I would like to see more about how it was calculated. (I went so far as to look up the author, but haven't had a chance to drive down on it.)

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Someone saves a life by not even having a firearm - not newsworthy and happens MORE often than having a gun saves lives.

Neither are newsworthy and the failure to report guns saving lives doesn't make them more noble or likely than saving lives without a gun.

I can easily claim I have saved MORE lives by not having a gun than David has by having one.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Not having a gun is ALSO a way to defend from crime. I have also survived on more than one occasion. Having a gun, only introduces a gun into the situation which makes it MORE likely that the gun will be used. It doesn't make one safer necessarily unless one is so infatuated with guns that they think it is the only possible weapon to use in all cases.

Your attitude David means you are incapable of dealing with the reality of situations since you think a gun is the only response. If I have to resort to a gun, it means I failed. You on the other hand see it as the only badge of success.

2 Replies

@parados,

Come to think of it...

I don't own a gun, and I have never been the victim of a violent crime. I have also never shot my wife.

Is this news?

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

Someone saves a life by brandishing a firearm and demanding a criminal stop committing a crime, it's not newsworthy -- people do that all the time.

What evidence do you have that "people do that all the time?" Or are you just making **** up?

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Rather than post more examples here,
how about a new thread that argues that guns prevent 200 million crimes per year.
You've already acknowledged that both liberal and conservative outlets
don't carry these kind of stories. Your title is drawing more discussion
about "liberal" than about the impact of guns on crime.
If you had titled it "Gun Censorship Prevails", I think you would have
a better thread. You mentioned that 200 million number
and I would like to see more about how it was calculated.
(I went so far as to look up the author, but haven't had a chance to drive down on it.)

I imagine that since the founding of the Republic, we may have had 200,000,000 crimes.

I cited to a statistic of Gary Kleck who estimated that 2,500,000
crimes per year r defeated or prevented by the passive display of a gun.
I am within that statistic. I am not much of a statistician
and therefore I don 't wish to promote argument wherein
I can have only minimal participation.

I coud study up on it,
but that seems obviated by the USSC which has
(in my understanding of HELLER) indicated that it
will throw out gun control, on a piecemeal basis, if the 5 men
of the majority remain intact. That 'd be like me studying
baseball statistics in order to convince folks that we shud have a World Series this year.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Neither; I was trying to figure out how someone was using an analogy. Did you read the preceding posts?

0 Replies

Yeah, i read 'em . . . and they did not contain egregiously specious claims . . .

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Here's where my thinking went, you can let me know if I have a problem with reading comprehension.

1. David complains about news where people use firearms w/o firing them to stop a crime.
2. People rebut that 'blood sells'
3. David complains about liberal bias and political agenda.
4. Some posts an analogy as an example. That when dogs bite people it's no news, because it happens all the time....yadda yadda yadda.
5. I ask if the analogy means that because guns are used in the way David first posted (see the first post) all the time (like dogs bite people all the time, please see his analogy) that's why it's not reported in the news.

I don't think I made a statement. I was asking for clarification on an analogy.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Not having a gun is ALSO a way to defend from crime.

How ?

parados wrote:

I have also survived on more than one occasion.

How did u do it; a lot of begging n grovelling?

parados wrote:

Having a gun, only introduces a gun into the situation
which makes it MORE likely that the gun will be used.

That 's GOOD, if the victim uses his gun on the predator.
Sometimes, display is enuf; not always.

parados wrote:

It doesn't make one safer necessarily unless one is so infatuated with guns
that they think it is the only possible weapon to use in all cases.

Not "necessarily" but it improves your odds to have effective emergency equipment;
it reflects competent efforts of preparation.
That 's like lifejackets will not NECESSARILY save people from drowning
after boating accidents, but u r better off WITH one.

parados wrote:

Your attitude David means you are incapable of dealing with the reality of situations
since you think a gun is the only response.

It is the BEST response, but there
may well be other, inferior quality responses; i.e., u might be able
to smother a bad guy with a pillow, but that 's an awkward way
to address the situation; hence, the police carry guns, not pillows.

I did not say that it is the "only" response; just the best one.
Many years ago, when I left home, I left my mom with a gun
for defensive emergencies; it was that or nothing.
That was all that she was physically capable of using;
she was never much of a knife fighter.

When I got out of the hospital after abdominal surgery,
it was the most I coud to remain vertical; for a while,
I coud not even walk, let alone fight.

parados wrote:

If I have to resort to a gun, it means I failed.

U failed to do WHAT ?

parados wrote:

You on the other hand see it as the only badge of success.

A lifejacket is not a badge of success;
a gun is not a badge of success (nor is it a badge)
but thay both offer means of surviving emergencies.

Its better to HAVE a gun and not NEED it,
than it is to NEED a gun and not HAVE it.

0 Replies

@parados,

Merry Andrew even quoted the part of David's post that he was making the analogy for.

And people also save lives by having a firearm. See the first post in this thread. Are you denying that the person who brandished the firearm did not save that person life? I mean I know we don't know if the criminal would have shot the person, but it very likely could have happened, and thanks to the person with a gun, it didn't.

If you were that person, would you berate the citizen who pulled a gun on your attacker? If you were attacked, would you not want someone with a gun there to get your criminal to leave?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

He won't read this, not that i matters too damned much. Heller introduced the concept of owning a firearm for personal defense (which is not mentioned in the second amendment). However, far from being the thin end of the wedge to dismantle gun control (which the firearms lunatics seem to fervently believe), it affirmed the right of government to regulate firearms. These two passages are from the majority opinion:

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

and

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."

It is completely false to attempt to claim that Heller will dismantle gun control laws.

1 Reply

LIBERAL CENSORSHIP PREVAILS

Quick Links

My Account

able2know