Majority of Policemen says Yes to the Second Amendment
BMW
July 16, 1999
The 12th annual survey of all local law enforcement agencies in the United
States was released recently. The survey was sent to all Chiefs of Police
and Sheriffs in the nation. The National Association of Chiefs of Police in
Washington, DC, sponsors the survey. Some of the results are listed below.
"Do you believe any law-abiding citizen should be able to purchase a
firearm for sport or self-defense?" Yes 92.7% ... No 06%.
"Within the past year, has your agency been called upon to arrest anyone
who has made a false statement on an application to purchase a firearm? Yes
06% ... No 93.3%
"Do you believe law-abiding citizens should be limited to purchase of no
more than one firearm per month?" Yes 32.7% ... No 65.8%
"Do you believe local ‘gun shows’ are a major source for sales of illegal
firearms to criminals? Yes 40.7% ... No 55.8%
"Do you believe criminals currently are able to obtain virtually any type
of firearm by illegal means?" Yes 97.9% ... No 01.8%
"Do you believe the ethical standards of your department are upheld at a
higher level than those by elected officials in our nation’s capital?" Yes
93.8% ... No 04.8%
"Do you believe the media (TV, radio and print) are fair and impartial in
reporting the news?" Yes 08.4% ... No 90.6%
"Do you believe the coming year will bring foreign or domestic terrorist
attacks that threaten the public trust in our role as guardians of law and
order?" Yes 77.7% ... No 18.7%
"Do you believe the formation of a United Nations police force may threaten
the sovereignty of the United States?" Yes 49.7% ... No 43.7%
--------------------------
THE LAST QUESTION ABOVE IT SCARY, THEY MUST BE SPENDING
TOO MUCH TIME ON THE BEAT...Bill
-------------------------
The survey is clear about many things. The vast majority of police officers
in this country believe that law-abiding people have the right to keep and
bear arms. They further believe that gun control laws do not keep criminals
from obtaining firearms. Furthermore, they are convinced that the risk for
terrorist activity is great and that the media are blatantly biased in
their presentation of the news. That last statement can be confirmed by the
fact that most of the media will not publish the results of this survey.
Remember this as you hear Clinton and Gore tout more gun control.
Stephanie
BMW wrote in message <7mnvmk$2lej$1...@news.inc.net>...
Why is it that the media is biased against gun-ownership?
What do they gain from this?
John Dechon
police officer's opinion ever impacted the policy makers?
The "rank and file" cop doesn't make policy and has no effect on
same...the sorry liberal police chiefs make the policies AND get all the
publicity. Also, stupid citizens see this on TV and believe every word
of it and vote for these moronic anti-gun laws and politicians/policies.
John Dechon
El Paso, TX
BMW
Stephanie wrote in message <7mnvfs$skn$1...@eve.enteract.com>...
>
>What do they gain from this?
The news media is the propaganda machine for our socialist government.
Henry Blaskowski
> Why is it that the media is biased against gun-ownership?
> What do they gain from this?
This is an interesting question that deserves a more serious answer
than most you will get here (based on early returns), so I will take
a stab at it. First, though, are you admitting that it is true?
It seems to me it is; after all, when was the last time you saw
a story about a gun saving someone from harm (which is actually
more common than the committing crime type)?
I think the answer to your question is "a combination of reasons".
One is the self-selection process of who goes into journalism as
a career. These are English and liberal arts majors, people who
just want to make the world a better place. The hard-nosed
get-the-job-done get-the-product-out types go into science,
engineering, business, etc. Therefore, journalists are self-selected
to be "softies" -- people who would rather read/write a great
human interest anecdote than a compilation of statistics. These
people tend to be afraid of guns and believe that their job is
to make the world safe from scary things.
Second, it is their audience. A headline that says "Another 4
crimes prevented through gun use" would quickly become dull, except
to the most avid gun-rights advocates, if presented day after day. But
on those rare occasions when someone goes nuts with a gun and commits a
dramatic crime (e.g., Littleton), we can't help watching -- like watching
a car accident. So, after a while in their job, reporters start to think
that this is THE important thing. It's big, it's visible, it keeps them
employed -- in short, it's their lives. It becomes what they see.
Another crime prevented? Dull, not news. Another crime committed? Time
to sell some ads....
As I read back over this, it's not really as clear as I'd hoped, and will
therefore be torn to shreds, but I hope you get the general idea. And
after all, it's only a theory.....
hblask
Gamma
>
>Stephanie wrote in message <7mnvfs$skn$1...@eve.enteract.com>...
>>
>>
>>What do they gain from this?
>
I really have a hard time believing this. That is, I don't
think the government has agents (covert or overt) in the media
saying "thou shalt print this and not that", and they obey.
Rather, I believe the media bias is a result of naturally
occuring economic and social forces.
The heads of media are in possession of a set of common
motivations. They wish to make money, in order to keep their
corporations' shareholders happy. This requires that they
be "hot"; exciting. At the same time, they need to acquire
as much advertising revenue as possible, which requires
more viewers, especially those in key demographics.
The combination of need for attention in the stockholders'
consciousness as well as eyeballs tuning in means that the news
must be shockingly interesting. Exclusives, weather graphics,
tales of survival, human experience stories, special reports
on-location reports, live reports; these all make for attractive
viewing.
At the same time, there is, I would venture, an interest in
"keeping the peace". The less time humans are spending fighting
each other, the more time they're spending on things like
shopping for products and watching the tube. (I know war can
have a stimulating effect on economy, but doesn't the real
money start flowing right after war's end? Anyone?)
So, media now has the need to break exciting news, while at the
same time enacting a little surreptitious social change toward
lasting peace. That means stories biased against the warmongering,
but not to the extent that they lose customers; i.e. they must
ride a line which alienates as few US citizens as possible, and
keeps those same US citizens in position to spend money. That
means demonizing inanimate objects in preference to people,
esp. those objects most easily used in violent endeavors.
Is media worried about the long-term? Its behavior would seem to
work to bring about an end to violence if the heads of media
are correct; by that time there would be little in the way of
exciting news to report. Realistically, its behavior seems more
inclined to simply bring about an end to the gun in citizens'
possession, opening the door to a government pressing more of
ITS agenda onto the media, and spoiling its party.
I believe the heads of media are not illuminati. They are neither
omniscient nor omnipotent; they are prone to error. I believe that
if the media's gravy train were to end, it wouldn't do so for many
decades; its current heads really have no interest in worrying
about something that's so far away. The media's message is
inconsistent; with one voice they denounce violence, and with
another they glorify it as "action". This, to me, is simply
another example of the media not having its act together yet.
Furthermore, the whole system is being undermined by the Internet.
Broadcast ability is being handed out to entities with much less
incentive to please shareholders or draw in advertising. (What
the media should really work on is shutting down computer makers!
:-) )
In closing, the media's not in control any more than my friend's
cat; it's just another cork in the water. Furthermore, I think
things are going to inevitably improve from the anti-gun-control
and other standpoints. It's merely a matter of time.
--
Paul Brinkley
ga...@clark.net
Jorge Landivar
Gamma wrote:
> BMW <ma...@salisbury.net> wrote:
> (I know war can
> have a stimulating effect on economy, but doesn't the real
> money start flowing right after war's end? Anyone?)
No, there is usually a rescession/depression immediately following a war.
WWII didn't have this, because we immediately jumped into the Cold War.
BMW
Gamma wrote in message ...
>have a stimulating effect on economy, but doesn't the real
>money start flowing right after war's end? Anyone?)
>
This isn't about the corporate media, it's about the people who report the
news. I'm not saying that they work for the government or even directly with
the government but most media personalities have common interests with
certain people or politicians with the same agenda. The gun control issue is
primarily a liberal issue and liberal journalists, reporters, and news
anchors are doing all they can to fight for this cause.
Amy Lewis
Stephanie wrote in message <7mnvfs$skn$1...@eve.enteract.com>...
>Why is it that the media is biased against gun-ownership?
>
>What do they gain from this?
Well the media does all it can to air what grabs our attention and crimes
really fit the bill. Ever notice that *most* of the evening news and most of
what gets reported in the media is about the bad things that happen in the
world? Wars, murders, bank robberies, suicides, etc. get top billing.
Gun violence is something the media can REALLY sink its teeth into. Just
walk through any video rental store and check out all the action adventure
movies. How many of them have some hip-cool-tough guy on the cover giving us
his best cultivated steely gaze and posing with a gun? Hundreds of them!
Gun violence sells big, and its not lost on the politicians seeking
re-election that it is also something they can exploit as a campaign plank
so they may continue to enjoy the life of power, prestige, wealth, and
privilege to which they have become accustomed.
And so, we have a marriage made in purgatory, between the media, exploiting
the worst in the world for ratings and advertising dollars, and the
politicians exploiting the same thing to stay in office, and one hand
dirties the other, so to speak.
We have well over 20,000 gun control laws on the books already, every one of
them an unconstitutional infringment of our right to keep and bear arms, and
not one of them has done the least bit about the problem they were
ostensibly passed to deal with, because that was not at all their purpose in
the beginning or the law would have been focused on the criminals rather
than on the law-abiding gun owner.
Their purpose was that of campaign plank, and nothing more. Once the
politician who was using it was re-elected, or elected as the case may be,
that law had served its real purpose, and the problem of criminal gun
violence goes merrily on, to be used again and again and again and again by
the politicians to stay in office or get into office.
Our politicians are not stupid, and they know that if they actually did
something effective about the problem of criminals using guns to commit
crimes they would lose a great means of getting elected. They are not going
to allow an armed populace either, because that would pose two problems for
them.
First, they would lose the gun control plank, and second, the Second
Amendment would be preserved as the reset button on the Constitution.
Disarming the entire population has historically been the necessary first
step toward installing a dictatorship and imposing a police state, in which
those in power don't even have to bother running for office.
So they are doing all they can to do away with our right to keep and bear
arms, and they don't care that their cynical manipulation of the laws of
this land are totally unconstitutional. Nor do they have to care.
They know that the resulting court fight will financially drain their
opponents' resources and energies and that dragging it through the courts
and the legislative system will cost us a lot of money, so since its not
illegal to attempt to pass an unconstitutional law, they just keep doing it
and doing it to wear us down and spend all our money on fighting them.
So there you have it. This is what they gain by being anti-gun and trying to
disarm us all. Remember this next time you find yourself at a B A L L O T
B O X !
Amy Lewis
Amy Lewis
Henry Blaskowski wrote in message <7mo2ah$mr4$1...@shadow.skypoint.net>...
>In talk.politics.libertarian Stephanie <Step...@SwedGer.Com> wrote:
>
>> What do they gain from this?
>
>than most you will get here (based on early returns )
Oh but I was quite serious! I meant every word of it.
Amy
sprocketeer...@earthlink.net
> I think the answer to your question is "a combination of reasons".
> One is the self-selection process of who goes into journalism as
> a career. These are English and liberal arts majors, people who
> just want to make the world a better place. The hard-nosed
> get-the-job-done get-the-product-out types go into science,
> engineering, business, etc. Therefore, journalists are self-selected
> to be "softies" -- people who would rather read/write a great
> human interest anecdote than a compilation of statistics. These
> people tend to be afraid of guns and believe that their job is
> to make the world safe from scary things.
I think you may be ignoring a component of malevolence/arrogance.
The talking heads believe they know what's best for us. When did
schools of Journalism become summer camps for aristocrats?
--
sprocketeer...@earthlink.net
Remove the "diespamdie" to reply by E-mail
George of the Jungle
lot.
The part you left out is that 80% of reporters and editors in the Washington
press corps are registered democrats. Only a truly naive person today
believes that they do not let their political beliefs color the viewpoint of
the story.
While they intend to make money for their stockholders, they will do so in
the service to their ideology. It think it's obvious that this is the case.
First there is the persistent charge that the media are politically biased.
From Dan Rather's self satisfied on-air smile after the Clinton victory in
1992, to the acquiescence of the Washington press corps in repeating the lie
of Republican "budget cuts" to welfare and education, the media clearly
shows a party allegiance. ABC's Nightline even did two programs about media
bias -- the '92 election and the parroting of the Democratic party line on
the Republican budget *increases* that were less than those wanted by
Democrats back in 1996.
Second, there *is* the air of elitism that permeates the media's work --
both print and broadcast. The (then) Public Editor of the Chicago Tribune,
Douglas Kneeland, put it best in two columns published in September of 1988.
In a column published on September 8, 1992 Mr. Kneeland wrote:
"The Chicago Tribune, as have most of the big newspapers and a good many
smaller ones, has moved steadily over the last decade toward writing stories
that give context and perspective
to the most important news. Instead of just laying out one purported fact
after another, we have increasingly tried to explain and analyze to give
your our best understanding of the truth to
which those facts add up"
I submit that the above passage illustrates an important disconnect between
the "illuminati" in the press and the common man and woman -- Namely, we are
not smart enough to figure out the truth for ourselves, so they have to tell
us.
Finally, there is the clear disdain for anything that smacks of "conservatis
m" or conservative values. Gun control as reported in the media is an
example of this.
As I reported in an earlier post, when the debate over repealing the
so-called "Assault Weapon Ban" was being covered, did you note exactly how
many local TV markets used a voice-over with video of a fully automatic
machine gun being fired? Either the broadcast media are an incredibly
stupid bunch, who does not know the difference between a firearm that has
been restricted for 65 years and a semi-automatic firearm, or the
juxtaposition was a deliberate attempt to confuse the public.
The response from WBBM settled it for me: I'ts deliberate.
Gamma wrote in message ...
>BMW <ma...@salisbury.net> wrote:
>>
>>Stephanie wrote in message <7mnvfs$skn$1...@eve.enteract.com>...
>>>
>>>Why is it that the media is biased against gun-ownership?
>>>
>>>What do they gain from this?
>>
>--
>
>Paul Brinkley
>ga...@clark.net
>
"The problem is that those who see no use for a gun insist that the rest of
us have no use for them either, even though we're miles apart in social
status and the ability to purchase or secure other forms of protection."
[Jon E. Dougherty, "Gun control hypocrites", 6/22/99]
George of the Jungle
Amy Lewis wrote in message <7mo7to$ksd$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
>Stephanie wrote in message <7mnvfs$skn$1...@eve.enteract.com>...
>
>>Why is it that the media is biased against gun-ownership?
>>
>>What do they gain from this?
>
>
>really fit the bill. Ever notice that *most* of the evening news and most
of
>what gets reported in the media is about the bad things that happen in the
>world? Wars, murders, bank robberies, suicides, etc. get top billing.
And yet, when the Senate was considering S. 254, the media IGNORED the rest
of the bill, the parts dealing with:
* Allowing the interception of wireless communications without a warrant via
a "cloned pager" provision
* Infringing on the 1st Amendment right of freedom of assembly
* Allowing the federal government to seize private property for state
misdemeanors
* Encouraging suspicionless drug testing of students – mandatory drug
testing without probable cause
and focusing on the gun control aspects.
I consider this an abdication of their primary duty as a free and protected
press: Serving as a watchdog on government.
>
>Gun violence is something the media can REALLY sink its teeth into. Just
>walk through any video rental store and check out all the action adventure
>movies. How many of them have some hip-cool-tough guy on the cover giving
us
>his best cultivated steely gaze and posing with a gun? Hundreds of them!
>
>Gun violence sells big, and its not lost on the politicians seeking
>re-election that it is also something they can exploit as a campaign plank
>so they may continue to enjoy the life of power, prestige, wealth, and
>privilege to which they have become accustomed.
>
>And so, we have a marriage made in purgatory, between the media, exploiting
>the worst in the world for ratings and advertising dollars, and the
>politicians exploiting the same thing to stay in office, and one hand
>dirties the other, so to speak.
And yet, they substitute Clinton White House press releases for reporting.
They parrot the White House and Democratic Party line and spin and report it
as fact.
From Day 1, (actually from the day he was elected), Clinton has gotten a
free ride. His minions go on TV and slander their opponents. Potential
witnesses against him are intimidated by political agents, and the media
spends a few column-inches on it and moves on the the next accusation
against Kenneth Starr.
Clinton makes war on two separate occasions to divert attention from his
scandals -- Monicagate and China espionage. And the media lets him get away
with it.
Ronald Regan got into trouble over Iran-Contra, and the media and the
self-rightous left pummelled him daily for over 6 years. And Special
Prosecutor Larry Walsh spent $60 Million dollars over 7 years and got
nothing againt Reagan.
Did we hear the media blast Walsh? Nope.
I have to disagree with you. It's not simply an unholy marriage. It is a
deliberate, with malice aforethought, attack on conservatives and
republicans that the media is partaking in. It is the press taking sides.
They are willing participants in the war on the individual right to keep and
bear arms.
>
>We have well over 20,000 gun control laws on the books already, every one
of
>them an unconstitutional infringment of our right to keep and bear arms,
and
>not one of them has done the least bit about the problem they were
>ostensibly passed to deal with, because that was not at all their purpose
in
>the beginning or the law would have been focused on the criminals rather
>than on the law-abiding gun owner.
The purpose of gun control is political control, not crime control.
>
>Their purpose was that of campaign plank, and nothing more. Once the
>politician who was using it was re-elected, or elected as the case may be,
>that law had served its real purpose, and the problem of criminal gun
>violence goes merrily on, to be used again and again and again and again by
>the politicians to stay in office or get into office.
Yep, most politicians lie through their teeth.
>
>Our politicians are not stupid, and they know that if they actually did
>something effective about the problem of criminals using guns to commit
>crimes they would lose a great means of getting elected. They are not going
>to allow an armed populace either, because that would pose two problems for
>them.
Our politicians would rather give lip service to their oath of office --
they one the violate almost every day they remain in office.
[snip]
>
>So there you have it. This is what they gain by being anti-gun and trying
to
>disarm us all. Remember this next time you find yourself at a B A L L O T
>B O X !
>
>Amy Lewis
>
"The problem is that those who see no use for a gun insist that the rest of
Jorge Landivar
Von Tiffen wrote:
> It might be of some service here to note that there are over 26,000 TV
> stations and newspapers in this country and ALL of them are "owned" by
> less than 17 people.
Dang, that's scary.
Steve Hix
(Gamma) wrote:
> BMW <ma...@salisbury.net> wrote:
> >
> >Stephanie wrote in message <7mnvfs$skn$1...@eve.enteract.com>...
> >>
> >>Why is it that the media is biased against gun-ownership?
> >>
> >>What do they gain from this?
> >
> >The news media is the propaganda machine for our socialist government.
>
> I really have a hard time believing this. That is, I don't
> think the government has agents (covert or overt) in the media
> saying "thou shalt print this and not that", and they obey.
They don't need to do that.
There are enough True Believers and Useful Idiots to make such
clumsy approaches uneccesary.
Gamma
mentioned the Democratic party bias in the media, though I had
been quite aware of it - my bad.
I'll say in my defense that my primary point still stands: the
media isn't in cahoots with the government. At best it's in
cahoots with the Democratic Party members in the gov't.
It's also worth considering why there is this bias in the first
place. I claim that the economic and social forces I mentioned
before tend to cultivate the values currently expressed by the
media. I also agree with what someone else said in this thread:
most new reporters entering the trade tend to begin as liberal-
minded college undergrads. They become the new voice of the
young media, and so the media regularly gets infusions of
liberal attitudes at the expense of more conservative ones, at
least in the social arena (in the economic arena, I tend to see
more representation of fiscally conservative viewpoints).
I should say that I'm a computer scientist by trade, not a
sociologist or journalist, though I have thought a lot about
these issues from time to time. Let that be your grain of
salt...
More below.
George of the Jungle <anti...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote:
>
>The part you left out is that 80% of reporters and editors in the Washington
>press corps are registered democrats. Only a truly naive person today
>believes that they do not let their political beliefs color the viewpoint of
>the story.
I'd like to know your source for this 80% figure, if it's not too
much trouble. Would you happen to know the percentage nationwide?
>While they intend to make money for their stockholders, they will do so in
>the service to their ideology. It think it's obvious that this is the case.
Ah, but will they continue to stick to their ideology if they
will face poverty as a result?
>From Dan Rather's self satisfied on-air smile after the Clinton victory in
>1992, to the acquiescence of the Washington press corps in repeating the lie
>of Republican "budget cuts" to welfare and education, the media clearly
>shows a party allegiance. ABC's Nightline even did two programs about media
>bias -- the '92 election and the parroting of the Democratic party line on
>the Republican budget *increases* that were less than those wanted by
>Democrats back in 1996.
What were Nightline's conclusions on media bias, then?
>Second, there *is* the air of elitism that permeates the media's work --
>both print and broadcast. The (then) Public Editor of the Chicago Tribune,
>Douglas Kneeland, put it best in two columns published in September of 1988.
>In a column published on September 8, 1992 Mr. Kneeland wrote:
>[snip]
>I submit that the above passage illustrates an important disconnect between
>the "illuminati" in the press and the common man and woman -- Namely, we are
>not smart enough to figure out the truth for ourselves, so they have to tell
>us.
With you so far. But what causes this elitism? I don't think
it's simply a matter of egomaniacal journalists; they must be
perceiving some need by the public to feel "taken care of"...
My point here is that if we want a media that doesn't talk
down to us, we have to figure out why they're doing it in the
first place.
>Finally, there is the clear disdain for anything that smacks of "conservatis
>m" or conservative values. Gun control as reported in the media is an
>example of this.
I see this, too (though again I think the bias is somewhat less
in economic/business reporting). Why does it happen?
>As I reported in an earlier post, when the debate over repealing the
>so-called "Assault Weapon Ban" was being covered, did you note exactly how
>many local TV markets used a voice-over with video of a fully automatic
>machine gun being fired?
George, I notice this all OVER the place. :-) Nearly every
time I see a news report involving guns; not just in the recent
assault weapons coverage. I'm starting to wonder why they
still do it, as it's getting really cliche. Even if they have
a cause to serve, they really need to be more subtle about it...
>Either the broadcast media are an incredibly
>stupid bunch, who does not know the difference between a firearm that has
>been restricted for 65 years and a semi-automatic firearm, or the
>juxtaposition was a deliberate attempt to confuse the public.
>
>The response from WBBM settled it for me: I'ts deliberate.
--
Paul Brinkley
ga...@clark.net
Von Tiffen
>>
>>The news media is the propaganda machine for our socialist government.
>
>I really have a hard time believing this. That is, I don't
>think the government has agents (covert or overt) in the media
>saying "thou shalt print this and not that", and they obey.
>occuring economic and social forces.
>
It might be of some service here to note that there are over 26,000 TV
stations and newspapers in this country and ALL of them are "owned" by
less than 17 people.
Take a look at what companies own whom and trace the pyramid
upwards...
The Good News is that this number is up by 2 from three years ago,
according to the PBS special I watched a couple of months ago. Much
to my surprise, they DID name who owned PBS.
If you don't think that the US media outlets are in cahoots, you had
better think again.
Fortunately, I believe that this collusion is becoming apparent to at
least a few of the well to do and efforts are being made to
reciprocate... I have read that Geraldo and his Nazi loving Clinton
kissers are on their way out to make room for more Chris Matthews and
Hardball.
In addition, Cokie and Tom are losing points rapidly to Tim Russert.
Lastly, but certainly not least, Rush Limbaugh still has more of an
audience than ALL of the prime time networks PUT TOGETHER.
Still, I fear that the battle may already be lost as those in *REAL*
power remain nameless and faceless and plan to have us all taxed into
submission before the sun has set on Bill Clintons Toll Bridge to the
new millennium.
"Terrorism, more often than not,
comes from the quill of a pen than
from the barrel of a gun."
>>>---HUNTER---->
cguinn
<anti...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote:
>As I reported in an earlier post, when the debate over repealing the
>so-called "Assault Weapon Ban" was being covered, did you note exactly how
>many local TV markets used a voice-over with video of a fully automatic
>machine gun being fired? Either the broadcast media are an incredibly
>stupid bunch, who does not know the difference between a firearm that has
>been restricted for 65 years and a semi-automatic firearm, or the
>juxtaposition was a deliberate attempt to confuse the public.
How about when the media cover a crime, and the graphic that appears
over the shoulder of the newscaster is that of a gun! Even if the
crime DID NOT involve the use of a firearm!!!
This shows how the media uses their resources to sway public opinion.
Showing a gun while refering to a crime reinforces the false belief
that all guns are used ONLY for crime, even if the reported crime DOES
NOT involve the use of a gun!! It lumps ALL gun owners in with the
criminals in the mind of the sheeple!
This is the negative media bias that we are faced with.
cguinn
"When only the police have guns, it's called a police state!" - Unknown
"Gun control is the ability to put five shots in the same hole." - Ted Nugent
MLevitt
I'm sure most of you heard about the racist guy who bought a gun in Illinois
and killed a bunch of minorities a week or two ago, which was used by the
media as another anti-gun platform.
Well another incident occurred at about the same time in Santa Clara CA that
most people didn't hear about because the media did NOT hype it. Some guy
rented a gun at a shooting range, shot a couple rounds and then came back to
the rental office and rounded up the 3 people in there, took them out back
and was preparing to shoot them (and then himself, obvious because of the
suicide letter in his car that said as much). Well he didn't get a chance to
kill these 3 people because one of them had a concealed weapon, which he
armed at the appropriate time and used to take out the aggressor, saving all
3 and who knows how many others.
This was an obvious case of the benefits of owning/carrying guns, and
concealed ones at that, but the media conveniently never reported the story
(not LOUDLY at least), let alone paint a picture detailing the benefits of
gun use/proliferation.
So only one of these 2 incidents, which occurred at about the same time,
received wide coverage. And it's no surprise that it was the incident that
could be used by the anti-gunners to push their cause (and it should be
apparent that the media are anti-gunners from this as well). Ok, so maybe
more people died in the other incident, so it warranted more coverage, but I
still never heard any main newspaper use the second incident to discuss how
guns can stop crime. It's always about how guns cause crime. No, the mass
media's not slanted, and they don't have an agenda. Yeah right!
George of the Jungle wrote in message <7mov5r$or$1...@ffx2nh5.news.uu.net>...
>
>Amy Lewis wrote in message <7mo7to$ksd$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>>
>>Stephanie wrote in message <7mnvfs$skn$1...@eve.enteract.com>...
>>
>>>Why is it that the media is biased against gun-ownership?
>>>
>>>What do they gain from this?
>>
>>
jaq...@en.com
<hbl...@mirage.skypoint.net> wrote:
> Second, it is their audience. A headline that says "Another 4
> crimes prevented through gun use" would quickly become dull, except
> to the most avid gun-rights advocates, if presented day after day.
I dunno. I find gun crime stories to be boring in general. They're only fun
when a civilian stops the bad guys.
Albert Isham
>The survey is clear about many things. The vast majority of police officers
>in this country believe that law-abiding people have the right to keep and
>bear arms.
Now, ask them if there should be any restrictions on who has guns and
under what conditions.
> They further believe that gun control laws do not keep criminals
>from obtaining firearms.
Be specific. Current gun control laws as currently enforced do not
keep all guns out of the hands of all criminals. You are pushing the
gun lobby propaganda line that lulls people into thinking that all
laws are ineffective. Try to tell that to an English criminal.
Panhead
>
> On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:08:51 -0400, "BMW" <ma...@salisbury.net> wrote:
>
> >The survey is clear about many things. The vast majority of police officers
> >in this country believe that law-abiding people have the right to keep and
> >bear arms.
>
> Now, ask them if there should be any restrictions on who has guns and
> under what conditions.
Ask them yourself, Albert.
I'm sure they believe the same thing the rest of us do.
Criminals + Guns? = NO!
The rest of us + guns if they want them? = Sure.
>
> > They further believe that gun control laws do not keep criminals
> >from obtaining firearms.
>
> Be specific. Current gun control laws as currently enforced do not
> keep all guns out of the hands of all criminals.
Brilliant deduction, Sherlock.
ANY law that is not enforced is a useless law.
No law CAN keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, "would
be" or not.
> You are pushing the
> gun lobby propaganda line that lulls people into thinking that all
> laws are ineffective. Try to tell that to an English criminal.
You read so well between the lines of reality, don't you?
Good laws (or bad) are very effective, providing they are
enforced and justice is swiftly followed.
An English criminal has the same access to guns as any other
sick mind.
However, if they don't want to murder in that fashion, or
"cause", they use bombs that kill indiscriminately ...like you
prefer, right?
Albert Isham
>
>
>This was an obvious case of the benefits of owning/carrying guns, and
>concealed ones at that, but the media conveniently never reported the story
>(not LOUDLY at least), let alone paint a picture detailing the benefits of
>gun use/proliferation.
>
When gunners talk about the "obvious benefits of guns" they are talking about
justifiable homicides with a gun.
In 1996, there were 176 justifiable homicides by private citizens with
handguns. Compare that to the 15,835 murdered in 1995. On the whole, guns
cause more pain, death, and suffering than the benefits they provide.
Panhead
> When gunners talk about the "obvious benefits of guns" they are talking about
> justifiable homicides with a gun.
No "they" aren't.
Please don't speak for those that you know nothing about.
> In 1996, there were 176 justifiable homicides by private citizens with
> handguns. Compare that to the 15,835 murdered in 1995. On the whole, guns
> cause more pain, death, and suffering than the benefits they provide.
Where DO you get your facts from, Al?
You mentioned a PARTIAL (if at all true) "factoid" that does
take into account how many times a firearm was "used" ....but
never fired, let alone how many of those 15.8K were murdered by
other means AND, what the crime involved was.
I suspect they were mostly drug and Gang related.
Supply some truthful information, Albert. Something UNBIASED
please, OK?
Michael Cidras
(Albert Isham) wrote:
>In article <ur0k3.1541$L96.1...@typhoon1.austin.rr.com>, MLevitt says...
>>
>
>>
>>This was an obvious case of the benefits of owning/carrying guns, and
>>concealed ones at that, but the media conveniently never reported the story
>>(not LOUDLY at least), let alone paint a picture detailing the benefits of
>>gun use/proliferation.
>>
>When gunners talk about the "obvious benefits of guns" they are talking about
>justifiable homicides with a gun.
Bullshit Albert. Nice sweeping statement that you cannot back up.
When YOU talk about 'obvious benefits of guns' YOU are talking about
justifiable homicides because YOU ignore those millions of instances
where the mere showing the attacker a gun cause the attacker to leave,
and no shots fired. YOU like that low number of justifiable homicides
(adjudicated at the time of the report being filed with the UCR, while
ignoring those that were adjudicated later in a court) because it
serves YOUR purpose.
>In 1996, there were 176 justifiable homicides by private citizens with
>handguns. Compare that to the 15,835 murdered in 1995. On the whole, guns
>cause more pain, death, and suffering than the benefits they provide.
To YOU, maybe. To those that are still alive because they were armed,
your statement is hogwash.
--
Michael Cidras
NRA #SAJ7755F
Amy Lewis
Albert Isham wrote in message <3790c40a...@news.ne.infi.net>...
>On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:08:51 -0400, "BMW" <ma...@salisbury.net> wrote:
>> They further believe that gun control laws do not keep criminals
>>from obtaining firearms.
>
>Be specific. Current gun control laws as currently enforced do not
>keep all guns out of the hands of all criminals. You are pushing the
>gun lobby propaganda line that lulls people into thinking that all
>laws are ineffective. Try to tell that to an English criminal.
>
I don't believe he said that at all. Who's propaganda line are you pushing?
Amy
Bert Hyman
>>
>When gunners talk about the "obvious benefits of guns" they are talking about
>justifiable homicides with a gun.
No, they're not.
>
>... On the whole, guns
>cause more pain, death, and suffering than the benefits they provide.
>
No, they don't.
More rubbish from Isham.
--
The opinions expressed here are the opinions of the author and do not
represent the opinions of those who hold other opinions.
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@visi.com
Steve Hix
(Michael Cidras) wrote:
> On 17 Jul 1999 19:52:10 GMT, in talk.politics.guns ais...@ne.infi.net
> (Albert Isham) wrote:
>
> >In article <ur0k3.1541$L96.1...@typhoon1.austin.rr.com>, MLevitt says...
> >>
> >
> >>
> >>This was an obvious case of the benefits of owning/carrying guns, and
> >>concealed ones at that, but the media conveniently never reported the story
> >>(not LOUDLY at least), let alone paint a picture detailing the benefits of
> >>gun use/proliferation.
> >>
> >When gunners talk about the "obvious benefits of guns" they are talking
about
> >justifiable homicides with a gun.
>
> Bullshit Albert. Nice sweeping statement that you cannot back up.
> When YOU talk about 'obvious benefits of guns' YOU are talking about
> justifiable homicides because YOU ignore those millions of instances
> where the mere showing the attacker a gun cause the attacker to leave,
> and no shots fired. YOU like that low number of justifiable homicides
> (adjudicated at the time of the report being filed with the UCR, while
> ignoring those that were adjudicated later in a court) because it
> serves YOUR purpose.
>
> >In 1996, there were 176 justifiable homicides by private citizens with
> >handguns. Compare that to the 15,835 murdered in 1995. On the whole, guns
> >cause more pain, death, and suffering than the benefits they provide.
>
> To YOU, maybe. To those that are still alive because they were armed,
> your statement is hogwash.
Al wants everyone to ignore the (at least) 108,000 more who
successfully defended themselves from criminal assault with
guns...
Panhead
Albert likes to scream "FIRE!" in crowded, public places.
no one of consequence
]In article <ur0k3.1541$L96.1...@typhoon1.austin.rr.com>, MLevitt says...
]>
]>This was an obvious case of the benefits of owning/carrying guns, and
]>concealed ones at that, but the media conveniently never reported the story
]>(not LOUDLY at least), let alone paint a picture detailing the benefits of
]>gun use/proliferation.
]When gunners talk about the "obvious benefits of guns" they are talking about
No, Albert. YOU are the one who thinks that and projects it upon
pro-gunners.
I, for one, consider a criminals scared away to be another benefit. No need
for death if it can be avoided.
]In 1996, there were 176 justifiable homicides by private citizens with
]handguns. Compare that to the 15,835 murdered in 1995. On the whole, guns
]cause more pain, death, and suffering than the benefits they provide.
What of all the incidences where the criminal is only wounded or scared
off? That doesn't count as a benefit to you? Only death counts to you?
Again, your obvious bloodthirst only lets you see death. You wonder why
people think you are scum? This is one reason, Albert.
--
|Patrick Chester (aka: claypigeon, Sinapus) wol...@io.com |
|"Anything I can do to help?" "Um. Short of dying? No, can't think of a |
| thing." -Morden, Vir. 'Interludes and Examinations' -Babylon 5 |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.... |
Lackey Boy
Michael Cidras wrote in message <3796e6d8...@news.pcisys.net>...
>>handguns. Compare that to the 15,835 murdered in 1995. On the whole,
guns
>>cause more pain, death, and suffering than the benefits they provide.
>
>your statement is hogwash.
>
176 justifiable homicides in 1996? That seems to be about 1 every other
day. Not a bad average for a year to have an act committed that was later
determined to be legal in execution, thus the term "justifiable homicide."
1995 had 15,835 murders. Again, about average for the country, for an act
that is NOT legal.
Of course, we do not know if his numbers are justifiable homicides by all
firearms, and his murder number is murder by all means. BTW, murder is
defined as "the unlawful killing of another human being with premeditated
intent or malice aforethought." Justifiable homicide is defined as "the
killing of another human being by commandment ofd the law, in the execution
of public justice, in self-defense, in defense of habitation, property or
person." Barron's Dictionary of Legal Terms, 2nd Ed.
Please, someone, anyone, explain to me how comparing a legal use of a weapon
to the illegal use of a weapon, let alone not even in the same year, can in
any way draw any type of conclusion for the assertion that "guns cause more
pain, death, and suffering than the benefits they provide"?
Again, we see that the twisting of facts and use of terms that are not equal
can lead to a conclusion that has no basis in fact at all. Next utterly
inane argument.
Is the pro-gun lobby, those who are for the legal keeping of arms, the only
ones who take the time to get their facts straight? Take the time to
research both sides of the argument?
MLevitt
Albert Isham wrote in message <7mqmta$9t2$1...@nw003t.infi.net>...
>In article <ur0k3.1541$L96.1...@typhoon1.austin.rr.com>, MLevitt says...
>When gunners talk about the "obvious benefits of guns" they are talking
about
>justifiable homicides with a gun.
>
One of the biggest benefits, and the primary reason our forefathers gave us
the right to own guns, was as insurance against the possible installation of
a tyrannical government. It's a cakewalk (ok, maybe a bit harder than that)
to install a dictatorship and institute tyranny if there's no possible means
of resistance on the part of the populace. Who knows how many power-hungry
mongrels would have risen to power and possibly overthrown our system of
government if the populace was weak and subservient. Maybe this has occurred
indirectly, through the manipulation of our laws and system, but still that
is much less violent than a "hostile takeover". Who knows how many lives
were saved in this manner...
Amy Lewis
Albert Isham wrote in message <7mqmta$9t2$1...@nw003t.infi.net>...
>When gunners talk about the "obvious benefits of guns" they are talking
about
>justifiable homicides with a gun.
When you post hyperbole like this you are just projecting your baseless and
ill-informed fears and prejudices on we who have not killed anyone and never
want to.
You put words into our mouths that are not there and twist those that are.
Such an intellectually dishonest approach to discussion is hardly worthy of
our time.
>In 1996, there were 176 justifiable homicides by private citizens with
>handguns. Compare that to the 15,835 murdered in 1995. On the whole, guns
>cause more pain, death, and suffering than the benefits they provide.
Armed with this steaming pile of facts you proceed to condemn all the law
abiding gun owner for what was done by criminals. You people just never
tired of this, do you?
Why don't you do your homework on those statistics and see what they really
mean instead of customizing them to support your invalid argument?
I'd like to see how those "murders" you are talking about actually break
down. I'm quite certain that given the dishonest way you attack us in your
first sentence that you are deciding that any gun death is a murder, even
self-defense.
Amy
Jorge Landivar
Albert Isham wrote:
> In article <ur0k3.1541$L96.1...@typhoon1.austin.rr.com>, MLevitt says...
> >
>
> >
> >This was an obvious case of the benefits of owning/carrying guns, and
> >concealed ones at that, but the media conveniently never reported the story
> >(not LOUDLY at least), let alone paint a picture detailing the benefits of
> >gun use/proliferation.
> >
> When gunners talk about the "obvious benefits of guns" they are talking about
> justifiable homicides with a gun.
No, in most cases, just showing someone the gun will cause them to run.
There are over 2M cases a year that people defend themselves with a gun.
Jorge Landivar
Albert Isham wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:08:51 -0400, "BMW" <ma...@salisbury.net> wrote:
>
> Be specific. Current gun control laws as currently enforced do not
> keep all guns out of the hands of all criminals. You are pushing the
> gun lobby propaganda line that lulls people into thinking that all
> laws are ineffective. Try to tell that to an English criminal.
That is because they (gun laws) aren't enforced.
Scout
Albert Isham <ais...@ne.infi.net> wrote in message
news:7mqmta$9t2$1...@nw003t.infi.net...
> >concealed ones at that, but the media conveniently never reported the
story
> >(not LOUDLY at least), let alone paint a picture detailing the benefits
of
> >gun use/proliferation.
> >
about
> justifiable homicides with a gun.
Here Albert demonstrates the come anti-gunner problem, that self defense can
only be considered successful if you KILL your attacker. Not wound, not
scare off, nor any other result that removes the threat to you.
Albert tell me, do you also judge the effectiveness of our police
departments by the number of suspects they kill?
Lackey Boy
>On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 17:06:15 -0500, in talk.politics.guns "Lackey Boy"
><jgn...@5thseason.net> wrote:
>
>>Is the pro-gun lobby, those who are for the legal keeping of arms, the
only
>>ones who take the time to get their facts straight? Take the time to
>>research both sides of the argument?
>
>that do take the time to do research. They are also the ones that are
>not calling for prohibitions on guns, just more discriminating laws
>that limit gun availability. I will give some of these people credit
>for the research and cogent opinions they have. The remainder,
>especially those that want to rid the world of guns, tend to deal from
>emotions only, for when they see the real deal and the larger picture
>they find that they are arguing without merit or fact.
>
I agree with you, Michael, but, as you said, they are for more
discriminating laws, limiting gun availability. On the surface, not
anti-gun. Deeper, more anal in their views on the subject.
They would have you believe that the only effective gun for self-defense is
the one not yet invented: the "smart gun," the gun that only the owner or
authorized user can use. I have a smart gun now. I have a number of them:
they don't fire until I lock, load, aim and fire. Otherwise, they are
nothing more than VERY expensive paperweights.
Smith and Wesson, Beretta, Colt.... They have all done R and D on the
"smart gun" and all have abandoned it due to the simple fact that they are
too unreliable. Ask anyone who works with machinery: Which is more
reliable - the simple fulcrum, or the complex hydraulic lift? The more
complex a device becomes, the more apt it is to malfunction. The more parts
you put in, the more chances you have of it not working.
Guns that sense fingerprints: Should it be programmed for all persons in the
house, on the police force? That will entail a large amount of memory for
it to be able to store all of that information. If it is battery powered
(the computer that will actuate the safety), how should it fail if power is
lost? Should the gun lock up and not work? Or should it fail in a fireable
condition?
Magnetic rings: What sensitivity? Does it have to be worn on the same
finger? If the owner/user is incapacitated, all one must do is remove the
ring from the owner/user.
Pressure grips: huh?
In all of these cases, the manufacturer would be held liable for designing a
defective product when it would fail, be it being able to fire, or to lock
up, or not to allow another "authorized" user, or not to function because
the hand was not placed just so. "James Bond" technology works in the
movies, because in the movies, it is in the script for the gun to work only
for Bond. In the real world, it is a bit more complex.
Granted, the digital watch, the pocket calculator, the PC, are all legacies
of the space race. But each of these devices has undergone decades of
evolution, designing, redesigning. Many times have the engineers gone back
to the drawing board and reinvented the wheel. Who remembers the L.E.D.
watches? I do. They are museum pieces now. The first "pocket calculators"
were the size of a paperback novel, and could barely do the basic functions.
The same size device today has more computing power then the first
computers.
These people, the NOT pro-gun people, the ones who want more discriminating
availability laws, would want untried, unproven, imperfect technology
incorporated into the gun today. New Jersey has already enacted a law
mandating such technology.
The basic design of the gun has not changed in over 300 years. Refinements
continue to be made to this day, starting with the cartridge, to the
rotating cylinder, to the repeating rifle, to the semi-automatic, to the
automatic, and on to materials and the like.
IMO, the NOT pro-gun are as onerous in their beliefs as the anti's, maybe
more so. It would be a short walk from enhanced purchase requirements, to a
federal license/tax for personal purchase, to not accepting the tax at all,
as has already been done (the $200 transfer tax for a full auto per NFA).
But I too will credit them for doing their own research, responsibly stating
their viewpoint.
--
Jeff
CPA0150B
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Steve Hix
<amyl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Albert Isham wrote in message <3790c40a...@news.ne.infi.net>...
> >On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:08:51 -0400, "BMW" <ma...@salisbury.net> wrote:
>
> >> They further believe that gun control laws do not keep criminals
> >>from obtaining firearms.
> >
> >Be specific. Current gun control laws as currently enforced do not
> >keep all guns out of the hands of all criminals. You are pushing the
> >gun lobby propaganda line that lulls people into thinking that all
> >laws are ineffective.
Strawman!!
*Any* law that is not enforced is going to be ineffective, unless
it's purely symbolic.
> Try to tell that to an English criminal.
Tell them what? That English gun laws keep guns away from them?
Hardly.
- Those who really *want* guns can get them from the blackmarket,
unless you believe that the Home Office and various British
law enforcement agencies are lying.
- English criminals did not tend to go for guns *before* the
gun laws in this century were passed.
James F. Mayer
officers
>>in this country believe that law-abiding people have the right to
keep and
>>bear arms.
>
>Now, ask them if there should be any restrictions on who has guns and
>under what conditions.
>
Albert wants all guns kept out of the hands of the whole general
citizenry under all conditions.
>> They further believe that gun control laws do not keep criminals
>>from obtaining firearms.
>
>Be specific. Current gun control laws as currently enforced do not
>keep all guns out of the hands of all criminals.
But Albert wants to keep all guns out of the hands of everyone
except the police and military even if those laws aren't enforced.
You are pushing the
>gun lobby propaganda line
Albert pushes the HCI line.
that lulls people into thinking that all
>laws are ineffective. Try to tell that to an English criminal.
>
No, that is the HCI line as they continually complain that the
current laws are ineffective and more are needed.
James F. Mayer
>>concealed ones at that, but the media conveniently never reported the
story
>>(not LOUDLY at least), let alone paint a picture detailing the
benefits of
>>gun use/proliferation.
>>
talking about
>justifiable homicides with a gun.
>
All Albert can do is post HCI propaganda to support his assertions.
>In 1996, there were 176 justifiable homicides by private citizens with
>handguns. Compare that to the 15,835 murdered in 1995. On the whole,
guns
>cause more pain, death, and suffering than the benefits they provide.
How many of the estimated eighty thousand to 2.5 million persons
that have used a gun per year in defense of themselves as reported by
the NCVS and others are you willing to sacrifice to those that would
have done them grievous bodily harm? Would you tolerate the increase
in violent crimes and deaths as long as the potential victim couldn't
defend themselves with a gun? How many elderly and weak are you
willing to sacrifice to the strong and young? Would you be satisfied
that the increase in deaths caused by violent criminals will justify
making guns illegal?
Randy Sweeney
of life.
My mother prevented a burglary with a gun... she didn't even have to
shoot... merely cock the gun.
My ex-boss prevented a car jacking the same way.
Your basic criminal is not willing to lose his own life for a crime... but
he doesn't hold yours in the same esteem.
>Albert Isham wrote in message <7mqmta$9t2$1...@nw003t.infi.net>...
Michael Cidras
<jgn...@5thseason.net> wrote:
>Is the pro-gun lobby, those who are for the legal keeping of arms, the only
>ones who take the time to get their facts straight? Take the time to
>research both sides of the argument?
No. There are some on the, how shall we say, NOT pro-gun lobby side
that do take the time to do research. They are also the ones that are
not calling for prohibitions on guns, just more discriminating laws
that limit gun availability. I will give some of these people credit
for the research and cogent opinions they have. The remainder,
especially those that want to rid the world of guns, tend to deal from
emotions only, for when they see the real deal and the larger picture
they find that they are arguing without merit or fact.
Of course, that is just my $0.02.
--
Michael Cidras
SAJ7755F
Ian Underwood
>When gunners talk about the "obvious benefits of guns" they are talking about
>justifiable homicides with a gun.
No, they are talking about defensive gun uses (DGUs) of all kinds,
including the vast majority that don't involve shots fired, let alone
injuries or deaths. There are about two million DGUs every year.
They are also talking about the various sporting uses of guns.
But many of them are talking primarily about the fact that an armed
citizenry is the ultimate check on governmental tyranny.
George of the Jungle
Gamma wrote in message ...
>
>George of the Jungle <anti...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote:
>>
>>The part you left out is that 80% of reporters and editors in the
Washington
>>press corps are registered democrats. Only a truly naive person today
>>believes that they do not let their political beliefs color the viewpoint
of
>>the story.
>
>I'd like to know your source for this 80% figure, if it's not too
>much trouble. Would you happen to know the percentage nationwide?
It's been floating around for several years now. My 80% figure might be
low, James Fallows claimed 90% of the media voted for Clinton and/or are
registered democrats.
See:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/press/interviews/fallows.html
S. Talbot: The Right Wing has always had this argument that you and I and
our colleagues are too liberal, have a liberal bias. Do they have a point?
J. Fallows: The complaint about a liberal media bias is true, but not
important in the way that most conservatives think. It is true in that, you
know, study after study has shown that the elite national media, network
people, news magazine people, big newspapers, you know, are Democrats. They
voted something like 90% for Bill Clinton in 1992. Historically they voted
for Democrats in national elections.
And on certain social issues, especially abortion, religious affiliation,
tolerance of gay rights, etc. they are distinctly to the left of the
national norm. And I think that in coverage of those social issues, in
particular, that bias shows through.
...
So I think there is a Democratic identity which shows up in social matters.
[See also "Why America Hates the Press" -- a PBS/Frontline broadcast]
>
>>While they intend to make money for their stockholders, they will do so in
>>the service to their ideology. It think it's obvious that this is the
case.
>
>Ah, but will they continue to stick to their ideology if they
>will face poverty as a result?
I think their agenda is to "make a difference" rather than "surveillance of
the environment."
>
>>From Dan Rather's self satisfied on-air smile after the Clinton victory in
>>1992, to the acquiescence of the Washington press corps in repeating the
lie
>>of Republican "budget cuts" to welfare and education, the media clearly
>>shows a party allegiance. ABC's Nightline even did two programs about
media
>>bias -- the '92 election and the parroting of the Democratic party line on
>>the Republican budget *increases* that were less than those wanted by
>>Democrats back in 1996.
>
>What were Nightline's conclusions on media bias, then?
That it existed, that the media was liberal, pro clinton and anti
republican.
>
>>Second, there *is* the air of elitism that permeates the media's work --
>>both print and broadcast. The (then) Public Editor of the Chicago
Tribune,
>>Douglas Kneeland, put it best in two columns published in September of
1988.
>>In a column published on September 8, 1992 Mr. Kneeland wrote:
>>[snip]
>>I submit that the above passage illustrates an important disconnect
between
>>the "illuminati" in the press and the common man and woman -- Namely, we
are
>>not smart enough to figure out the truth for ourselves, so they have to
tell
>>us.
>
>With you so far. But what causes this elitism? I don't think
>it's simply a matter of egomaniacal journalists; they must be
>perceiving some need by the public to feel "taken care of"...
>My point here is that if we want a media that doesn't talk
>down to us, we have to figure out why they're doing it in the
>first place.
Because they make a lot of money, much more than the rest of us?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/press/stars/
>
>>Finally, there is the clear disdain for anything that smacks of
"conservatis
>>m" or conservative values. Gun control as reported in the media is an
>>example of this.
>
>I see this, too (though again I think the bias is somewhat less
>in economic/business reporting). Why does it happen?
See my point about their ideology above.
>
>Paul Brinkley
>ga...@clark.net
>
"The principle feature of American liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By
loudly denouncing all bad things-war and hunger and date rape-liberals
testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote
themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply
about such things. It's a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful
thing about this aristocracy is that you don't have to be brave, smart,
strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal."
P. J. O'Rourke (b. 1947), U.S. journalist. Give War a Chance, Introduction
(1992).
Slone
Gamma wrote in message ...
>>
>>Stephanie wrote in message <7mnvfs$skn$1...@eve.enteract.com>...
>>>
>>>Why is it that the media is biased against gun-ownership?
>>>
>>>What do they gain from this?
>>
>>The news media is the propaganda machine for our socialist government.
>
>I really have a hard time believing this. That is, I don't
>think the government has agents (covert or overt) in the media
>saying "thou shalt print this and not that", and they obey.
>Rather, I believe the media bias is a result of naturally
>occuring economic and social forces.
>
>The heads of media are in possession of a set of common
>motivations. They wish to make money, in order to keep their
>corporations' shareholders happy. This requires that they
>be "hot"; exciting. At the same time, they need to acquire
>as much advertising revenue as possible, which requires
>more viewers, especially those in key demographics.
>
>The combination of need for attention in the stockholders'
>consciousness as well as eyeballs tuning in means that the news
>must be shockingly interesting. Exclusives, weather graphics,
>tales of survival, human experience stories, special reports
>on-location reports, live reports; these all make for attractive
>viewing.
>
>At the same time, there is, I would venture, an interest in
>"keeping the peace". The less time humans are spending fighting
>each other, the more time they're spending on things like
>shopping for products and watching the tube. (I know war can
>have a stimulating effect on economy, but doesn't the real
>money start flowing right after war's end? Anyone?)
>
>So, media now has the need to break exciting news, while at the
>same time enacting a little surreptitious social change toward
>lasting peace. That means stories biased against the warmongering,
>but not to the extent that they lose customers; i.e. they must
>ride a line which alienates as few US citizens as possible, and
>keeps those same US citizens in position to spend money. That
>means demonizing inanimate objects in preference to people,
>esp. those objects most easily used in violent endeavors.
>
>Is media worried about the long-term? Its behavior would seem to
>work to bring about an end to violence if the heads of media
>are correct; by that time there would be little in the way of
>exciting news to report. Realistically, its behavior seems more
>inclined to simply bring about an end to the gun in citizens'
>possession, opening the door to a government pressing more of
>ITS agenda onto the media, and spoiling its party.
>
>I believe the heads of media are not illuminati. They are neither
>omniscient nor omnipotent; they are prone to error. I believe that
>if the media's gravy train were to end, it wouldn't do so for many
>decades; its current heads really have no interest in worrying
>about something that's so far away. The media's message is
>inconsistent; with one voice they denounce violence, and with
>another they glorify it as "action". This, to me, is simply
>another example of the media not having its act together yet.
>
>Furthermore, the whole system is being undermined by the Internet.
>Broadcast ability is being handed out to entities with much less
>incentive to please shareholders or draw in advertising. (What
>the media should really work on is shutting down computer makers!
>:-) )
>
>In closing, the media's not in control any more than my friend's
>cat; it's just another cork in the water. Furthermore, I think
>things are going to inevitably improve from the anti-gun-control
>and other standpoints. It's merely a matter of time.
>
>Paul Brinkley
>ga...@clark.net
>
If you would examine who controls the media would you find that all our
newspapers, television stations, magazines, book publishers,wire services
and radio etc. are owned by a widely different bunch of people? Or might you
find that companies like Times/Warner/Mirror own quite a large percentage of
these information sources? And would you also find that the 'Rockefellers'
own Time/Warner/Mirror?
The truth may be that though we sometimes think we are getting our news
and information from different sources we may not be.
And are we to assume that people like Ted Koppel, Brokaw, Rather etc
are not influenced at all by their CFR membership?
Regardless of all these thoughts it is impossible for the media not to
be biased. I have read those who say that our media is not biased. But there
is no way that it could not be biased. There is 'X' amount of news and
information to be had but an editor has to decide which stories are
pertinent and whether they are to be edited for content because obviously
they cannot all be printed or broadcast. Therefore this editors particular
biases be they good or bad have to come into play.
Just thoughts and ideas on the subject.
Slone
Slone
Jorge Landivar wrote in message <37900BB8...@tca.net>...
>
>
>Von Tiffen wrote:
>
>> It might be of some service here to note that there are over 26,000 TV
>> stations and newspapers in this country and ALL of them are "owned" by
>> less than 17 people.
>
>Dang, that's scary.
>
Yep and many of us think we are getting our news and info from different
sources but not always so. And I would say it is safe to assume that these '
less than 17' people are CFR members as well.
Did anyone notice how Times/Warner took control of the Ted Turner stuff? One
day I found out that Ted Turner was made chairman of the board to
Time/Warner and I said well there goes the Turner stuff it is under T/W
control now. Then later while watching TV I saw Truner Broadcasting and
under that it said " A Time/Warner Company"
Something to think about.
Slone
Slone
Jorge Landivar
The internet will weaken their power.
Internet=power to the people
Frank Buck
>In article <ur0k3.1541$L96.1...@typhoon1.austin.rr.com>, MLevitt says...
>>
>
>>
>>This was an obvious case of the benefits of owning/carrying guns, and
>>concealed ones at that, but the media conveniently never reported the story
>>(not LOUDLY at least), let alone paint a picture detailing the benefits of
>>gun use/proliferation.
>>
>When gunners talk about the "obvious benefits of guns" they are talking about
>justifiable homicides with a gun.
>
>In 1996, there were 176 justifiable homicides by private citizens with
>handguns. Compare that to the 15,835 murdered in 1995. On the whole, guns
>cause more pain, death, and suffering than the benefits they provide.
There were also between 500,000 and 2,500,000 uses of a gun by
law-abiding citizens that DIDN'T result in someone dying. THis kinda
of changes the picture, doesn't it?
Slone
Jorge Landivar wrote in message <3791998F...@tca.net>...
>
>The internet will weaken their power.
>Internet=power to the people
>
Yes you are right and I think that is why they are trying so hard to figure
out a way to control the internet.
Slone
cguinn
<jgn...@5thseason.net> wrote:
>Michael Cidras wrote in message <379d2b63...@news.pcisys.net>...
>I agree with you, Michael, but, as you said, they are for more
>discriminating laws, limiting gun availability. On the surface, not
>anti-gun. Deeper, more anal in their views on the subject.
>
>They would have you believe that the only effective gun for self-defense is
>the one not yet invented: the "smart gun," the gun that only the owner or
>authorized user can use. I have a smart gun now. I have a number of them:
>they don't fire until I lock, load, aim and fire. Otherwise, they are
>nothing more than VERY expensive paperweights.
>
>Smith and Wesson, Beretta, Colt.... They have all done R and D on the
>"smart gun" and all have abandoned it due to the simple fact that they are
>too unreliable. Ask anyone who works with machinery: Which is more
>reliable - the simple fulcrum, or the complex hydraulic lift? The more
>complex a device becomes, the more apt it is to malfunction. The more parts
>you put in, the more chances you have of it not working.
>
>Guns that sense fingerprints: Should it be programmed for all persons in the
>house, on the police force? That will entail a large amount of memory for
>it to be able to store all of that information. If it is battery powered
>(the computer that will actuate the safety), how should it fail if power is
>lost? Should the gun lock up and not work? Or should it fail in a fireable
>condition?
And IF if fails into a fireable condition, you simply have to REMOVE
THE BATTERY to make it work! Not exactly a "smart" gun then, is it?
What of a gun that is programed only for the purchaser? Shall the
wife/husband/kids of the purchaser be left defenseless because they
are not "autorized" to use the gun? These too are valid concerns with
"smart gun" tech.
>Magnetic rings: What sensitivity? Does it have to be worn on the same
>finger? If the owner/user is incapacitated, all one must do is remove the
>ring from the owner/user.
>Pressure grips: huh?
Gee, don't the 1911 and H&K P-7 have grip safeties right now?
>In all of these cases, the manufacturer would be held liable for designing a
>defective product when it would fail, be it being able to fire, or to lock
>up, or not to allow another "authorized" user, or not to function because
>the hand was not placed just so. "James Bond" technology works in the
>movies, because in the movies, it is in the script for the gun to work only
>for Bond. In the real world, it is a bit more complex.
It's a LOT more complex!
>Granted, the digital watch, the pocket calculator, the PC, are all legacies
>of the space race. But each of these devices has undergone decades of
>evolution, designing, redesigning. Many times have the engineers gone back
>to the drawing board and reinvented the wheel. Who remembers the L.E.D.
>watches? I do. They are museum pieces now. The first "pocket calculators"
>were the size of a paperback novel, and could barely do the basic functions.
>The same size device today has more computing power then the first
>computers.
And see how well they work, even after DECADES of refinement!
How many people have had their PC lock-up?
>These people, the NOT pro-gun people, the ones who want more discriminating
>availability laws, would want untried, unproven, imperfect technology
>incorporated into the gun today. New Jersey has already enacted a law
>mandating such technology.
>The basic design of the gun has not changed in over 300 years. Refinements
>continue to be made to this day, starting with the cartridge, to the
>rotating cylinder, to the repeating rifle, to the semi-automatic, to the
>automatic, and on to materials and the like.
>IMO, the NOT pro-gun are as onerous in their beliefs as the anti's, maybe
>more so. It would be a short walk from enhanced purchase requirements, to a
>federal license/tax for personal purchase, to not accepting the tax at all,
>as has already been done (the $200 transfer tax for a full auto per NFA).
Sarah Brady already has that in mind! A "user fee" (TAX) on guns!
Then, raise the fee until nobody can afford to pay it! (Or just
refuse to collect it, like Klinton is doing for NFA weapons!)
cguinn
"When only the police have guns, it's called a police state!" - Unknown
"Gun control is the ability to put five shots in the same hole." - Ted Nugent
cguinn
<mrsl...@yahooREMOVETHIS.com> wrote:
> If you would examine who controls the media would you find that all our
>newspapers, television stations, magazines, book publishers,wire services
>and radio etc. are owned by a widely different bunch of people? Or might you
>find that companies like Times/Warner/Mirror own quite a large percentage of
>these information sources? And would you also find that the 'Rockefellers'
>own Time/Warner/Mirror?
> The truth may be that though we sometimes think we are getting our news
>and information from different sources we may not be.
>And are we to assume that people like Ted Koppel, Brokaw, Rather etc
>are not influenced at all by their CFR membership?
> Regardless of all these thoughts it is impossible for the media not to
>be biased. I have read those who say that our media is not biased. But there
>is no way that it could not be biased. There is 'X' amount of news and
>information to be had but an editor has to decide which stories are
>pertinent and whether they are to be edited for content because obviously
>they cannot all be printed or broadcast. Therefore this editors particular
>biases be they good or bad have to come into play.
> Just thoughts and ideas on the subject.
>Slone
And what of media outlets where only ONE voice is heard!
Here in St. Louis, there is only ONE daily newspaper! (St. Louis Post
Dispatch, Owned by the Pulitzer Corp.) The Post dedicated copious
ammounts of space, both on and OFF the editorial page, to the recent
CCW law here in Missouri. How much PRO-CCW opinion do you think they
ran? NONE!!! It was ENTIRELY ANTI-CCW!!! Even articles that were
NOT editorials were blatantly anti, but reported as if they were
legitimate news!
People think that the news media are not biased, but if that were
true, they WOULD NOT endorse political cantidates!! If they were
truely unbiased, they would simply present the facts on all cantidates
or issuses, and let the PEOPLE decide for themselves!
I agree with you! People need to look at WHO owns the local media
outlets! They would be surprised at what they find!
cguinn
wrote:
>
>The internet will weaken their power.
>Internet=power to the people
Only as long as the government keeps their hands out of it!
They are already trying to regulate it!
FACT: There are only about 4 billion IP adresses available in the
current IP numbering system. MOST of these are held by large
corporations, univerities and the government. (Since it was originally
invented for government and defense reasearch use.) The IP's that are
used by the general public, (when you connect to the Internet,) are
SUB-LET from the large organizations! If they choose to NOT SHARE
THEM, we are all effectively censored! (Do an IP-Block lookup on your
IP address sometime and see who REALLY owns it! It isn't you! It
PROBABLY isn't even owned by your ISP, just sub-let to them!!)
Don't think for a minute that the Internet is COMPLETEY FREE!
It is only as free as those who hold the IP's allow it to be!
It IS still freer than the mainstream media. (For now!)
cguinn
wrote:
Well, aparently Albert only deals in death, since it makes better
headlines to further his anti-gun agenda!
George T. Kramer
Thanks for posting the results of that survey.
I saved them to be used as fresh ammunition on a later date.
Keep up the good fight!
George T. Kramer
"Don't Tread On Me!"
George T. Kramer
Much of what you state is true, but perhaps what you don't understand that
there is something far more alluring to owners of the major news media than
money and profit: it is power. When a man already has more money that he
knows what to do with it in terms of acquiring material commodities, what is
left? The next step up the ladder is the acquisition of power. In fact, the
acquisition of wealth is only but a means to the achievement of the ultimate
goal of acquiring power.
And power is very addicting.
Thus, the news media is not satisfied merely reporting the news; it desires
to create the news. It desires to be the "fourth" branch of government,
going so far as to actually help create and shape policy. For this reason, a
great many OpEd pieces are printed on the front page in the guise of news.
For this reason, the nightly news contains political analysis and opinion,
rather than just the facts. The news media, because if its ubiquitous
presence and powerful control over the dissemination of information, has the
means to influence the people. It is through this method that the news media
hopes to shape public policy. Members of the news media are de facto members
of the ruling elěte - those that actually run this country.
Astute politicians already know this, and for that reason, many of them
pander to the news media. Those of who the news media like (e.g., can
greatly influence) are provided better coverage and support; polls are
craftily contructed so as to influence public opinion toward the mutual
goals of the news media and the political puppet it enpowers. It is a
corrupt symbiosis not at all unlike the relationship between politicians and
big money. Think about this. Why does an ambitious politician desire big
money? The answer is that the politician will have the means to fund more
influence. The news media can provide an ambitious politician influence
directly without the need of a big money middleman. It is an ideal
relationship that can only exist when both politicians and the news media
wish to influence public policy is very same manner. It just so hapens that
the news media is the powerbroker, for it owns the ability to influence. If
the ambitious politician wishes to be a player and climb the ladder, it must
get in bed with the news media and adopt its views.
And what are the political views of the news media? They are the political
views of the owners of the news media, whereas these views are all too often
corrupted by the quest for power. It follows, then, that the political views
of the news media almost invariably lean strongly to the Left rather than
toward the Right; toward socialism and statism rather than toward
libertarianism. The reason for this should be apparent. By defintion, the
Left advocates the politics of socialism, where socialism can only be
facilitated (empowered) through statism, where government retains absolute
power. The Right advocates a free market where powered is distributed
throughout the populace under capitalism. Those seeking power will naturally
seek where power is accumulated and that leads the owners of the news media
to the Left. Thus, it should be no surprise that news media owners can be
staunch Republicans and fiscal conservatives, while at the same time
maintain strong liberal social and political views. It is a matter of
protecting their own powerbase (fiscal conservatism), while extending their
power over all others (social and political liberalism). Being so protected
within their own domain, they can promote liberal views of both socialism
and statism, yet cannot touch them personally.
If one is led to believe that there is not all that much difference between
traditional Republicans and Democrats, one is correct. However, the
Republican Party has this one very sharp thorn in its side that will not go
away. In fact, the thorn is growing larger and penetrating ever so much more
deeply. That thorn is made up of new Republicans that are not only fiscally
conservative, but both socially and politically conservative, as well. These
are people that recognize that their rights and liberty are being eroded by
an evergrowing government bent on accumulating all power unto itself. It is
not about money. It is about power, whereas power is defined as the ability
to force others to do one's bidding. Thus, it follows that those who hold
freedom and liberty dear will always be at odds with those seeking power
unto themselves. For those that love freedom and liberty, the news media is
necessarily and enemy.
Comments?
Jorge Landivar
cguinn wrote:
>
> Sarah Brady already has that in mind! A "user fee" (TAX) on guns!
> Then, raise the fee until nobody can afford to pay it!
Then the liberals will have their plutocracy.
Jorge Landivar
cguinn wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 04:08:36 -0500, Jorge Landivar <land...@tca.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >The internet will weaken their power.
> >Internet=power to the people
>
> Only as long as the government keeps their hands out of it!
> They are already trying to regulate it!
>
> FACT: There are only about 4 billion IP adresses available in the
> current IP numbering system. MOST of these are held by large
> corporations, univerities and the government. (Since it was originally
> invented for government and defense reasearch use.) The IP's that are
> used by the general public, (when you connect to the Internet,) are
> SUB-LET from the large organizations! If they choose to NOT SHARE
> THEM, we are all effectively censored! (Do an IP-Block lookup on your
> IP address sometime and see who REALLY owns it! It isn't you! It
> PROBABLY isn't even owned by your ISP, just sub-let to them!!)
>
> Don't think for a minute that the Internet is COMPLETEY FREE!
> It is only as free as those who hold the IP's allow it to be!
> It IS still freer than the mainstream media. (For now!)
Right.
IP 6 should fix some of the problem.
Ronin
BMW wrote:
<usual crud snipped>
This kind of post keeps making the rounds of the NGs. Interesting that no one
ever posts how cops asnwer this question: If you are ordered to take
possession of a citizen's unlawfully owned firearm will you do so? Bet it's
app 100%......YES.
These posts are Bovine Excrement: The police WILL confiscate your guns and
kill you if you resist. PERIOD.
Ronin.
Amy Lewis
Ronin wrote in message <37927DFA...@cdsnet.net>...
>Greetings and Salutations.
>These posts are Bovine Excrement: The police WILL confiscate your guns and
>kill you if you resist. PERIOD.
Hey gang,
Can't you just *feel* the love coming from this person? Just makes me feel
all warm and fuzzy :)
Amy
Jorge Landivar
Ronin wrote:
>
> Greetings and Salutations.
>
> BMW wrote:
> <usual crud snipped>
>
> This kind of post keeps making the rounds of the NGs. Interesting that no one
> ever posts how cops asnwer this question: If you are ordered to take
> possession of a citizen's unlawfully owned firearm will you do so? Bet it's
> app 100%......YES.
>
> These posts are Bovine Excrement: The police WILL confiscate your guns and
> kill you if you resist. PERIOD.
Not all police; some will help us.
VibrantFem
<amyl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Ronin wrote in message <37927DFA...@cdsnet.net>...
>>Greetings and Salutations.
>
>>These posts are Bovine Excrement: The police WILL confiscate your guns and
>>kill you if you resist. PERIOD.
>
>
>Hey gang,
>
>Can't you just *feel* the love coming from this person? Just makes me feel
>all warm and fuzzy :)
>
>Amy
>
>
I hear him saying, "hey you gun owners, if you need to do some target
practicing before they come to get your guns, "I" am available" <G>
-----------------------------------------------------
Those who have abandoned their hopes & dreams,
Will seize every opportunity to discourage yours.
VibrantFem
wrote:
>
>
>Ronin wrote:
>>
>> Greetings and Salutations.
>>
>> BMW wrote:
>> <usual crud snipped>
>>
>> This kind of post keeps making the rounds of the NGs. Interesting that no one
>> ever posts how cops asnwer this question: If you are ordered to take
>> possession of a citizen's unlawfully owned firearm will you do so? Bet it's
>> app 100%......YES.
>>
>> These posts are Bovine Excrement: The police WILL confiscate your guns and
>> kill you if you resist. PERIOD.
>
>Not all police; some will help us.
I wouldn't count on that Jorge... most of them are going to want to
keep their jobs...but they won't disarm each other for sure.
Ronin
Amy Lewis wrote:
> Ronin wrote in message <37927DFA...@cdsnet.net>...
> >Greetings and Salutations.
>
> >These posts are Bovine Excrement: The police WILL confiscate your guns and
> >kill you if you resist. PERIOD.
>
> Hey gang,
Hey Amy, do you have something to say in rebuttal?
> Can't you just *feel* the love coming from this person?
I do love you Amy. Along with the rest of mankind. If I didn't; how would it
affect the validity of my post?
> Just makes me feel
> all warm and fuzzy :)
I'm glad to hear it Amy. Now, do you have something intelligent to say in
diredt response to my post or do you prefer ad hominem attacks in lieu of
cogent argument? Or is it that you have no argument to offer?
I suspect the latter.
Auf Wiedersehen,
Ronin.
Lackey Boy
>
>>Pressure grips: huh?
>
>Gee, don't the 1911 and H&K P-7 have grip safeties right now?
>
I was alluding to someone's idea of a grip system that was tuned to the
strength of the individuals hand. The 1911 beaver tail safety and the
"squeeze cock" HK P7 are similar, and function exactly as designed.
>Sarah Brady already has that in mind! A "user fee" (TAX) on guns!
>Then, raise the fee until nobody can afford to pay it! (Or just
>refuse to collect it, like Klinton is doing for NFA weapons!)
I hadn't heard of this one at all! What a crock of horse hockey. Combine
that with Gore's national firearm's purchase card, and Bradley's
registration scheme, and I foresee another "Night of Broken Glass".
Worse, is that if they are proposed, and argues in courts, they will be
viewed as not infringing on the 2nd, merely taxing an activity, which is
within Congress's power.
--
Jeff
CPA0150B
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Ronin
Jorge Landivar wrote:
> Not all police; some will help us.
I'm sure there is the "exception that proves the rule somewhere." Ie. It has been
reported that at Ruby Ridge Lonny's sniper team volunteered to take the shot after
the first team refused. Is this true? Perhaps. Can one anticipate that this sort
of thing will ever occur with any notable frequency? Not based on human history.
Does it matter if one or two cops resign? Nope. Many others ready to do the job.
Guess who said this: "But...but...vee vere joost following zee orders."
The point is we waste time and effort on issues which are either moot or self
evident. Let's concentrate on unity.
Freedom Now. No More Compromises.
Ronin.
George T. Kramer
>> You think: "These posts are Bovine Excrement: The police WILL confiscate
your guns and kill you if you resist. PERIOD."
What do you mean? Certainly firearms are confiscated at crime scenes - even
those used in a lawful shooting are secured. This is a common sense standard
operating procedure. If there is a warrant for one's arrest, the police will
attempt to mitigate armed resistance, just as they will attempt to mitigate
armed resistance in pursuit of perpetrators of criminal activity. There is
no argument here. There never was.
But if you are making reference to any legislation that bans the personal
possession of a firearm, that undermines the Second Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, or infinges upon the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA),
whereas law enforcment personnel are ordered to confiscate firearms from the
general population, then you are gravely mistaken.
Unfortunately for law enforcement, there simply is not anywhere near enough
manpower to confiscate firearms from the general population. Once law
enforcment personnel attempt to confiscate weapons on any large scale, they
will find it most difficult. For starts, law enforcement agencies have no
idea who the gun owners are and many law enforcement officers who maintain
RKBA views will make little or no effort to enforce anti-RKBA statutes. For
the most part, armed citizens are annonymous. Should any anti-RKBA
legislation pass and should gun confiscation begin, you can be sure that a
great many gun owners, perhaps as many as one-third of them (about 30
million people) are going to hide most of their weapons. How can law
enforcement personnel confiscate weapons that they do not know who owns them
and where they are located?
It is possible that BATF may begin confiscating records from Federal
Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealers, but at the present time, such an act is
forbidden under federal law. For the sake of argument, let's assume that if
a federal ban on the private ownership of firearms is enacted, federal laws
restraining BATF are rescinded, thus allowing BATF to confiscate FFL records
so as to identify certain gun owners. (Purchases of long arms prior to 28
November 1998 are not maintained in FFL records.) Should this occur, it will
be clear that the government has thrown down the gauntlet. The public will
know that the government has begun the process of facilitating a police
state. The outrage will be tremendous. The government is not going to do
this.
But for the sake of argument, let's suppose it does. Let's suppose there is
a nationwide ban on the personal, private possession of all firearms. And
let's suppose that legislation has been passed that orders all citizens to
surrender whatever firearms they own. Finally, let's suppose that because of
massive non-compliance, additional legislation is passed that authorized law
enforcement to confiscate firearms. This is the worst case scenario. What do
you suppose the outcome will be?
You state: "The police WILL confiscate your guns and kill you if you resist.
PERIOD.", but I ask: How will they do that? Will law enforcment officers
begin house-to-house searches? Will law enforcment officers begin enacting
arrest warrants for citizens on FFL records who have yet to comply? Will
they really shoot and kill American citizen on this basis (as you insist
they will)? And if American citizens are being shot and killed by law
enforcment personnel, how long will it be before each and every law
enforcement officer becomes a valid target for tens of thousands of snipers?
How many assassinations of elected officials do you think will follow? Does
the expression, "civil war" come to mind?
Yeah, yeah, I have heard the argument that the people can not defend
themselves against the U.S. military, so if there is too much resistance the
federal government will bring in the military to quickly squash any civilian
resistance. Never mind that at best the government can field but at most
900,000 combat troops to face some 30 million armed citizens. I know the
common rhetoric, what are citizens going to do against against tanks, jets,
and Apache gunships? Does it occur to you that if the federal government is
forced to call in the military, the United States has already gone down the
drain? Commerce will dwindle, the stock market will crash, commodities will
become scarce, and taxes will evaporate once the entire nation becomes under
siege. In the mean time, the entire U.S. military is tied up, entangled in a
massive civilian uprising, leaving America's foreign enemies carte blanche
to as the please.
In case you have not thought about such outcomes, many politicians have,
including those with evil intent and socialists ambitions who would desire
to confiscate all guns. For this very reason, a federal gun ban will not be
passed. Only, tiny, incremental gun control legislation will be attempted in
the hopes of chipping away the RKBA. And at the present moment, considering
the U.S. House of Representatives just shot down the most recent attempt the
legislate gun control, very little if any additional gun control measures
are likely to be enacted. Thus, your argument and my rebuttal really are
nothing much more than an intellectual exercise of hyperbolé.
Cordially,
i...@svpal.org
ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham) wrote:
[SNIP]
> When gunners talk about the "obvious benefits of guns" they are
talking about
> justifiable homicides with a gun.
Ah yes, Al and the "shoot-em dead or it ain't defensive lobby"
at it again.
If I use a hand-gun to dissuade someone from cimmitting a crime
and they choose discretion over valor by beating feet Al would
not call that a legitimate use of a firearm. From his vantage
point its even better because in far too many locales defending
oneself in this fashion would get you in trouble with the same
authorities ( so-called ) who failed to protect you in the first
place.
> In 1996, there were 176 justifiable homicides by private citizens with
> handguns. Compare that to the 15,835 murdered in 1995. On the whole,
guns
> cause more pain, death, and suffering than the benefits they provide.
And of course every single one of those 15,835 ( why aren't you
including the 18K or so suicides or is that bit of misinformation
just too embarassing for HCI now ) homicides were of upstanding
citizens or innocent bystanders?
Yer still a lyin' piece o' work, Al.
--
#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#--#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#
In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers chose to
limit the powers afforded to government.
Government now wishes we would forget this.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
i...@svpal.org
Michael Cidras
<jgn...@5thseason.net> wrote:
>Magnetic rings: What sensitivity? Does it have to be worn on the same
>finger? If the owner/user is incapacitated, all one must do is remove the
>ring from the owner/user.
>
>Pressure grips: huh?
>
>In all of these cases, the manufacturer would be held liable for designing a
>defective product when it would fail, be it being able to fire, or to lock
>up, or not to allow another "authorized" user, or not to function because
>the hand was not placed just so. "James Bond" technology works in the
>movies, because in the movies, it is in the script for the gun to work only
>for Bond. In the real world, it is a bit more complex.
>
>Granted, the digital watch, the pocket calculator, the PC, are all legacies
>of the space race. But each of these devices has undergone decades of
>evolution, designing, redesigning. Many times have the engineers gone back
>to the drawing board and reinvented the wheel. Who remembers the L.E.D.
>watches? I do. They are museum pieces now. The first "pocket calculators"
>were the size of a paperback novel, and could barely do the basic functions.
>The same size device today has more computing power then the first
>computers.
>
>These people, the NOT pro-gun people, the ones who want more discriminating
>availability laws, would want untried, unproven, imperfect technology
>incorporated into the gun today. New Jersey has already enacted a law
>mandating such technology.
Yes they do. Of course, they aren't immediately relying on firearms
for their safety. The legislators get it by proxy, and their
advocates don't see a need to have one, probably because they haven't
been in a position to need one, or have had a bad personal experience
(while ignoring the person who did the bad thing). It's very easy to
advocate legislation when it doesn't directly affect you.
>The basic design of the gun has not changed in over 300 years. Refinements
>continue to be made to this day, starting with the cartridge, to the
>rotating cylinder, to the repeating rifle, to the semi-automatic, to the
>automatic, and on to materials and the like.
>
>IMO, the NOT pro-gun are as onerous in their beliefs as the anti's, maybe
>more so. It would be a short walk from enhanced purchase requirements, to a
>federal license/tax for personal purchase, to not accepting the tax at all,
>as has already been done (the $200 transfer tax for a full auto per NFA).
Possibly a noble cause in their mind, but I don't think a lot of them
see what can happen down the road or where the precedents will go to
things other than guns.
>But I too will credit them for doing their own research, responsibly stating
>their viewpoint.
--
Michael Cidras
SAJ7755F
Jorge Landivar
Agreed.
W. Mitchell Morgan
BMW wrote:
> Majority of Policemen says Yes to the Second Amendment
And a damn good thing for them that they do. What if it was the other way
around?
> July 16, 1999
>
> The 12th annual survey of all local law enforcement agencies in the United
> States was released recently. The survey was sent to all Chiefs of Police
> and Sheriffs in the nation. The National Association of Chiefs of Police in
> Washington, DC, sponsors the survey. Some of the results are listed below.
>
> "Do you believe any law-abiding citizen should be able to purchase a
> firearm for sport or self-defense?" Yes 92.7% ... No 06%.
>
> "Within the past year, has your agency been called upon to arrest anyone
> who has made a false statement on an application to purchase a firearm? Yes
> 06% ... No 93.3%
>
> "Do you believe law-abiding citizens should be limited to purchase of no
> more than one firearm per month?" Yes 32.7% ... No 65.8%
>
> "Do you believe local ‘gun shows’ are a major source for sales of illegal
> firearms to criminals? Yes 40.7% ... No 55.8%
>
> "Do you believe criminals currently are able to obtain virtually any type
> of firearm by illegal means?" Yes 97.9% ... No 01.8%
>
> "Do you believe the ethical standards of your department are upheld at a
> higher level than those by elected officials in our nation’s capital?" Yes
> 93.8% ... No 04.8%
>
> "Do you believe the media (TV, radio and print) are fair and impartial in
> reporting the news?" Yes 08.4% ... No 90.6%
>
> "Do you believe the coming year will bring foreign or domestic terrorist
> attacks that threaten the public trust in our role as guardians of law and
> order?" Yes 77.7% ... No 18.7%
>
> "Do you believe the formation of a United Nations police force may threaten
> the sovereignty of the United States?" Yes 49.7% ... No 43.7%
> --------------------------
> THE LAST QUESTION ABOVE IT SCARY, THEY MUST BE SPENDING
> TOO MUCH TIME ON THE BEAT...Bill
> -------------------------
> The survey is clear about many things. The vast majority of police officers
> in this country believe that law-abiding people have the right to keep and
> bear arms. They further believe that gun control laws do not keep criminals
> from obtaining firearms. Furthermore, they are convinced that the risk for
> terrorist activity is great and that the media are blatantly biased in
> their presentation of the news. That last statement can be confirmed by the
> fact that most of the media will not publish the results of this survey.
> Remember this as you hear Clinton and Gore tout more gun control.
Slone
><usual crud snipped>
>
>This kind of post keeps making the rounds of the NGs. Interesting that no
one
>ever posts how cops asnwer this question: If you are ordered to take
>possession of a citizen's unlawfully owned firearm will you do so? Bet it's
>app 100%......YES.
>
>kill you if you resist. PERIOD.
>
>
I for one agree with this statement. When/if it comes time to confiscate
"illegal" weapons I doubt the police will have any hesitations at all.
Slone
Slone
Ronin
Slone wrote:
> I for one agree with this statement. When/if it comes time to confiscate
> "illegal" weapons I doubt the police will have any hesitations at all.
> Slone
Clarification: I am in no way agaisnt Lawful enforcement of the Law as defined
by libertarian ideology. IOW, I support police. Even today's average officer.
Lets move on to more meaningful issues please.
Later,
Ronin.
randy n.
that decent people own firearms so they can perform a
"justifiable homicide" and bag a rapist or burglar? Of all
the potential benefits of owning a firearm, harvesting a
rapist or murderer is at the absolute bottom of the list.
Think about it. Even a justifiable homicide will cause
mental distress, legal costs to defend against criminal and
civil charges, harassment of self and family by the
survivors of the criminal, local ostracism, possible loss of
a job, and possible family breakup. And that is what might
happen even if all the other factors turn out OK and you are
not injured in your defense and your family or employees
also get through unscathed. Nobody wants to get into a
lethal firefight unless it is the only alternative to a
horrible fate for youself or your loved ones.
BTW, your figure for annual justifiable homicides is grossly
incomplete due to peculiarities in the crime reporting
system. The more likely figure is ~1600 to 2000. However,
none of this affects the substance of my main points. For
the sake of argument, I can concede your figure and still
show you why you are wrong.
So if justifiable homicides are not the sum total of the
benefits of armed self defense, and in fact are not even a
highly desirable effect, then what are the major benefits?
You should read your ally Dr. Arthur Kellerman's "famous" 43
to 1 study for his explanations of several other positive
effects of firearms ownership. In his own words, his study
avoided any calculation of crimes prevented because,
"burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away" or
because, "intruders may have purposely avoided a home known
to be armed". He also intentionally excludes cases wherein
the criminal is subdued and captured, or held in a standoff
until police can arrive. The reason that Kellerman's
exclusions are so important is the fact that these other
actions outnumber justifiable homicides by approximately 500
to 1 (several studies indicate a range from 350 to 1, up to
more than 1000 to 1). Let us also remove the "37" suicides
from his study (since firearms ownership rates are unrelated
to suicide rates internationally). Now his mortality ratio
becomes an "effective defense ratio" of (43-37):(1x500) for
a final figure of 6:500 in favor of self defense with a
firearm. Let's put this another way: he included
statistics on "his" side of the equation which had no
business being there, and he intentionally avoided, through
experimental design, 99.8% (!) of all the positive uses of
firearms by citizens. Would you believe a study which is
this deeply defective if it were on any other subject? I'm
sure you would not.
Incidentally, the Police Foundation did a study approx. 1.5
years ago which found that as many as 600,000 lives (not
injuries or property loss) are saved each year by armed
citizens. This group has always been in favor of strict gun
control, so I'm sure they didn't do this study to support
self defense advocates. The anti-self-defense Los Angeles
Times conducted a 1994 poll which supported a figure of 3.6
million defenses per year. I don't know where you are
located, but in case you did not know, I can assure you that
the L.A. Times is one of the most relentlessly
anti-self-defense papers in this country. A 1997 study by
Prof. Phillip Cook, a long time "ban the guns" advocate,
came up with a figure of 3.2 million defenses per year,
after he had made a public point of denigrating the research
of another academician, Prof. Gary Kleck, which had arrived
at a figure of 2.5 million. In other words, Prof. Cook had
a target and he knew what figures he needed to obtain in
order to prove his point--and he failed totally in his
attempted refutation. BTW-the total number of crimes
committed by criminals using firearms each year is approx.
600,000, which is only one-fourth the 2.5 million crimes
defended against.
I hope you can now see that the issue is not "how many
justifiable homicides occur each year" but how many citizens
use their firearms to defend themselves, their loved ones,
their neighborhoods, and their livelihoods, thereby reducing
the net amount of "pain, death, and suffering"
Finally, you forget perhaps the biggest benefit of all--the
crimes which did not occur, with the resultant deterioration
of living conditions for everybody.
P.S. I know lots of people who have defended themselves and
their loved ones, but none of my hundreds of firearm owning
acquaintances has ever had to kill anyone.
Albert Isham wrote:
>
> In article <ur0k3.1541$L96.1...@typhoon1.austin.rr.com>, MLevitt says...
> >
>
> >
> >This was an obvious case of the benefits of owning/carrying guns, and
> >concealed ones at that, but the media conveniently never reported the story
> >(not LOUDLY at least), let alone paint a picture detailing the benefits of
> >gun use/proliferation.
> >
> When gunners talk about the "obvious benefits of guns" they are talking about
> justifiable homicides with a gun.
>
> In 1996, there were 176 justifiable homicides by private citizens with
> handguns. Compare that to the 15,835 murdered in 1995. On the whole, guns
> cause more pain, death, and suffering than the benefits they provide.
--
Signed,
Large, friendly bear.
===================================================================
"No government is better than our government!"--A Wise Man.
Jorge Landivar
"randy n." wrote:
>
>
> P.S. I know lots of people who have defended themselves and
> their loved ones, but none of my hundreds of firearm owning
> acquaintances has ever had to kill anyone.
Heck, most cops I know have never had to kill anyone.
EndlsRayne
>>from obtaining firearms.
>
>keep all guns out of the hands of all criminals.
that's the problem, they aren't enforced, and thugs who should never be
released from jail are set free daily to add to the chaos. The more problems
they cause , the more people scream for ,basically a dictatorship where
eveything is controlled to keep them 'safe' , well, safe from their neghbors.
The gov. big enough to give you everything is also big enough to take it all
away.
> You are pushing the
>gun lobby propaganda line that lulls people into thinking that all
>laws are ineffective.
> Try to tell that to an English criminal.
he'd probably say something like "Gun?? Why do I need a bleeding gun when all
the citizens are disarmed, naaaaaah me and Johnny use knives now, so much more
silent than guns and easily used to inflict pain and torture without death.
With our chum Grissom weilding a bat, we are almost undefeatable, thank ye
blokes in the house of parliment for making our line of work so much easier."
EndlsRayne
>In 1996, there were 176 justifiable homicides by private citizens with
>handguns. Compare that to the 15,835 murdered in 1995. On the whole, guns
>cause more pain, death, and suffering than the benefits they provide.
>
>
and how many gun owners did not have to kill the criminal?
EndlsRayne
>for death if it can be avoided.
>
I agree, there is enough senseless violence in our society.
>]In 1996, there were 176 justifiable homicides by private citizens with
>]handguns. Compare that to the 15,835 murdered in 1995. On the whole, guns
>]cause more pain, death, and suffering than the benefits they provide.
>
>What of all the incidences where the criminal is only wounded or scared
>off? That doesn't count as a benefit to you? Only death counts to you?
>
>Again, your obvious bloodthirst only lets you see death. You wonder why
>people think you are scum? This is one reason, Albert.
>
Scout
EndlsRayne <endls...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990728103631...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> >
> >In 1996, there were 176 justifiable homicides by private citizens with
> >handguns. Compare that to the 15,835 murdered in 1995. On the whole,
guns
> >cause more pain, death, and suffering than the benefits they provide.
> >
> >
>
Oops, you shouldn't have said that. I mean we also determine how effective
our police force is by how many suspects they kill.........Right?
After all dead bodies are the only real measure of success......right?
Jorge Landivar
EndlsRayne wrote:
>
> >
> >In 1996, there were 176 justifiable homicides by private citizens with
> >handguns. Compare that to the 15,835 murdered in 1995. On the whole, guns
> >cause more pain, death, and suffering than the benefits they provide.
> >
> >
>
> and how many gun owners did not have to kill the criminal?
About 2,000,000
EndlsRayne
>From: "Scout" sc...@monumental.com
>Date: Wed, 28 July 1999 10:48 AM EDT
>Message-id: <aREn3.170$_t1....@iad-read.news.verio.net>
>our police force is by how many suspects they kill.........Right?
>
>After all dead bodies are the only real measure of success......right?
yup, you got it right, now turn up those ovens :-)
EndlsRayne
>> and how many gun owners did not have to kill the criminal?
>
>About 2,000,000
>
>
>
thanks Jorge, seems like people defending themselves averted quite a bit of
pain and suffering.
Does anyone know how many crimes the police actually stopped ?? I don't mean
investigated after the fact and an arrest/conviction made... I mean how many
times is the officer on scene to actually STOP a murder, rape, theft, etc from
occuring. I suspect less than 2,000,000.
EndlsRayne
>Date: Mon, 19 July 1999 03:42 AM EDT
>Message-id: <3792D6D7...@tca.net>
>
>
>
>Ronin wrote:
>>
>> Greetings and Salutations.
>>
>> BMW wrote:
>> <usual crud snipped>
>>
>> This kind of post keeps making the rounds of the NGs. Interesting that no
>one
>> ever posts how cops asnwer this question: If you are ordered to take
>> possession of a citizen's unlawfully owned firearm will you do so? Bet it's
>> app 100%......YES.
>>
>> These posts are Bovine Excrement: The police WILL confiscate your guns and
>> kill you if you resist. PERIOD.
>
>
>
Check out how he has the question worded Jorge, I think it would be close to
100% as well if that's the question asked :
>>If you are ordered to take
>> possession of a citizen's UNLAWFULLY owned firearm will you do so? Bet it's
>> app 100%......YES'
Carole Long
carry are not wanted by the police for anything they will not take your
weapon. If you have no chl and you are carrying under the Law that they
are sworn to uphold they have that right! You'll never meet anyone one
more pro gun than me. I also believe that you obey the law. If you have
a gun and you want to carry it get a chl. If you can't pass the
requirements for one,maybe it's better you don't carry it. Felons don't
need guns
This chl is for honest people who want to feel safe and know they have
the means to protect themselves.Don't get on Law enforcement officers as
their job is hard enough. If you don't think they will help you next
time your in trouble and need one, call the avon lady.
I'm a Proud member of the NRA and a Grass Roots Volunteer and I Vote
I also respect Law enforcement officers.
CaroleAnn
Jorge Landivar
Scout wrote in message ...
>
>our police force is by how many suspects they kill.........Right?
>
>After all dead bodies are the only real measure of success......right?
If you look at it that way, we still come out ahead.
Civilians kill twice as many criminals as the police and are less likely to
kill the wrong man. (8% chance for civilians vs. 11% chance for police)