OT-The Missing Gun
Gunner
By JOHN R. LOTT, JR.
http://nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/38115.htm
January 25, 2002 -- ANOTHER school shooting occurred last week and the
headlines were everywhere the same, from Australia to Nigeria. This
time the
shooting occurred at a university, the Appalachian Law School. As
usual,
there were calls for more gun control.
Yet in this age of "gun-free school zones," one fact was missing from
virtually all the news coverage: The attack was stopped by two
students who
had guns in their cars.
The fast responses of two male students, Mikael Gross, 34, and Tracy
Bridges, 25, undoubtedly saved multiple lives.
Mikael was outside the law school and just returning from lunch when
Peter
Odighizuwa started his attack. Tracy was in a classroom waiting for
class to
start.
When the shots rang out, utter chaos erupted. Mikael said, "People
were
running everywhere. They were jumping behind cars, running out in
front of
traffic, trying to get away."
Mikael and Tracy did something quite different: Both immediately ran
to
their cars and got their guns. Mikael had to run about 100 yards to
get to
his car. Along with Ted Besen (who was unarmed), they approached Peter
from
different sides.
As Tracy explained it, "I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his
gun
down. Ted approached Peter, and Peter hit Ted in the jaw. Ted pushed
him
back and we all jumped on."
What is so remarkable is that out of 280 separate news stories (from a
computerized Nexis-Lexis search) in the week after the event, just
four
stories mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns.
Only two local newspapers (the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the
Charlotte
Observer) mentioned that the students actually pointed their guns at
the
attacker.
Much more typical was the scenario described by the Washington Post,
where
the heroes had simply "helped subdue" the killer. The New York Times
noted
only that the attacker was "tackled by fellow students."
Most in the media who discussed how the attack was stopped said:
"students
overpowered a gunman," "students ended the rampage by tackling him,"
"the
gunman was tackled by four male students before being arrested," or
"Students ended the rampage by confronting and then tackling the
gunman, who
dropped his weapon."
In all, 72, stories described how the attacker was stopped without
mentioning that the student heroes had guns.
Unfortunately, the coverage in this case was not unusual. In the other
public school shootings where citizens with guns have stopped attacks,
rarely do more than one percent of the news stories mention that
citizens
with guns stopped the attacks.
Many people find it hard to believe that research shows that there are
2
million defensive gun uses each year. After all, if these events were
really
happening, wouldn't we hear about them on the news? But when was the
last
time you saw a story on the national evening news (or even the local
news)
about a citizen using his gun to stop a crime?
This misreporting actually endangers people's lives. By selectively
reporting the news and turning a defensive gun use story into one
where
students merely "overpowered a gunman" the media gives misleading
impressions of what works when people are confronted by violence.
Research consistently shows that having a gun is the safest way to
respond
to any type of criminal attack, especially these multiple victim
shootings.
John Lott is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
and the
author of "More Guns, Less Crime."
------------------------------
A.K. Pritchard
The Republican Web pages and email list
"And to the Republic for which it stands"
http://members.ll.net/chiliast/
God, Guns, Government & History
http://members.ll.net/chiliast/GGGH/index2.html
Republic USA
http://www.republicusa.org/
To Join The Republican Email List mail to:
therepublica...@ll.net
Subject=JOIN
body=SUBSCRIBE
To Leave The Republican Email List mail to:
therepublica...@ll.net
Subject=LEAVE
body=UNSUBSCRIBE
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the
people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some
rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no
majority has a right to deprive them of."
- Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
"Find out just what the people will submit to and you will have found
out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon
them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words
or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance
of those whom they oppress."
- Frederick Douglass
Dennis
I am sure you will catch a lot of crap for posting another gun article on
the NG but I for one appreciated it.
If you want to know why you could not find any mention about this incident
on the network news shows or read about it in most of the countries newspapers,
you might want to read the bestselling non-fiction book BIAS by Bernard
Goldberg. Thank God ( or Al Gore) for the Internet. The elitists who think they
know what is best for us can't put their spin on everything we see or read now.
Just my opinion,
Dennis
jim rozen
> This time the
>shooting occurred at a university, the Appalachian Law School.
Gads - here I thought it was another cherry bomb vasectomy
post! Now we are in real big trouble, the lawywers are
getting guns, too! What they need is some real firepower
though.
<http://www.minuend.com/writers/nora.htm>
Gunner, if your going to continue with OT posts, please
do put up more like this one.
Jim
===================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at watson dot ibm dot com
===================================
Fitch R. Williams
>Gunner, if your going to continue with OT posts, please
>do put up more like this one.
Ice Cream melts, concrete cracks, and Gunner will doubtless continue.
<G>
Fitch
jim rozen
Can't turn the set off, the only hope is to keep
the channel on what *I* like! :^)
Jacques Strappe
jim rozen wrote:
>
> In article <tbs85u4lm1lqidsd4...@4ax.com>, Fitch says...
> >
> >jim rozen <jim_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Gunner, if your going to continue with OT posts, please
> >>do put up more like this one.
> >
> >Ice Cream melts, concrete cracks, and Gunner will doubtless continue.
> ><G>
>
> Can't turn the set off, the only hope is to keep
> the channel on what *I* like! :^)
>
>
Sure you can. Just get a newsreader with killfile capability...
-js
--
Jim Stewart
http://www.strappe.com
Steve Walker
110% here. It's too bad people don't get the good side of weapon ownership
shown to them because of media reporting practices. I'm certain most of the
72 media reports all had the facts, and most chose to either ignore them or
didn't want to appear biased. I'm a proud owner of 5 weapons, at least one
is always in the car. The supposed fear that many groups want to instill
into the public of legalized concealed carry is false. Just because you have
a weapon doesn't make you a criminal. The only category I know of , in which
having power to commit crimes converts many to criminals, is politics. 'Nuff
Said. (thanks Stan)
--
Steve Walker
res0...@walletverizon.net (remove wallet to reply, it's free)
(Now Playing: Peter Gunn Theme. - The Blues Brothers)
signature design ©(Loco Jones)
Ed Huntress
news:u2b75u8tj7lqtubpq...@4ax.com...
> Only two local newspapers (the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Charlotte
> Observer) mentioned that the students actually pointed their guns at the
> attacker...
> Mikael and Tracy did something quite different: Both immediately ran to
> their cars and got their guns. Mikael had to run about 100 yards to get to
> his car. Along with Ted Besen (who was unarmed), they approached Peter
from
> different sides.
Interesting. The Times-Dispatch makes no mention of Mikael in any article.
And it turns out that Tracy is a sheriff's deputy. Tracy, according to him,
is the one who pointed the gun.
The Observer wants money to read their archived articles, but the headlines
and abstracts on this story look like a wirefeed-rip from the
Times-Dispatch. They appear to be the same stories.
Watch out for the _New York Post_. It isn't the city's birdcage liner for
nothing. Half-told stories are their stock in trade.
Ed Huntress
Michael Gray
Have just come back from a trip to the UK and Spain. While in Spain
was astounded to visit a hardware store (because of the replica guns
in the window) and found not only replicas, but a huge display case of
"real" guns! Walthers etc plus what looked like Uzis, reasonable
prices too.
Does anyone know anything about gun possession laws in Spain? And
consider....this is the country with ETA, the Basque 'terrorists'.
In the UK on the other hand, to even talk about gun possession is
definitely politically incorrect, if my brothers and sisters-in-law
are anything to go by. Canada is rapidly going in this direction
too, or should I say city-dwelling Canada? rural Canadians know what
guns are for!
Mike, in North-Central BC at -25*C this fine morning
Mary Rosh
Tracy was a former sheriff's deputy. He had resigned a year before
the shooting and apparently only held that position for a short time
after graduating from college.
Ed Huntress
news:23fa92fe.02012...@posting.google.com...
[Ed said]
> > Interesting. The Times-Dispatch makes no mention of Mikael in any
article.
> > And it turns out that Tracy is a sheriff's deputy. Tracy, according to
him,
> > is the one who pointed the gun.
[Mary said]
>
> Tracy was a former sheriff's deputy. He had resigned a year before
> the shooting and apparently only held that position for a short time
> after graduating from college.
Not according to Buncombe County (NC) Chief Deputy Sheriff George Stewart.
Tracy is currently a deputy.
Ed Huntress
jim rozen
>Not according to Buncombe County (NC) Chief Deputy Sheriff George Stewart.
>Tracy is currently a deputy.
Maybe he is, *now*. You know, shoot a bad guy,
win a free badge....
Ed Huntress
news:a3473...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <jQg58.2175$ff5.5...@news02.optonline.net>, "Ed says...
>
> >Not according to Buncombe County (NC) Chief Deputy Sheriff George
Stewart.
> >Tracy is currently a deputy.
>
> Maybe he is, *now*. You know, shoot a bad guy,
> win a free badge....
Haha! Actually, I considered that possibility -- that he was reinstated or
something like that.
Nope. He's not assigned any duties right now, because he's in law school.
But he's a sworn, active deputy.
Ed Huntress
jim rozen
>Nope. He's not assigned any duties right now, ...
Err, besides shooting bad guys, that is!
Wonder if he's gonna work for the DAs office when
he graduates. Arrest, convict, punish, all by
the same man.
Ed Huntress
> In article <u2i58.2760$ff5.6...@news02.optonline.net>, "Ed says...
>
> >Nope. He's not assigned any duties right now, ...
>
> Err, besides shooting bad guys, that is!
>
> Wonder if he's gonna work for the DAs office when
> he graduates. Arrest, convict, punish, all by
> the same man.
Well, it sounds like he's following the route of many ambitious and aspiring
young law-enforcement people, which is to get a law degree and work his way
into a higher-paying job. From his account of the incident, it sounds like
he was pretty cool and effective.
My warning lights went on, though, when I read that multiple law students
went rushing off to get the guns out of their glove boxes. What kind of law
school is that?? Either the school is in a suburb of Beirut, or they have
some really wild parties on Saturday nights. <g>
Ed Huntress
Bob Edwards
> "> My warning lights went on, though, when I read that multiple law
students
> went rushing off to get the guns out of their glove boxes. What kind of
law
> school is that??
Ed, it's in West Virginia! That's what kind.
Bob
Ed Huntress
news:7Ij58.48139$Tl.6...@news.easynews.com...
>
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:%8j58.3439$ff5.7...@news02.optonline.net...
> > "> My warning lights went on, though, when I read that multiple law
> students
> > went rushing off to get the guns out of their glove boxes. What kind of
> law
> > school is that??
>
> Ed, it's in West Virginia! That's what kind.
Naw. Everybody there is related by birth. They wouldn't shoot each other.
<g>
Ed Huntress
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>My warning lights went on, though, when I read that multiple law students
>went rushing off to get the guns out of their glove boxes. What kind of law
>school is that?? Either the school is in a suburb of Beirut, or they have
>some really wild parties on Saturday nights. <g>
A pretty typical one, actually.
Every place I've ever lived, in any random group of 100 people, at least
ten would have a gun in their car.
And that includes some very liberal places.
--
When a clever man was stupid, he was stupid in a way a man who was
stupid all the time could never hope to match, for the clever man's
stupidity, drawing as it did on so much more knowledge, had a breadth
and depth to it the run-of-the-mill fool found impossible to duplicate.
-- Harry Turtledove
Ed Huntress
news:slrna5blmg...@jdege.visi.com...
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:12:27 GMT, Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net>
wrote:
> >
> >My warning lights went on, though, when I read that multiple law students
> >went rushing off to get the guns out of their glove boxes. What kind of
law
> >school is that?? Either the school is in a suburb of Beirut, or they have
> >some really wild parties on Saturday nights. <g>
>
> A pretty typical one, actually.
After the "evidence" presented in this thread, Jeff, I'd want to do a survey
before I'd believe that.
I've been to colleges all over the country and was a student in several. I
do not buy the idea that 10% of the students have guns in their glove boxes.
Not even 1%.
Ed Huntress
jim rozen
>My warning lights went on, though, when I read that multiple law students
>went rushing off to get the guns out of their glove boxes. What kind of law
>school is that?? Either the school is in a suburb of Beirut, or they have
>some really wild parties on Saturday nights. <g>
Yes. THis sounds like the guy who tries to rob a
Dunkin Dougnuts when the police convention is in
town.
Jeffrey C. Dege
Undergrads? No.
But grad schools?
I'm taking a masters in an evening program designed for working
professionals, and 10% would be a low estimate.
--
If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may
be attributed to the omnipotence of the majority, which may at some
future time urge the minorities to desperation and oblige them to have
recourse to physical force. Anarchy will then be the result, but it will
have been brought about by despotism.
- Alexis De Toqueville
Ed Huntress
>
> I'm taking a masters in an evening program designed for working
> professionals, and 10% would be a low estimate.
University of Kabul? <g>
What state is that in, Jeff?
Ed Huntress
Mary Rosh
Here are a couple of the articles that say differently.
The Charlotte Observer
January 18, 2002 Friday ONE-THREE EDITION
SECTION: MAIN; Pg. 2A
LENGTH: 485 words
HEADLINE: EX-CHARLOTTEAN: I HELPED NAB SUSPECT;
SCENE 'LOOKED LIKE SOMEBODY HAD MOPPED THE FLOOR WITH BLOOD'
BYLINE: DIANE SUCHETKA, STAFF WRITER
. . .
Mikael Gross, 34, a first-year student at the small school in Grundy,
Va., told The Observer he worked as a state alcohol law enforcement
agent in Charlotte from 1996 until 1998 and earned a master's degree
in criminal justice at UNC Charlotte in 1997.
The Washington Post
January 18, 2002, Friday, Final Edition
SECTION: METRO; Pg. B01
LENGTH: 966 words
HEADLINE: Grundy, Law School Linked in Mourning; Ties Strengthened In
Tributes to 3 Slain in Shootings
BYLINE: Maria Glod and Fredrick Kunkle, Washington Post Staff Writers
DATELINE: GRUNDY, Va., Jan 17
. . .
Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, two students who are also *former*
police officers, helped subdue Odighizuwa until sheriff's deputies
arrived.
(Emphasis added.)
Jeffrey C. Dege
Minnesota, believe it or not.
--
We can found no scientific discipline, nor a healthy profession on the
technical mistakes of the Department of Defense and IBM.
-- Edsger Dijkstra
Ed Huntress
Tracy's boss at the Buncombe County Sheriff's Dept., and talked to him
myself. He's a very pleasant gentleman, by the way.
After nearly 30 years as a writer and journalist I always try to go directly
to the source. And I never, ever, parrot another journalist's writings as
fact. They're too often wrong.
I see you found a reference to Mikael. It appears he had been a
law-enforcement officer, as well. Does the article say anything about
whether he had a gun?
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> >> I'm taking a masters in an evening program designed for working
> >> professionals, and 10% would be a low estimate.
>
> Minnesota, believe it or not.
Jeff, I'd be real interested in a survey of Minnesota evening graduate
students that showed 10% of them, as "a low estimate," had guns in the glove
boxes when they were at school.
Ed Huntress
Jeffrey C. Dege
I'm not talking surveys, I'm talking the people I meet.
I've found, since I 'outed' myself as a shooter, that there are far
more shooters around than I would ever have figured. Roughly 1/3 of the
people I work with hunt or target shoot regularly, five out of a class
of 30 in my last graduate school class.
--
You'd think that after all this time
I would have dreamed up a really clever .sig!
Ed Huntress
of a minor hoot, in fact.
Thanks to Mary for finding the reference to Mikael Gross, the other "student
hero" who had a gun.
According to the stories that Lott refers to, Gross not only had a gun. He
also was wearing a bulletproof vest...
Now, college-student-heroes who have guns in their gloveboxes are something
to think about. College-student-heroes who have guns in their gloveboxes and
bulletproof vests in their trunks are something else.
But wait...don't call in your order yet...there's more.
The article continues: Mikael Gross, college-student-hero not only had a gun
(under the driver's seat, actually) and a bulletproof vest. He had
handcuffs, which he slapped onto the shooter after he was tackled. Yes, a
college-student-hero, an ordinary armed citizen who was vigilant and ready
with his handgun and bulletproof vest, was ready for anything. Even
handcuffs. There was no mention in the article whether he had a riot helmet
or C4, but this was one Minuteman college student, by gum.
Now, we've learned that the other ordinary college-student-hero was a
sheriff's deputy, but one has to wonder what kind of parties Mikael Gross
goes to that he has a bulletproof vest and handcuffs in his trunk.
So I read on. According to the story Mary referred us to, Mikael Gross, too,
is a cop:
"He worked as the director of police corps training at the N.C. Justice
Academy in 1998 and 1999, he said, and the chief of police at Brevard
College before heading to law school in August ."
"During breaks from law school, he works as a police officer in Grifton."
John Lott is a disgrace to my profession. He used the facts to tell a lie,
which is the work of a propagandist, not a journalist. The facts are that
two armed men were among the students who tackled the shooter. The lie is
that they are representative of ordinary citizens who arm themselves against
such eventualities, and are proof of how the "liberal" press covers up this
fact. The "ordinary citizens," as Mr. Lott certainly knows, happen to be
cops. Lies in the service of "larger truth," no doubt...
Even Lott's figures are misleading. Most of the stories he counts are
actually edits of one AP wirestory. I read the original AP story. The writer
quotes "local officials," who gave the writer the account of the tackling.
It looks like the AP writer didn't interview Gross or Bridges, but only
relied on the officials' account. That's one more example of abhorrent
journalism, in my view, but it doesn't tell the story that Lott implies. It
tells of one half-fast story, told many times in different newspapers.
This all is typical of the _New York Post_, a disgusting, degenerate rag
that has a rep for doing a slipshod, or nonexistent, job of checking its
facts. The editorial dept. editor gave his or her stamp of approval to this
piece of misleading trash. If he or she worked for me, and if I found out
what I learned today, he/she would be fired tomorrow.
But that's the Post. If you want some *real* fun, track down some of the
"Armed Citizen" storylets in _American Rifleman_. I've done it. It's a hoot
and a half. <g>
Ed Huntress
"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:u2b75u8tj7lqtubpq...@4ax.com...
> THE MISSING GUN
> By JOHN R. LOTT, JR.
> http://nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/38115.htm
>
> January 25, 2002 -- ANOTHER school shooting occurred last week and the
> headlines were everywhere the same, from Australia to Nigeria. This
> time the
> shooting occurred at a university, the Appalachian Law School. As
> usual,
> there were calls for more gun control.
>
> Yet in this age of "gun-free school zones," one fact was missing from
> virtually all the news coverage: The attack was stopped by two
> students who
> had guns in their cars.
>
> The fast responses of two male students, Mikael Gross, 34, and Tracy
> Bridges, 25, undoubtedly saved multiple lives.
>
> Mikael was outside the law school and just returning from lunch when
> Peter
> Odighizuwa started his attack. Tracy was in a classroom waiting for
> class to
> start.
>
> When the shots rang out, utter chaos erupted. Mikael said, "People
> were
> running everywhere. They were jumping behind cars, running out in
> front of
> traffic, trying to get away."
>
> Mikael and Tracy did something quite different: Both immediately ran
> to
> their cars and got their guns. Mikael had to run about 100 yards to
> get to
> his car. Along with Ted Besen (who was unarmed), they approached Peter
> from
> different sides.
>
> As Tracy explained it, "I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his
> gun
> down. Ted approached Peter, and Peter hit Ted in the jaw. Ted pushed
> him
> back and we all jumped on."
>
> What is so remarkable is that out of 280 separate news stories (from a
> computerized Nexis-Lexis search) in the week after the event, just
> four
> stories mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns.
>
> Only two local newspapers (the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the
> Charlotte
> Observer) mentioned that the students actually pointed their guns at
> the
> attacker.
>
> Much more typical was the scenario described by the Washington Post,
> where
> the heroes had simply "helped subdue" the killer. The New York Times
> noted
> only that the attacker was "tackled by fellow students."
>
> Most in the media who discussed how the attack was stopped said:
> "students
> overpowered a gunman," "students ended the rampage by tackling him,"
> "the
> gunman was tackled by four male students before being arrested," or
> "Students ended the rampage by confronting and then tackling the
> gunman, who
> dropped his weapon."
>
> In all, 72, stories described how the attacker was stopped without
> mentioning that the student heroes had guns.
>
> Unfortunately, the coverage in this case was not unusual. In the other
> public school shootings where citizens with guns have stopped attacks,
> rarely do more than one percent of the news stories mention that
> citizens
> with guns stopped the attacks.
>
> Many people find it hard to believe that research shows that there are
> 2
> million defensive gun uses each year. After all, if these events were
> really
> happening, wouldn't we hear about them on the news? But when was the
> last
> time you saw a story on the national evening news (or even the local
> news)
> about a citizen using his gun to stop a crime?
>
> This misreporting actually endangers people's lives. By selectively
> reporting the news and turning a defensive gun use story into one
> where
> students merely "overpowered a gunman" the media gives misleading
> impressions of what works when people are confronted by violence.
>
> Research consistently shows that having a gun is the safest way to
> respond
> to any type of criminal attack, especially these multiple victim
> shootings.
>
> John Lott is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
> and the
> author of "More Guns, Less Crime."
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> A.K. Pritchard
>
> The Republican Web pages and email list
> "And to the Republic for which it stands"
> http://members.ll.net/chiliast/
> God, Guns, Government & History
> http://members.ll.net/chiliast/GGGH/index2.html
>
> Republic USA
> http://www.republicusa.org/
>
> To Join The Republican Email List mail to:
>
> therepublica...@ll.net
> Subject=JOIN
> body=SUBSCRIBE
>
> To Leave The Republican Email List mail to:
>
> therepublica...@ll.net
> Subject=LEAVE
> body=UNSUBSCRIBE
>
>
>
>
>
> "The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the
> people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some
> rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no
> majority has a right to deprive them of."
> - Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
>
> "Find out just what the people will submit to and you will have found
> out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon
> them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words
> or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance
> of those whom they oppress."
> - Frederick Douglass
Ed Huntress
>
> I'm not talking surveys, I'm talking the people I meet.
>
> I've found, since I 'outed' myself as a shooter, that there are far
> more shooters around than I would ever have figured. Roughly 1/3 of the
> people I work with hunt or target shoot regularly, five out of a class
> of 30 in my last graduate school class.
Well, I am talking surveys, because the road to hell is paved with
anecdotes.
As a gunowner, hunter, and shooter for 41 years, a certified rifle
instructor and former DCM range officer, there's one thing I know about
gunowners: they tend to find each other. There are all sorts of interesting
parallels that tend to deliver them to the same places -- such as this NG.
What is the graduate program for which you're studying for your degree,
Jeff?
Ed Huntress
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>As a gunowner, hunter, and shooter for 41 years, a certified rifle
>instructor and former DCM range officer, there's one thing I know about
>gunowners: they tend to find each other. There are all sorts of interesting
>parallels that tend to deliver them to the same places -- such as this NG.
>
>What is the graduate program for which you're studying for your degree,
>Jeff?
Software Engineering.
I'll freely admit the mix may be different across the quad. There may be
more gun owners in engineering than in literature, business, or theology.
But software types are far from the only group where gun owners are more
common than not.
--
Neutiquam erro.
Gunner
wrote:
>"He worked as the director of police corps training at the N.C. Justice
>Academy in 1998 and 1999, he said, and the chief of police at Brevard
>College before heading to law school in August ."
>
So..that makes him an ex cop..correct? Im an ex cop..so am I other than
an ordinary citizen? Hummm?
>"During breaks from law school, he works as a police officer in Grifton."
>
Ok..part time cop. Not a cop at present.
>John Lott is a disgrace to my profession. He used the facts to tell a lie,
>which is the work of a propagandist, not a journalist. The facts are that
>two armed men were among the students who tackled the shooter. The lie is
>that they are representative of ordinary citizens who arm themselves against
>such eventualities, and are proof of how the "liberal" press covers up this
>fact. The "ordinary citizens," as Mr. Lott certainly knows, happen to be
>cops. Lies in the service of "larger truth," no doubt...
An ex cop..and a partime one.
Oddly enough Ed... I keep a handgun handy..and cuffs in my
glovebox......and I do own a vest. Even carry it at times, depending on
where Im going. So..does that make me a cop? Hardly.
You can pick holes all you want in Lotts piece, but it doesnt change the
basic premise at all. Neither does your below rant speak much for all
the other "sloppy journalism" one encounters every day.
Btw..since you think so poorly of Lott, when do you come out with your
Peer Review of his work.." More Guns, Less Crime"? Lets see if you can
do better than all the anti-gunners at trying to find chinks in it.
>
>Even Lott's figures are misleading. Most of the stories he counts are
>actually edits of one AP wirestory. I read the original AP story. The writer
>quotes "local officials," who gave the writer the account of the tackling.
>It looks like the AP writer didn't interview Gross or Bridges, but only
>relied on the officials' account. That's one more example of abhorrent
>journalism, in my view, but it doesn't tell the story that Lott implies. It
>tells of one half-fast story, told many times in different newspapers.
>
>This all is typical of the _New York Post_, a disgusting, degenerate rag
>that has a rep for doing a slipshod, or nonexistent, job of checking its
>facts. The editorial dept. editor gave his or her stamp of approval to this
>piece of misleading trash. If he or she worked for me, and if I found out
>what I learned today, he/she would be fired tomorrow.
This is typical of nearly ALL the media..and if you want to play this
game..Im sure we can give examples..really really want to go there?
<EG>
>
>But that's the Post. If you want some *real* fun, track down some of the
>"Armed Citizen" storylets in _American Rifleman_. I've done it. It's a hoot
>and a half. <g>
>
>Ed Huntress
Oddly enough..I have tracked down a few, the local ones that have
happend in my area. None Ive found were inaccurate.
Gunner
This Message is guaranteed environmentally friendly
Manufactured with 10% post consumer ASCII
Meets all EPA regulations for clean air
Using only naturally occuring fibers
Use the Message with confidance.
(Some settling may occure in transit.)
(Best if Used before May 13, 2009)
Ed Huntress
ex-cop, is not an "ordinary student," or an ordinary citizen in this
context. Ordinary citizens don't carry bulletproof vests or handcuffs around
with them. That's a very un-ordinary citizen.
In most contexts it wouldn't matter. Here it does, because the thrust of
Lott's argument is that these "ordinary hero-students" are proof that we
don't need more cops, we need more armed citizens. That's the implication,
and you know it fully well. But they *are* cops. The truth of the matter
makes a lie of his argument.
He hid part of the truth in order to support his case. That makes an honest
journalist see red. He also hid the fact that most of the stories he
complained about were actually one story, from a wire service, picked up and
repeated. There was no vast conspiracy to keep it quiet. There was one piece
of half-assed journalism.
To give you a parallel to your line of work, think of him as a machinery
service man. You pay him to repair your noisy, worn-out geared-head lathe.
He goes to work, you go out to lunch. When you come back the lathe is quiet.
That's because he put sawdust in the gearbox and didn't tell you about it.
Then you find out about the sawdust later. "Hey," he says. "You didn't ask
me *how* I quieted it down." And he expects to be paid. He didn't tell you
an outright lie. He just hid part of the truth -- the sawdust part.
That's Lott's argument: a cup of verbal sawdust. It makes me particularly
furious because I happen to agree fully that ordinary citizens have a right
to be armed, and that a couple of armed, ordinary citizens in this situation
wouldn't have been bad at all -- although it's probably true, as the young
sheriff's deputy in this case said in an interview, his "training took
over". It's better if a cop is handy, but, if not, then I'll go with the
armed citizen.
Writers like Lott, to me in my profession, is like service men who pack
gearboxes with sawdust, to you in yours. He reflects an ugly light on
journalism. And, like the service man with his sawdust, who leaves a taint
of deceit over all service men by his actions, Lott's style of propaganda
paints all journal writers with a taint of deceit. It's because of writers
like Lott that we become cynical about journalism in general.
As for reviewing his book, I've reviewed many books in my time, but I don't
waste my time or that of my readers by reviewing the work of demonstrated
liars or propagandists.
Ed Huntress
Bray Haven
>>do not buy the idea that 10% of the students have guns in their glove boxes.
>>Not even 1%.
At S. Florida schools they check for guns when you enter campus. If you don't
have one they issue you one. :o)
When I went to college in N. Fl. (FSU) I would say at least 10% of the guys had
guns in their vehicles. Most of us ate wild pigs, to make ends meet, harvested
at local Wildlife Mgmt areas after class.
Greg Sefton
Jeffrey C. Dege
>On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 04:25:00 GMT, "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net>
>wrote:
>
>>"He worked as the director of police corps training at the N.C. Justice
>>Academy in 1998 and 1999, he said, and the chief of police at Brevard
>>College before heading to law school in August ."
>>
>So..that makes him an ex cop..correct? Im an ex cop..so am I other than
>an ordinary citizen? Hummm?
I've wondered, sometimes, what mystical thing it is about cops that
makes them different.
I've talked to people who are absolutely opposed to civilian carry,
but have no trouble with LEO carry.
They don't oppose carry by:
- On-duty LEO
- Off-duty LEO
- Reserve LEO
- Ex-LEO
Why they assume that someone who had been in the police reserve for two
years, twenty years in their past, is somehow competent to use a gun,
while an ordinary civilian is not, I don't know.
I've been through some of that training - it isn't the sort of thing
that drastically changes your capability or personality.
All I can figure is that it's like being baptized - there's some magical
change that cannot be seen or measured.
--
Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another:
"What! You, too? Thought I was the only one."
--C.S. Lewis
Ed Huntress
news:20020129094158...@mb-mj.aol.com...
>
> At S. Florida schools they check for guns when you enter campus. If you
don't
> have one they issue you one. :o)
> When I went to college in N. Fl. (FSU) I would say at least 10% of the
guys had
> guns in their vehicles. Most of us ate wild pigs, to make ends meet,
harvested
> at local Wildlife Mgmt areas after class.
I hope you handcuffed the pigs before bringing them in. <g>
Ed Huntress
lha...@unm.edu
Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>I've been to colleges all over the country and was a student in several. I
>do not buy the idea that 10% of the students have guns in their glove boxes.
>Not even 1%.
>
>Ed Huntress
Wellll! Ed. I dont know where all you have been in colleges,
but (and I have no hard data) I wouldnt be a bit supprised if the
10% figure is even low for the three bigest universities in NM.
:-)
...lew...
Mary Rosh
quote marks around? Are you being accurate and properly representing
your profession by doing this?
2) The Washington Post article lists the students as being former
police officers. If you are correct that they are current officers,
what does that tell you about the standards of the Washington Post?
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<wup58.12527$ff5.2...@news02.optonline.net>...
Ed Huntress
> quote marks around? Are you being accurate and properly representing
> your profession by doing this?
Ah, some more sawdust goes into the gearbox, eh? <g>
Mary, here are the words Lott uses to describe these two officers:
"The attack was stopped by two students who had guns in their cars..."
"...citizens with guns stopped the attacks."
"...when was the last time you saw a story on the national evening news (or
even the local news) about a citizen using his gun to stop a crime?"
They sound like "ordinary citizens" to me. And I can use quotes to identify
my own summaries, thank you, as well as the words of someone else.
But here's the crux of it. Lott says:
"This misreporting actually endangers people's lives. By selectively
reporting the news and turning a defensive gun use story into one where
students merely "overpowered a gunman" the media gives misleading
impressions...."
Indeed it does...as does Mr. Lott's selectively avoiding the fact that these
gun-toting "citizens" were law officers.
Do you think the fact they were officers just slipped his mind? Hmmm?
>
> 2) The Washington Post article lists the students as being former
> police officers. If you are correct that they are current officers,
> what does that tell you about the standards of the Washington Post?
It tells me that they didn't dig deeply enough. And it's interesting how
quick you were to believe them when you thought the reports supported your
point of view, while now you're ready to criticize their "standards".
<sigh> That's a good example of why integrity matters when writing for
publication, representing yourself as an objective reporter. And it's a good
example of why people like Lott are the scourge of honest journalism.
Ed Huntress
Bray Haven
>example of why people like Lott are the scourge of honest journalism.
>
>Ed Huntress
Now there's an oxymoron
Greg sefton
Mary Rosh
"ordinary hero-students" or "ordinary students." It is obvious that
you all are misquoting Lott to make your point. Again, you use quote
marks so show me one place where Lott uses this term.
The Washington Post refers to these students as former law
enforcement, so do many other publications.
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<0cy58.20722$ff5.2...@news02.optonline.net>...
Ed Huntress
If you believe that to be the case, Greg, why read anything at all?
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
Well, I hope you weren't one of them, because you would have been subject to
arrest if you were.
At NMSU, for example, it's illegal to have a gun on campus, in a car or
otherwise, and it has been since the '60s. The number of violators caught is
quite small, however. In 1998, the number of arrests for possession was 3.
In 1999, it was 2. In 2000, it was 1.
With 30,000 students, of which, say, 3,000 have guns in their glove boxes, a
heck of a lot of them must be slipping by the police.
Professional that he is, Chief Lou Cabot of the campus police force managed
to avoid falling off his chair laughing when I asked him if 10% of the
students there had guns in their cars. <g>
Ed Huntress
John Flanagan
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Gunner, you're doing the same thing here that Lott did. No, a cop, or an
>ex-cop, is not an "ordinary student," or an ordinary citizen in this
>context. Ordinary citizens don't carry bulletproof vests or handcuffs around
>with them. That's a very un-ordinary citizen.
Hey Ed, if I ever get a CCWP I'll be getting at least one pair of
handcuffs too. After all what's the purpose of carrying a gun if you
don't intend to cuff 'em :^)? Does that make me extra-ordinary :^)?
John
Fitch R. Williams
>If you believe that to be the case, Greg, why read anything at all?
Entertainment value?
Fitch"sorry, couldn't resist"Williams
Mark Winlund
Mark
"Fitch R. Williams" <frwi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:cvvd5u84als5dvb3m...@4ax.com...
Mary Rosh
Ed:
If I said that Ed calls someone an "ordinary citizen," that means you
actually said that exact phrase. If you thought that you had a strong
case, why is it necessary for you to misquote Lott?
Some newspapers actively say that the students were former law
enforcement, while some say that they were off-duty law enforcement.
Reports actually contradict each other on that point. The other issue
is not the same. A couple of local newspapers go into the issue in
depth and say explicitly that a gun was used to stop the crime. The
other media skip to just talking about the physical confrontation.
The bottom line though is how guns were used to stop the attack.
Wouldn't it be nice if we learned from that experience? Wouldn't it
have been nice if those students actually had the guns with them?
What does it say about gun free school zones?
Just as a side note, even if the one person was an officer from North
Carolina, he has no rights for having a gun in Virginia different from
"ordinary citizens."
Mary
Ed Huntress
news:3c570565....@news.earthlink.net...
>
> Hey Ed, if I ever get a CCWP I'll be getting at least one pair of
> handcuffs too. After all what's the purpose of carrying a gun if you
> don't intend to cuff 'em :^)? Does that make me extra-ordinary :^)?
John, you're not just extra-ordinary. You're supernatural. <g>
Ed Huntress
Jeffrey C. Dege
Hell. I know a bunch of people who carry handcuffs, just in case they
meet someone interesting at the bar.
--
If there is anything the nonconformist hates worse than a conformist it's
another nonconformist who doesn't conform to the prevailing standards
of nonconformity.
- Bill Vaughan
Ed Huntress
>
> Hell. I know a bunch of people who carry handcuffs, just in case they
> meet someone interesting at the bar.
Haha! That's barbaric. Silk scarves are so much more...stimulating.
Ed Huntress
Bray Haven
>
>If you believe that to be the case, Greg, why read anything at all?
>
>Ed Huntress
>
I enjoy fiction. I also have a degree in journalism and worked as a writer for
many years freelancing and still publish an occasional piece.
Greg Sefton
Bray Haven
>otherwise, and it has been since the '60s. The number of violators caught is
>quite small,
Why would anyone need a gun at NMSU :o)? It's illegal for anyone to have drugs
at Florida State too, always has been. Almost no arrests though. The year I
graduated, they sold 40,000 packs of cigarette rolling papers and 2 cans of
tobacco.
Greg Sefton
Ed Huntress
> Why would anyone need a gun at NMSU :o)? It's illegal for anyone to have
drugs
> at Florida State too, always has been. Almost no arrests though. The
year I
> graduated, they sold 40,000 packs of cigarette rolling papers and 2 cans
of
> tobacco.
Why you would want to draw a parallel between illegally carrying drugs and
illegally carrying guns escapes me, Greg. Unless you're suggesting they're
acts of equal criminality? That's what it sounds like you're saying.
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
You're drawing some confusing parallels tonight, Greg. Now you say that
honest journalism is an oxymoron, and that you're a published journalist?
What are you suggesting, that you're dishonest in your writing?
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> Show me one place where Lott uses the term "ordinary," let alone
> "ordinary hero-students" or "ordinary students." It is obvious that
> you all are misquoting Lott to make your point. Again, you use quote
> marks so show me one place where Lott uses this term.
Why? Where do I attribute the terms to the words of Lott? They're figurative
summaries of Lott's implications, Mary. That's why they're in quotes.
And Lott's full text is quoted right below one of my messages, as well as
several other messages in this thread. It's not exactly difficult to see
what's literal and what's figurative here.
>
> The Washington Post refers to these students as former law
> enforcement, so do many other publications.
Again, I called Tracy's boss myself. As for the other guy, I'm recounting
what he said to a reporter at the time. If you think that's not right, maybe
you ought to call *his* boss yourself.
The source. Go to the source.
Ed Huntress
Norman Yarvin
Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>Btw..since you think so poorly of Lott, when do you come out with your
>Peer Review of his work.." More Guns, Less Crime"? Lets see if you can
>do better than all the anti-gunners at trying to find chinks in it.
There's a chink or two at:
http://reason.com/0108/fe.re.the.shtml
(Not found by an anti-gunner, of course.)
The main objection that was of interest to me was that Lott's smooth
graphs of the results of concealed carry laws are plots of the fit to
data, not plots of the actual data -- which is messier. This makes his
results look a lot more decisive than they really are.
On the whole, I don't think that attack is on a higher level than the
work being attacked, but the debate nevertheless is interesting reading.
In any case, neither that attack, nor the things that Ed Huntress has
found about the article this thread started with, support calling Lott a
"liar". The word for someone who paints a picture using only half of the
truth is "biased"; a liar is a lower grade of person, who uses falsehoods
as well as truths in his painting. Data presented by a biased person can
be useful, but you have to engage brain before using it -- which, even if
you do have a brain, is painful and time-consuming.
--
Norman Yarvin norman...@snet.net
Dave Mundt
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:05:32 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
><lha...@unm.edu> wrote in message news:a36fuu$q...@aix16.unm.edu...
>> In article <sIk58.5734$ff5.1...@news02.optonline.net>,
>> Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >I've been to colleges all over the country and was a student in several.
>I
>> >do not buy the idea that 10% of the students have guns in their glove
>boxes.
>> >Not even 1%.
>> >
>> >Ed Huntress
>>
>> Wellll! Ed. I dont know where all you have been in colleges,
>> but (and I have no hard data) I wouldnt be a bit supprised if the
>> 10% figure is even low for the three bigest universities in NM.
>> :-)
>
>Well, I hope you weren't one of them, because you would have been subject to
>arrest if you were.
>
>At NMSU, for example, it's illegal to have a gun on campus, in a car or
>otherwise, and it has been since the '60s. The number of violators caught is
>quite small, however. In 1998, the number of arrests for possession was 3.
>In 1999, it was 2. In 2000, it was 1.
>
>With 30,000 students, of which, say, 3,000 have guns in their glove boxes, a
>heck of a lot of them must be slipping by the police.
>
Well, unless the campus security is in the habit of randomly
searching cards of students, I suspect that the only ones that would
get caught were those that were waving the gun about inappropriately.
>Professional that he is, Chief Lou Cabot of the campus police force managed
>to avoid falling off his chair laughing when I asked him if 10% of the
>students there had guns in their cars. <g>
>
>Ed Huntress
>
>
Always nice to bring joy to an otherwise dark and dismal job.
I don't know what the percentage is of gun carrying students, but,
I suspect that it is somewhere between the percentage that the gun
advocates push, and, the (likely) lower number that the Chief believes
is the case. I *assume* he was laughing because he believes the
number is closer to zero.... If he was laughing because the actual
number is closer to 30%, then, perhaps it might be nice to mention
that.
Regards
Dave Mundt
Robert Fahey
find it necessary to independently verify the reported items. It seems
there might be a contradiction in there.
Bob Fahey
Ed Huntress
news:3C579E07...@attbi.com...
> Ed - if you are suggesting "honest journalism" is the norm why do you
> find it necessary to independently verify the reported items. It seems
> there might be a contradiction in there.
>
> Bob Fahey
No, Bob, there's no contradiction. I pointed out in an earlier message in
this thread that I always go to the source when I can because reporters too
often get it wrong.
Have you ever done any reporting? The pressure is immense on the dailies --
more today than ever before. There really are few dishonest reporters but
there are a lot of sloppy ones, and overworked ones.
Here's a tip to young reporters from a former editor of a magazine that won
the National Magazine Award: Never, ever repeat what another journalist
says, except in dire circumstances and, then, only with attribution. It's
little better than a rumor.
Go to the source. Go to the source. Go to the source.
That's why I have flat-rate service on my office telephone.
Ed Huntress
Gunner
wrote:
>
>Writers like Lott, to me in my profession, is like service men who pack
>gearboxes with sawdust, to you in yours. He reflects an ugly light on
>journalism. And, like the service man with his sawdust, who leaves a taint
>of deceit over all service men by his actions, Lott's style of propaganda
>paints all journal writers with a taint of deceit. It's because of writers
>like Lott that we become cynical about journalism in general.
Cynical....like all the "journalists" who simply cut and paste others
handouts? Hummm doesnt sound like there are too many journalists
then..in your line of work, does it. Of course..opinion pieces are often
proported to be fact....but thats "responsible journalism"
>
>As for reviewing his book, I've reviewed many books in my time, but I don't
>waste my time or that of my readers by reviewing the work of demonstrated
>liars or propagandists.
>
Ok Ed, I can tell your mind is made up, so I wont confuse you with the
facts. Ill bet you dont even know..Lott is a Democrat, and started
writing his book as an antigun expose..but unlike most of the
"journalists" in the line of work you are so proud of.. that when
confronted with the indisputable truths..he changed his mind. And wrote
what he found. Peer reviewed by hundreds of scholars and
"journalists"..the Anti-gun crowd and all.. research duplicated by Kleck
and Mustard....and no one can pick holes in it.
But..then Ed...its all propaganda..and you are a man of your
convictions....
Hummm lets take a look at a shining example of a Really Good Journalist
at work.....Emory University historian Michael Bellesiles
http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/antle/qtr1/0102.htm
http://www.codyexpress.com/Speakers/reynoldsfaultydata.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/17/202541.shtml
A winner of the Bankcroft award!!
http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.asp?Record=283
Snicker...to bad..it was stripped from him later.
If you are not really as stiff necked as you make yourself out to be....
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/guns.html
But if you are... mores the pity.
>Ed Huntress
Whos articles in the trades I do religiously read.
Gunner
>
This Message is guaranteed environmentally friendly
Manufactured with 10% post consumer ASCII
Meets all EPA regulations for clean air
Using only naturally occuring fibers
Use the Message with confidance.
(Some settling may occure in transit.)
(Best if Used before May 13, 2009)
Gunner
wrote:
>In article <dc1d5u0gevjljqm8j...@4ax.com>,
>Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>>Btw..since you think so poorly of Lott, when do you come out with your
>>Peer Review of his work.." More Guns, Less Crime"? Lets see if you can
>>do better than all the anti-gunners at trying to find chinks in it.
>
>There's a chink or two at:
>
>http://reason.com/0108/fe.re.the.shtml
>
>(Not found by an anti-gunner, of course.)
Chinks..or opinions?
One would believe..that if the VPC..or HCI..could find holes in
it..doncha think they would have? Take a look at their sites...lol..no
such thing found. BTDT.
>
>The main objection that was of interest to me was that Lott's smooth
>graphs of the results of concealed carry laws are plots of the fit to
>data, not plots of the actual data -- which is messier. This makes his
>results look a lot more decisive than they really are.
>
>On the whole, I don't think that attack is on a higher level than the
>work being attacked, but the debate nevertheless is interesting reading.
Yes it is. I enjoyed it.
>
>In any case, neither that attack, nor the things that Ed Huntress has
>found about the article this thread started with, support calling Lott a
>"liar". The word for someone who paints a picture using only half of the
>truth is "biased"; a liar is a lower grade of person, who uses falsehoods
>as well as truths in his painting. Data presented by a biased person can
>be useful, but you have to engage brain before using it -- which, even if
>you do have a brain, is painful and time-consuming.
Yup..and I thought Eds comments were.. a bit... strange. Im not sure why
he is so biased..I never recall him getting his panties in a bunch when
the Left spewed. And I pointed out a Really Good Journalist in my last
post.... Michael Bellesiles
Chuckle
Gunner
wrote:
>"Mary Rosh" <mary...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:23fa92fe.02012...@posting.google.com...
>> 1) Where does Lott use the phrase "ordinary citizens" that you put
>> quote marks around? Are you being accurate and properly representing
>> your profession by doing this?
>
>
>Ah, some more sawdust goes into the gearbox, eh? <g>
>
>Mary, here are the words Lott uses to describe these two officers:
>
>"The attack was stopped by two students who had guns in their cars..."
Ok..they were indeed students..correct?
>
>"...citizens with guns stopped the attacks."
Neither were foreign nationals, right?
>
>"...when was the last time you saw a story on the national evening news (or
>even the local news) about a citizen using his gun to stop a crime?"
>
>They sound like "ordinary citizens" to me. And I can use quotes to identify
>my own summaries, thank you, as well as the words of someone else.
>
>But here's the crux of it. Lott says:
>
>"This misreporting actually endangers people's lives. By selectively
>reporting the news and turning a defensive gun use story into one where
>students merely "overpowered a gunman" the media gives misleading
>impressions...."
>
>Indeed it does...as does Mr. Lott's selectively avoiding the fact that these
>gun-toting "citizens" were law officers.
They were NOT law officers. One was an Ex police officer, and the other
was a parttime one. If either had been in the military..or the
Reserves..then someone is guilty of not claiming that they were soldiers
when they did the deed? Im ex military..and ex leo.. that doesnt make me
a cop, or a soldier. Very disengenious of you Ed..very much so.
particulary considering the origins of this thread was to point out not
only the evident bias of the "journalists" failure to mention guns at
all..bias..or extremly sloppy and lazy journalism. And Lott does indeed
make the point that this is NOT an isolated case.. and quite correctly
so. In fact.. its the norm in most cases Ive seen.
>
>Do you think the fact they were officers just slipped his mind? Hmmm?
>
>
>>
>> 2) The Washington Post article lists the students as being former
>> police officers. If you are correct that they are current officers,
>> what does that tell you about the standards of the Washington Post?
>
>It tells me that they didn't dig deeply enough. And it's interesting how
>quick you were to believe them when you thought the reports supported your
>point of view, while now you're ready to criticize their "standards".
You are quick to pick nits with Lotts article..and incorrectly so as I
pointed out above.
><sigh> That's a good example of why integrity matters when writing for
>publication, representing yourself as an objective reporter. And it's a good
>example of why people like Lott are the scourge of honest journalism.
>
>Ed Huntress
Point out Lotts defects again? For accurate reporting, and reporting the
facts? Hummmm different standards in your trade Ed.. different indeed.
Ed Huntress
news:23fa92fe.02012...@posting.google.com...
> Ed:
>
> If I said that Ed calls someone an "ordinary citizen," that means you
> actually said that exact phrase. If you thought that you had a strong
> case, why is it necessary for you to misquote Lott?
Jeez, Mary, what are you, a grammarian? Enough with the pedantry, already!
You certainly recognize a figurative use of speech, which, in this case, is
meant to highlight what Lott *didn't* say, but implied. Sheesh.
Think of it as an attempt to represent, in text, Mr. Lott cutting a silent
fart in public and then denying culpability. And don't try to tell us that
you were led astray by the quotation marks. The whole of Lott's text was
right there, fer chrissake.
As for your argument, it may be that you just don't get it. Let me spell it
out for you in simple terms:
1) Some people believe that more armed citizens will reduce crime.
2) Some other people believe that it won't, but that more trained cops will
reduce crime.
3) Mr. Lott wrote an editorial in which he selected facts to imply (1),
above.
4) But the truth is that the facts say nothing about (1), although they
could be used to support (2), because the players were trained cops.
5) Therefore, Mr. Lott committed a deceit by omission.
6) I hate writers who commit such deceits, regardless of what I think about
their position.
7) You appear to be willing to overlook such deceits if they support your
position.
Is it clear now?
> Some newspapers actively say that the students were former law
> enforcement, while some say that they were off-duty law enforcement.
> Reports actually contradict each other on that point.
Of course they do. That's why us old-timers in the business go to the
source.
> The other issue
> is not the same. A couple of local newspapers go into the issue in
> depth and say explicitly that a gun was used to stop the crime. The
> other media skip to just talking about the physical confrontation.
Actually, the gun just sort of laid there in the hand of the guy who stopped
the crime. <g> And the point, once again, was that the guy was a cop.
> The bottom line though is how guns were used to stop the attack.
> Wouldn't it be nice if we learned from that experience?
Surely. Now, what do we learn? That we should arm students? Or that we
should recruit more cops to go to college? The facts don't dictate either
conclusion. Your preconceptions dictate a conclusion.
You may think you're arguing some point about guns with me, but, if you do,
that's because you haven't paid attention to what I'm saying. I've made no
comment about whether armed students or armed student-cops are a good thing
or a bad thing. I did say somewhere in this thread that armed citizens are
generally a good thing, which I believe is true. My comment concerns the
propaganda technique of Mr. Lott. I hate propaganda. I don't hate guns. I
have quite a few of them, in fact.
> Wouldn't it have been nice if those students actually had the guns with
them?
You're doing a Lott here. It would have been nice if those cops had their
guns with them. It surely *was* nice that those cops were students.
> What does it say about gun free school zones?
It says that college students with the maturity of my old roommates are less
likely these days to get drunk on Saturday night and write their names on a
sorority house wall, in a typeface that looks remarkably like .38 caliber
bullet holes.
> Just as a side note, even if the one person was an officer from North
> Carolina, he has no rights for having a gun in Virginia different from
> "ordinary citizens."
You may want one of the officers here to explain to you the gentlemen's
agreements that lead to cops in one state carrying their guns without hassle
in another. Just don't try it in NJ. Our cops don't always extend the
priviledge.
Ed Huntress
Gunner
wrote:
>"Bray Haven" <bray...@aol.com> wrote in message
Sounds like Ed has a splinter in his finger....
Bray Haven
>illegally carrying guns escapes me, Greg. Unless you're suggesting they're
>acts of equal criminality? That's what it sounds like you're saying.
>
>Ed Huntress
No Ed, just pointing out the FACT that a low number of arrests doesn't
necessarily indicate a low number of infractions.
Greg Sefton
Bray Haven
>honest journalism is an oxymoron, and that you're a published journalist?
>
>What are you suggesting, that you're dishonest in your writing?
>
>Ed Huntress
I'm saying that it helps to know the "industry" when you criticize the
profession. I will certainly admit to bias in my writing and research as
virtually every writer I've ever known was. Of course there may be an
occasional story published that is totally objective; "the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but" . However, if you believe that to be the rule rather
than the exception, I have some Enron stock I can give you a deal on :o). It's
impossible to write everything about a story and those points that wind up
getting relayed are at the whim of the writer and editor. Mostly the former as
he's probably writing an inverted pyramid style. Selective perception (and
retention), are inherent human traits that journalism school doesn't edit out.
Look at different stories on the same event to get a good picture. Sometimes
you think they are writing about different happenings. Yellow journalism is
alive & well and the more subtle forms of it are virtually everywhere in the
media.
Greg Sefton
Bray Haven
>>
>>Ed Huntress
>>
>Sounds like Ed has a splinter in his finger....
>
>Gunner
Naw, I think he's just trying to stir up a good debate. He's normally
intelligent & insightful. (though I don't always agree with him) No one with
any real brains would believe that journalists don't have bias or leave out
important facts, etc etc. Something like 94% of them admit to being liberal
(democrats).
Greg
Grumpy, the Third Dwarf
wrote:
>>Cynical....like all the "journalists" who simply cut and paste others
>>handouts? Hummm doesnt sound like there are too many journalists
What about the latest trend I see where journalists are interviewing
other journalist for their facts on issues. <sigh>
I am with the person some time back who stated that American
journalists are not reporters but advocates, as they allow their own
biases to overide the truth to present a story as they see it. The
"missing gun" story describes this trend.
--
Grumpy, the Third Dwarf
(Dave Johnson)
********************************************
Dyslexics of the world, untie
Life without risk is existing until you die.
********************************************
Fitch R. Williams
>I am with the person some time back who stated that American
>journalists are not reporters but advocates, as they allow their own
>biases to overide the truth to present a story as they see it. The
>"missing gun" story describes this trend.
So do 90% or more of the "sixty minutes" programs.
Fitch
John Flanagan
wrote:
>They were NOT law officers. One was an Ex police officer, and the other
>was a parttime one. If either had been in the military..or the
>Reserves..then someone is guilty of not claiming that they were soldiers
>when they did the deed? Im ex military..and ex leo.. that doesnt make me
>a cop, or a soldier. Very disengenious of you Ed..very much so.
What you say is true Gunner but what Ed may be impling other than what
you are pointing out. Perhaps he is saying these two men had training
that the "ordinary" citizen hasn't had which would supposedly make
them more qualified to use deadly force.
John
jim rozen
>1) Some people believe that more armed citizens will reduce crime.
...
>3) Mr. Lott wrote an editorial in which he selected facts to imply (1),
>above.
Trying to 'prove' anything by holding up a singular event
never flys very far. It does however cause the gullible
to salivate and become quite excited. So it is a favorite
trick indeed - even if one has to bend the facts a bit,
it is well-nigh irresistable.
Funny thing is, there are other cases that do a better
job of proving (1) above, that do have a certain amount
of statistical weight behind them. Takes a lot more
effort to do a real study about what exactly *did*
happen in Florida when they allowed concealed carry.
Much more that simply writing (or copying) a slick-sounding
editiorial.
Jim
===================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at watson dot ibm dot com
===================================
tonyp
Bray Haven <bray...@aol.com> wrote
> ... No one with
> any real brains would believe that journalists don't have bias or leave
out
> important facts, etc etc. Something like 94% of them admit to being
liberal
> (democrats).
Got any ideas _why_ "journalists" tend to be "liberal (democrats)"?
Is it because journalism _makes_ people liberal, the way metalworking
makes them conservative? Or is it because journalism _attracts_
"liberals", rather than "conservatives"?
-- Tony Prentakis
Mary Rosh
defensive gun use and they turn a clear case where people used guns to
stop an attack in to a tackling incident. As Lott says, these stories
actually endanger people's lives because the stories mislead people on
what works.
Papers from the Washington Post to the New York Times to some Virginia
papers refer to the students as former law enforcement, yet for them
it is just an oversight and for Lott you claim some type of fraud.
given the conflicting news reports on this statement it isn't even
clear what is the truth on that point.
As to your gentlemen's agreement claim, give us all a break. Some in
congress have been trying to pass a law for years that let police
carry their guns across state lines, but Schumer and others have
killed it in the senate. Why do they need to pass such a law and why
does Schumer threaten to filibuster it if there is no reason to have
the law? Don't you hate writers who mistate the facts?
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<DZN58.5974$D9.5...@news02.optonline.net>...
Ed Huntress
news:a395t...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> Funny thing is, there are other cases that do a better
> job of proving (1) above, that do have a certain amount
> of statistical weight behind them. Takes a lot more
> effort to do a real study about what exactly *did*
> happen in Florida when they allowed concealed carry.
> Much more that simply writing (or copying) a slick-sounding
> editiorial.
Yes, but Lott had a news peg to work with here, and that's what gets your
editorials published.
So, he took a news peg and twisted it to his own purposes. It won't be the
first time.
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
news:3c581b8f...@news.earthlink.net...
>
> What you say is true Gunner but what Ed may be impling other than what
> you are pointing out. Perhaps he is saying these two men had training
> that the "ordinary" citizen hasn't had which would supposedly make
> them more qualified to use deadly force.
Thank you, John. Yes, that's the dividing line, the distinction that's made
by people who advocate more cops, fewer guns. More cops and part-time cops,
and cops not on active duty (like these guys), and retired cops, are assumed
to have the training and the experience to better use a gun to stop crime.
It's a very large percentage of the population that feels that way.
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
news:01c1a9ac$472ec100$7838...@chucktop.cable.rcn.com...
>
>
> Got any ideas _why_ "journalists" tend to be "liberal (democrats)"?
>
> Is it because journalism _makes_ people liberal, the way metalworking
> makes them conservative? Or is it because journalism _attracts_
> "liberals", rather than "conservatives"?
That's a hell of a good question, Tony. You might be interested to know that
this is the subject of a number of theses produced for graduate degrees in
journalism.
And it goes 'way back. One of them was used as text in a J-school course I
took in 1966.
The short answer is, both. "A liberal is a conservative journalist who's
worked an assignment on the city desk" is a standard quip among journalists.
Ed Huntress
Jeffrey C. Dege
For quite irrational reasons.
First, the training isn't all that life-changing. Second, having had
the training 20 years ago doesn't give you any head start over someone
who has not had the training. Third, having been LEO doesn't make you
less likely to engage in violence due to fits of rage, quite the contrary.
I'd put more trust in a 60-year-old retired machinist who hasn't had
firearms training since he got out of the Marines 40 years ago than in
a 22-year-old kid straight out of the police academy.
--
Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another:
"What! You, too? Thought I was the only one."
--C.S. Lewis
Ed Huntress
> You are the only one who has made things up. The press doesn't like
> defensive gun use and they turn a clear case where people used guns to
> stop an attack in to a tackling incident.
Oooh, Mary. Your blatant biases are showing. Don't get caught in a
conservative town dressed like that. They'll lock you up for indecent
exposure.
Incidentally, three of the four guys who tackled the shooter were cops.
'Just thought you'd like to know...
> Papers from the Washington Post to the New York Times to some Virginia
> papers refer to the students as former law enforcement, yet for them
> it is just an oversight and for Lott you claim some type of fraud.
> given the conflicting news reports on this statement it isn't even
> clear what is the truth on that point.
Yes, Lott is guilty of fraud. And I don't have to rely on the conflicting
news reports. I called one of the guy's bosses on the phone and talked to
him myself.
Once you learn how satisfying it is to get accurate facts, directly from the
parties involved, or other direct source, you may actually begin to question
your own biases. It's a real eye-opener.
>
> As to your gentlemen's agreement claim, give us all a break. Some in
> congress have been trying to pass a law for years that let police
> carry their guns across state lines, but Schumer and others have
> killed it in the senate. Why do they need to pass such a law and why
> does Schumer threaten to filibuster it if there is no reason to have
> the law? Don't you hate writers who mistate the facts?
You are utterly ignorant on the point of the gentleman's agreement, Mary.
I've interviewed dozens of cops on the issue myself, and there are articles
available about it if you bother to look for them.
I'd suggest that you call the cops to ask, but they often won't admit it if
they don't know who they're talking to, and if they think they may be
quoted.
As for Schumer, that's not playing fair. Everybody west of the Hudson River
hates Schumer, especially me. <g>
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> No Ed, just pointing out the FACT that a low number of arrests doesn't
> necessarily indicate a low number of infractions.
While you're driving around in this big circle, Greg, you may want to take
note of the fact that the kind of lawbreaking you're talking about is what
many people here say goes on all the time, among their friends and
themselves.
I have some data coming in on the percentage of colleges and universities
that allow guns on their campuses. So far, from a few samples, the answer is
0%. We must have a hell of a lot of unconvicted criminals writing messages
in this thread.
Stay tuned.
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
>
> I'm saying that it helps to know the "industry" when you criticize the
> profession. I will certainly admit to bias in my writing and research as
> virtually every writer I've ever known was.
That isn't dishonesty. That's honest bias...unless your bias is dishonest.
> Of course there may be an
> occasional story published that is totally objective; "the truth, the
whole
> truth and nothing but" .
No there isn't. You had it right the first time: humans are inherently
biased. That we have to live with. No amount of effort will eliminate it
from any writing. Dishonesty, though, we don't have to live with.
> It's
> impossible to write everything about a story and those points that wind up
> getting relayed are at the whim of the writer and editor.
If they're doing it on whim, they're in the wrong business.
> Mostly the former as
> he's probably writing an inverted pyramid style.
Aha! Greg drops a little piece of J-school lingo, to show us that he's
actually been there. <g>
> Look at different stories on the same event to get a good picture.
I always do.
> Yellow journalism is
> alive & well and the more subtle forms of it are virtually everywhere in
the
> media.
Including _American Rifleman_? <g>
This was very good, Greg. Now, why couldn't you have done this the first
time, instead of just depositing your little "oxymoron" turd, impugning
every journalist, including yourself -- and me -- and then just signing off?
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> >What are you suggesting, that you're dishonest in your writing?
> >>
> >>Ed Huntress
> >>
> >Sounds like Ed has a splinter in his finger....
> >
> >Gunner
It appears that Gunner is posting some messages that my server won't cough
up. So I don't know what's being talked about here.
>
> Naw, I think he's just trying to stir up a good debate. He's normally
> intelligent & insightful. (though I don't always agree with him) No one
with
> any real brains would believe that journalists don't have bias or leave
out
> important facts, etc etc. Something like 94% of them admit to being
liberal
> (democrats).
Hey, Greg, tune up your ears -- and your cognitive discriminator. Bias is
not dishonesty. Everyone here is biased. That doesn't mean they're
dishonest.
Ed Huntress
Bray Haven
>time, instead of just depositing your little "oxymoron" turd, impugning
>every journalist, including yourself -- and me -- and then just signing off?
>
>Ed Huntress
Well I certainly don't need a lesson from you. I merely stated my opinion that
the term "honest journalist" is an oxymoron. You're the one who tried
unsuccessfully to refute that label. "Turd??" I would have expected a little
better vocabulary from someone who claims to be the "resident expert" on about
everything. Go to the head of the class & try again.
Greg
Bray Haven
>note of the fact that the kind of lawbreaking you're talking about is what
>many people here say goes on all the time, among their friends and
>themselves.
What kind of "lawbreaking" am I talking about, Ed? Having a gun in your car??
This is not lawbreaking, necessarily. It might violate a school policy, but in
FL it's perfectly legal (off campus). Should the students check their guns at
the city limits :o)? Possession of drugs is not legal.
"Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" . Or even one campus rent-a-cop
:o). You've really gone round the bend on this one.
Greg Sefton
Ed Huntress
news:slrna5gb8p...@jdege.visi.com...
> >It's a very large percentage of the population that feels that way.
>
> For quite irrational reasons.
>
> First, the training isn't all that life-changing. Second, having had
> the training 20 years ago doesn't give you any head start over someone
> who has not had the training. Third, having been LEO doesn't make you
> less likely to engage in violence due to fits of rage, quite the contrary.
>
> I'd put more trust in a 60-year-old retired machinist who hasn't had
> firearms training since he got out of the Marines 40 years ago than in
> a 22-year-old kid straight out of the police academy.
I hope you don't think you're arguing with me about this point. As I said,
my objection is to the misuse of facts. I'm not supporting anyone's
particular conclusion about armed cops or armed citizens.
But bray at the lurkers if you must. <g>
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> >While you're driving around in this big circle, Greg, you may want to
take
> >note of the fact that the kind of lawbreaking you're talking about is
what
> >many people here say goes on all the time, among their friends and
> >themselves.
>
> What kind of "lawbreaking" am I talking about, Ed? Having a gun in your
car??
> This is not lawbreaking, necessarily. It might violate a school policy,
but in
> FL it's perfectly legal (off campus). Should the students check their
guns at
> the city limits :o)? Possession of drugs is not legal.
>
You responded to my message that addressed the laws at New Mexico State
University, in which I was answering the claim that 10% or more of the
students there have guns in their gloveboxes.
As for off-campus, jeezus, Greg, how far off-topic are you going to drag
this before you've stopped making any sense at all? Who the hell said
anything about "off-campus" laws?
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
Ooh, I think Greg is getting a little pissy.
So, anyone with a bias is dishonest, eh, Greg? Are you including yourself
this time?
Ed Huntress
Norman Yarvin
Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>Yup..and I thought Eds comments were.. a bit... strange. Im not sure why
>he is so biased..I never recall him getting his panties in a bunch when
>the Left spewed.
Actually I sympathize with his desire to hold pro-gunners to a higher
standard than anti-gunners. I just don't think he's hit on the right
reasoning for it; or maybe his reasoning is right but his phrasing is
wrong. In any case, the reason is that people who have truth on their
side should use different tactics than the agents of darkness do. Lies
and bias are useful tools for people who want to obscure and confuse; but
for people whose politics is "the truth shall set you free", lying is
just self-injury. It is what the Pentagon calls asymmetric warfare: a
man who is feeling the stings of bees should not try to sting them back.
There is a temptation to think that since we have been losing with
honesty, we should try something else; but life is tough: just because we
have been losing with one strategy, doesn't mean that there are any
better strategies for us.
--
Norman Yarvin norman...@snet.net
jim rozen
> Everybody west of the Hudson River
^^^^
>hates Schumer, especially me. <g>
Why be restrictive on this?
Ed Huntress
news:a39jvp$n6f$1...@athol.localdomain...
> In article <v4af5uomclh6prqop...@4ax.com>,
> Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
> >Yup..and I thought Eds comments were.. a bit... strange. Im not sure why
> >he is so biased..I never recall him getting his panties in a bunch when
> >the Left spewed.
To Gunner: I'm still not seeing your messages. Something's glitching with my
server. Maybe you, or someone, will be kind enough to send them off to me by
email? I can't discuss something with partial messages.
About this particular comment, though: On most social and political issues,
I find myself smack in the center. At least, I'm usually near the
50-percentile mark relative to public polls.
What appears to be bias depends on where you stand. And the strangeness of
my bias in your eyes probably is a result of where you stand -- which, I
think we can agree, is nowhere within sight of the center. <g>
> Actually I sympathize with his desire to hold pro-gunners to a higher
> standard than anti-gunners. I just don't think he's hit on the right
> reasoning for it; or maybe his reasoning is right but his phrasing is
> wrong.
Norman, I hold both sides to the same standards. When I get into a gun
discussion with people on the left side of it -- something I've done quite a
lot of -- I catch equal flak from them. Both sides consider me apostate.
I've learned to shoot with both hands.
> There is a temptation to think that since we have been losing with
> honesty, we should try something else; but life is tough: just because we
> have been losing with one strategy, doesn't mean that there are any
> better strategies for us.
Amen.
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> In article <h6W58.3608$B94.3...@news02.optonline.net>, "Ed says...
>
> > Everybody west of the Hudson River
> ^^^^
> >hates Schumer, especially me. <g>
>
> Why be restrictive on this?
I don't know what goes on east of the river. They won't renew my visa.
Ed Huntress
jim rozen
>They were NOT law officers. One was an Ex police officer, and the other
>was a parttime one.
Hmm. I think your foot seems to have a hole in it, Gunner.
OK, one was "ex" but the other - a part time cop you say.
Your second sentence above disagrees with your first one.
At least one of those gents was a cop.
Like 'pregnant,' one cannot be 'slightly a cop.'
For my $$ you never loose that influence, ie there
is no such thing as an 'ex' cop, either.
I understand the position you are coming from,
but I really think this particular editorial, while
interesting and certainly one of the better OT
posts going on right now, does those who take
weapons ownership in the US a considerable
dis-service. Certainly not a be-all and end-all
case study about why citizens should be armed
on a daily basis.
jim rozen
>It's like my mother-in-law. She HATES guns, totally opposed to any
>private citizen carrying them...BUT...
>
>Sshe's known me for 25 years so it's OK for -ME- to carry, to be able
>to protect her daughter.
I think that's a common flaw in many outspoken anti-gun
individuals. The "Rosie O'Donnel effect" where you
take a strong stand against citizens owning weapons, yet
the person who is soap-boxing invariably either carries
or is followed about by somebody who is.
This seems to me to be another self-inflicted wound
on anyone who performs it.
jim rozen
>Actually I sympathize with [Ed's] desire to hold pro-gunners to a higher
>standard than anti-gunners. I just don't think he's hit on the right
>reasoning for it; or maybe his reasoning is right but his phrasing is
>wrong.
The reason behind this approach is eminently sensible: that
anyone who uses defective logic or half-truths to prove their
point will eventually be exposed, and every time a pro-gun
enthusiast is shown to have done so, the stock of the entire
group plumets further.
Beating them at their own game is tougher but is the only
way to win.
> In any case, the reason is that people who have truth on their
>side should use different tactics than the agents of darkness do. Lies
>and bias are useful tools for people who want to obscure and confuse; but
>for people whose politics is "the truth shall set you free", lying is
>just self-injury. It is what the Pentagon calls asymmetric warfare: a
>man who is feeling the stings of bees should not try to sting them back.
>
>There is a temptation to think that since we have been losing with
>honesty, we should try something else; but life is tough: just because we
>have been losing with one strategy, doesn't mean that there are any
>better strategies for us.
Strong agreement here.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>Like 'pregnant,' one cannot be 'slightly a cop.'
>For my $$ you never loose that influence, ie there
>is no such thing as an 'ex' cop, either.
Just what is this mystical irreversible change that occurs once you pin
on a shield?
Does it accrue to deputy sheriffs? Military? How about Military Police?
--
We can found no scientific discipline, nor a healthy profession on the
technical mistakes of the Department of Defense and IBM.
-- Edsger Dijkstra
jrl...@cwcom.net
at 03:03 PM, mcg...@futurenet.bc.ca (Michael Gray) said:
> rural Canadians know what
>guns are for!
Same here really, 'cept there's less of us!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jrl...@cwcom.net John Lloyd - Cymru/Wales
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bray Haven
>this before you've stopped making any sense at all? Who the hell said
>anything about "off-campus" laws?
>
>Ed Huntress
You were using NMSU as a model stating you doubted the 10% figure based on the
number of arrests at NMSU. THen you referred to "lawbreaking". As if having
having a gun in your car is some heinous crime on campus. And let's not get
that religious thing going again. We got that cooled down at least for now.
Greg Sefton
Bray Haven
>
>Ooh, I think Greg is getting a little pissy.
>
No, not at all, you're the one (as another poster put it) that "got his
panties in a bunch" (southern term <g>). Convoluted logic won't get you off
the hook. Face it Eddie, you backed the wrong horse in this race. Get over
it. there'll be another race ;o).
Greg Sefton
Bray Haven
>not dishonesty. Everyone here is biased. That doesn't mean they're
>dishonest.
>
>Ed Huntress
It certainly is when it's represented as "journalism" Which is supposed to be
impartial, objective, unbiased etc, etc. You can call it whatever you like.
when you (as a journalist) twist (spin etc.) a story to suit your bias and it's
not on the editorial page, it's dishonest.. period. You can call a lie a
"voluntary verbal inexactitude" but it doesn't change it. Swallow the crow and
forget it. Breakfast will be better :o).
Greg Sefton
Mary Rosh
> "Mary Rosh" <mary...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:23fa92fe.02013...@posting.google.com...
> > You are the only one who has made things up. The press doesn't like
> > defensive gun use and they turn a clear case where people used guns to
> > stop an attack in to a tackling incident.
>
> Oooh, Mary. Your blatant biases are showing. Don't get caught in a
> conservative town dressed like that. They'll lock you up for indecent
> exposure.
>
> Incidentally, three of the four guys who tackled the shooter were cops.
> 'Just thought you'd like to know...
>
>
> > Papers from the Washington Post to the New York Times to some Virginia
> > papers refer to the students as former law enforcement, yet for them
> > it is just an oversight and for Lott you claim some type of fraud.
> > given the conflicting news reports on this statement it isn't even
> > clear what is the truth on that point.
>
> Yes, Lott is guilty of fraud. And I don't have to rely on the conflicting
> news reports. I called one of the guy's bosses on the phone and talked to
> him myself.
>
> Once you learn how satisfying it is to get accurate facts, directly from the
> parties involved, or other direct source, you may actually begin to question
> your own biases. It's a real eye-opener.
>
So if Lott relied on the news stories and didn't call up the people
involved, is that supposed to be fraud? You missed my earlier
discussion, probably on purpose, but even if for the sake of argument
you are correct on the facts, it is hard to claim someone is engaging
in fraud if they are relying on the Washington Post and New York Times
and local some Virginia Newspapers when they all make similar
statements. If Lott stuck to those facts, which could be verified in
the papers (i.e., there weren't contradictions, just omissions), that
would explain what was written. Alternatively, Man shot in thigh in
stable condition the Washington Post and New York Times and local some
Virginia Newspapers must have engaged in fraud also. In fact, they
not only got the jobs wrong for these guys, but the out of state
papers also got the facts of what happened wrong.
This evening can you give us the name and telephone number of the
person's boss who you called?
> >
> > As to your gentlemen's agreement claim, give us all a break. Some in
> > congress have been trying to pass a law for years that let police
> > carry their guns across state lines, but Schumer and others have
> > killed it in the senate. Why do they need to pass such a law and why
> > does Schumer threaten to filibuster it if there is no reason to have
> > the law? Don't you hate writers who mistate the facts?
>
> You are utterly ignorant on the point of the gentleman's agreement, Mary.
> I've interviewed dozens of cops on the issue myself, and there are articles
> available about it if you bother to look for them.
>
> I'd suggest that you call the cops to ask, but they often won't admit it if
> they don't know who they're talking to, and if they think they may be
> quoted.
>
> As for Schumer, that's not playing fair. Everybody west of the Hudson River
> hates Schumer, especially me. <g>
Sorry, I didn't realize that stating facts of who was fighting against
cops being able to carry guns in other states was unfair. In any
case, why is the FOP fighting so hard for this legislation if what you
claim is so well understood?
>
> Ed Huntress
Norman Yarvin
jim rozen <jim_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>The reason behind this approach is eminently sensible: that
>anyone who uses defective logic or half-truths to prove their
>point will eventually be exposed, and every time a pro-gun
>enthusiast is shown to have done so, the stock of the entire
>group plumets further.
That's a bit too pessimistic: every political group has its share of
yahoos, and they aren't all discredited because of it, except in the eyes
of their extreme enemies. What really discredits a political group is
when they choose a yahoo as their leader, or otherwise give him more
credit than he deserves -- like by accepting his writings uncritically.
--
Norman Yarvin norman...@snet.net
jim rozen
>I don't know what goes on east of the river. They won't renew my visa.
Last time I checked, the troops at camp smith were not
stopping 'out of zone' vehicles as they crossed the
Bear Mt. Bridge. It's probably safe to visit the
wild lands of Westchester at this point.
Jim (who has a strong suspicion that the Indian Point
power plant is defended by a Phalanx system still, tho)