Fox News vs. mental stability

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Since I have heard of Fox News, I could not belief that there is virtually anyone who watches this broadcasting network. Personally, I try to maintain a critical distance from the local media in Germany. But ... does anyone here believe a word that they say?

The reason I post this is the following blatantly false statement:

Fox News Claims Solar Won't Work in America Because It's Not Sunny Like Germany (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/07/fox_news_expert_on_solar_energy_germany_gets_a_lot _more_sun_than_we_do_video.html)

Simply, this it utter crap. A good democracy needs good journalists. Well, how silly of me, it's a broadcasting network for Republicans! (We call them Bavarians here in Germany)

Reagan's finest: Funny things to say during the Cold War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_begin_bombing_in_five_minutes)
Nixon's finest: madman theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory)

[Cabbage Patch]

Since I have heard of Fox News, I could not belief that there is virtually anyone who watches this broadcasting network. Personally, I try to maintain a critical distance from the local media in Germany. But ... does anyone here believe a word that they say?

The reason I post this is the following blatantly false statement:

Fox News Claims Solar Won't Work in America Because It's Not Sunny Like Germany (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/07/fox_news_expert_on_solar_energy_germany_gets_a_lot _more_sun_than_we_do_video.html)

Simply, this it utter crap. A good democracy needs good journalists. Well, how silly of me, it's a broadcasting network for Republicans! (We call them Bavarians here in Germany)

Reagan's finest: Funny things to say during the Cold War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_begin_bombing_in_five_minutes)
Nixon's finest: madman theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory)

There are several things I wanted to say in response, none of which are meant to be critical of you, just informative of the situation in the US that makes Fox News such a big deal.

The first thing that is important to note is that Fox News is a big operation, and includes news programs, commentary programs and entertainment programs. The program that you reference here falls squarely in the entertainment category. It's on in the early morning and mostly watched by people getting ready to go to work, focusing on fluff and only glossing over hard news. The host that's referenced, Gretchen Carlson, isn't a hard news person, she's most famous for once having been Miss America (though she did graduate from Stanford and Oxford).

Second, your source is questionable. You are not going to get fair, or balanced reporting from Slate, one of the most Left-Wing publications in America. And their primary source, Media Matters for America, is a Left-Wing group that exists solely to defame and ridicule Fox News. The combination can be extraordinarily ugly and unfair; this article is possibly the sanest thing I've seen from the two in the last 8 years.

Third, we have a real problem with news media in America. Prior to Fox News we had a serious monochrome media, All-Left-of-Center-All-the-Time. Imagine all German media, TV and print, being run by the left-wing of the SDP. When Fox News arrived it was a breath of fresh air because it presented viewpoints that a lot of people held, but that were NEVER reported. That's the main reason why Fox News dominates the US news media today, with the lowest rated Fox Program (that airs at 3am Eastern Time) garners higher ratings than the top-rated prime time programs on either the more centrist news network CNN, or far-left news network MSNBC.

BTW, the entire US experiment in public investment in solar energy could have learned a lot from the German experience. Ours has been an utter fiasco, with billions of dollars going to friends and donors of the ruling party and very little to show for it. The place in the US that definitely has less sunshine than Germany is Washington DC, where all these sweetheart deals were made. Deals that only Fox News bothers to report about, and groups like Slate and Media Matters are desperately trying to keep quiet.

[LiamKerrington]

About Fox News - or American News Service in general - I am highly "onionated" and am far from being opinionated ...

http://www.theonion.com

That is all I can say about US-media; anything else would be just highly prejudiced, plain stupid, and would probably lack a solid base required for any 'good' opinion.

As for Germany's media: The printmedia is dominated by leftys and/ or the political party of the SPD - that'S true; but there are the Springer Press as well as the quite conservative and comparably broadly accepted newspaper of the FAZ, which provide no 'lefty' mambo jambo; besides the print-media any other media is very diverse in its political, social, and economical agenda. And actually I would expect the overall US-American media-landscape to be similarly diverse considering the 50 states and the US as a nation with its many, many different faces.

Regardless of that I just want to point out: It is kind of 'hard' to generalize the quality of any news-service based on single and extraordinarily bad articles or news provided by the news-service.

My 2c.
All the best!
Liam

[reaper239]

i've had a rough morning, so i'm going to ignore this... for now.

[scbubba]

i've had a rough morning, so i'm going to ignore this... for now.

Why do I hear ominous pipe organ music in my head when I read this.... :)

Looking forward to your post, reaper239.

[LiamKerrington]

i've had a rough morning, so i'm going to ignore this... for now.

That being said, it says 'all', doesn't it?
I hope your day was not as bad as your morning, Sir.

All the best!
Liam

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

There are several things I wanted to say in response, none of which are meant to be critical of you, just informative of the situation in the US that makes Fox News such a big deal.

The first thing that is important to note is that Fox News is a big operation, and includes news programs, commentary programs and entertainment programs. The program that you reference here falls squarely in the entertainment category. It's on in the early morning and mostly watched by people getting ready to go to work, focusing on fluff and only glossing over hard news. The host that's referenced, Gretchen Carlson, isn't a hard news person, she's most famous for once having been Miss America (though she did graduate from Stanford and Oxford).

Second, your source is questionable. You are not going to get fair, or balanced reporting from Slate, one of the most Left-Wing publications in America. And their primary source, Media Matters for America, is a Left-Wing group that exists solely to defame and ridicule Fox News. The combination can be extraordinarily ugly and unfair; this article is possibly the sanest thing I've seen from the two in the last 8 years.

Third, we have a real problem with news media in America. Prior to Fox News we had a serious monochrome media, All-Left-of-Center-All-the-Time. Imagine all German media, TV and print, being run by the left-wing of the SDP. When Fox News arrived it was a breath of fresh air because it presented viewpoints that a lot of people held, but that were NEVER reported. That's the main reason why Fox News dominates the US news media today, with the lowest rated Fox Program (that airs at 3am Eastern Time) garners higher ratings than the top-rated prime time programs on either the more centrist news network CNN, or far-left news network MSNBC.

BTW, the entire US experiment in public investment in solar energy could have learned a lot from the German experience. Ours has been an utter fiasco, with billions of dollars going to friends and donors of the ruling party and very little to show for it. The place in the US that definitely has less sunshine than Germany is Washington DC, where all these sweetheart deals were made. Deals that only Fox News bothers to report about, and groups like Slate and Media Matters are desperately trying to keep quiet.

Yeah, I see your point. Fox is some sort of a lighthouse example for so-called biased, tendentious journalism. I am neither a leftie or rightie, I just do not like bad journalism, whether it appears in the U.S., Europe or elsewhere in the world. However, if someone states long enough that Germany is sunnier than large parts of the U.S., it is likely to become the public option.

What a single sentence can do. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est).


About Fox News - or American News Service in general - I am highly "onionated" and am far from being opinionated ...

http://www.theonion.com

That is all I can say about US-media; anything else would be just highly prejudiced, plain stupid, and would probably lack a solid base required for any 'good' opinion.

As for Germany's media: The printmedia is dominated by leftys and/ or the political party of the SPD - that'S true; but there are the Springer Press as well as the quite conservative and comparably broadly accepted newspaper of the FAZ, which provide no 'lefty' mambo jambo; besides the print-media any other media is very diverse in its political, social, and economical agenda. And actually I would expect the overall US-American media-landscape to be similarly diverse considering the 50 states and the US as a nation with its many, many different faces.

Regardless of that I just want to point out: It is kind of 'hard' to generalize the quality of any news-service based on single and extraordinarily bad articles or news provided by the news-service.

My 2c.
All the best!
Liam


That being said, it says 'all', doesn't it?
I hope your day was not as bad as your morning, Sir.

All the best!
Liam

The SPD, what a comedy group. Sadly.

[Osiris]

Yeah, I see your point. Fox is some sort of a lighthouse example for so-called biased, tendentious journalism. I am neither a leftie or rightie, I just do not like bad journalism, whether it appears in the U.S., Europe or elsewhere in the world. However, if someone states long enough that Germany is sunnier than large parts of the U.S., it is likely to become the public option.

What a single sentence can do. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est).





The SPD, what a comedy group. Sadly.

I'd just like to take a moment here and say, "Kudos for use of 'tendentious.' " Well played.

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Besides, it is true (not meant in a satirical/ironical/cynical way), we Europeans do not know much about the U.S. domestic Policy topics.

And we would/could not take guns to our parliaments.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/991570916bcfec1afc770462b9351add/tumblr_mhy06tIsOZ1qmb6tzo1_1280.jpg

Source: http://oregonianphoto.tumblr.com/post/42651006146/salem-oregon-february-8-2013-jacob-kalmbach

[reaper239]

Besides, it is true (not meant in a satirical/ironical/cynical way), we Europeans do not know much about the U.S. domestic Policy topics.

And we would/could not take guns to our parliaments.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/991570916bcfec1afc770462b9351add/tumblr_mhy06tIsOZ1qmb6tzo1_1280.jpg

Source: http://oregonianphoto.tumblr.com/post/42651006146/salem-oregon-february-8-2013-jacob-kalmbach

why not? they aren't hurting anybody? i understand that in europe that's ilegal (i don't mean that all of europe is the same, but i'm pretty sure that's not allowed anywhere) but why should it be?who's rights are they violating? their clearly there for the sole purpose of making a visible protest, who is actually afraid here? i doubt if they were going to cause any harm they would be standing there taking pictures and posing for the camera.

regarding fox news: fox news is the most watched news program in the united states http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/02/15/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-february-14-2013/169564/. the reason is that, while fox news does lean slightly right, the other networks are so far left, they don't even try to hide it anymore. the other "news" agencies cover up stories, misrepresent stories, report out right lies, and the people are tired of it.

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

why not? they aren't hurting anybody? i understand that in europe that's ilegal (i don't mean that all of europe is the same, but i'm pretty sure that's not allowed anywhere) but why should it be?who's rights are they violating? their clearly there for the sole purpose of making a visible protest, who is actually afraid here? i doubt if they were going to cause any harm they would be standing there taking pictures and posing for the camera.

regarding fox news: fox news is the most watched news program in the united states http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/02/15/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-february-14-2013/169564/. the reason is that, while fox news does lean slightly right, the other networks are so far left, they don't even try to hide it anymore. the other "news" agencies cover up stories, misrepresent stories, report out right lies, and the people are tired of it.

There is not wrong with the guns picture above. I just said that it would not be possible in Europe.
Moreover, I like to watch a Fox show on a regular basis:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c91usT4P1u0

[Osiris]

why not? they aren't hurting anybody? i understand that in europe that's ilegal (i don't mean that all of europe is the same, but i'm pretty sure that's not allowed anywhere) but why should it be?who's rights are they violating? their clearly there for the sole purpose of making a visible protest, who is actually afraid here? i doubt if they were going to cause any harm they would be standing there taking pictures and posing for the camera.

regarding fox news: fox news is the most watched news program in the united states http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/02/15/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-february-14-2013/169564/. the reason is that, while fox news does lean slightly right, the other networks are so far left, they don't even try to hide it anymore. the other "news" agencies cover up stories, misrepresent stories, report out right lies, and the people are tired of it.

To be honest? I don't feel safe being around someone with an assault rifle slung around their neck if they aren't in a uniform. I have no idea who the guy is. Why would I trust him enough to be comfortable with that? I have to agree with the principle of random citizens being barred from bringing firearms to any type of legislative building. Who knows what asshole is going to walk into a place and start shooting? Whose rights are they violating? Mine. It's violating my right to freedom, because as long as someone is standing in front of me with a gun, I'm not free. I'm restricted to what they allow me.

I cannot abide someone standing behind an misinterpreted clause on a bit of paper no longer applies to the modern world. It's misguided, misinformed, and antiquated. The world has evolved beyond that, and the laws need to catch up. This is not to say that I'm supportive of gun control laws one way or the other. It doesn't mean that I don't believe an individual has a right to protect his/herself. It means I'm against any citizen, anywhere having the ability to walk into a place carrying an assault rifle, pistol or musket where the officials that I have elected are holding court.

It means I'm against anyone having the ability to carry a weapon in public. Period. I agree that citizens should have the right to bear arms, but the purpose is to maintain a militia to keep their governing body in check, not to go to the grocery store with a 9mm in the small of their back because they have a concealed carry license. Those people represent as much of a danger to me as the drug dealer on the corner with his 9mm.

I think it's a blatant misreading of an outmoded "law" which was drafted in a very different world, and it's convoluted and distorted to no end, and for no real benefit to the citizens as a whole.

[reaper239]

To be honest? I don't feel safe being around someone with an assault rifle slung around their neck if they aren't in a uniform. I have no idea who the guy is. Why would I trust him enough to be comfortable with that? I have to agree with the principle of random citizens being barred from bringing firearms to any type of legislative building. Who knows what asshole is going to walk into a place and start shooting? Whose rights are they violating? Mine. It's violating my right to freedom, because as long as someone is standing in front of me with a gun, I'm not free. I'm restricted to what they allow me.

I cannot abide someone standing behind an misinterpreted clause on a bit of paper no longer applies to the modern world. It's misguided, misinformed, and antiquated. The world has evolved beyond that, and the laws need to catch up. This is not to say that I'm supportive of gun control laws one way or the other. It doesn't mean that I don't believe an individual has a right to protect his/herself. It means I'm against any citizen, anywhere having the ability to walk into a place carrying an assault rifle, pistol or musket where the officials that I have elected are holding court.

It means I'm against anyone having the ability to carry a weapon in public. Period. I agree that citizens should have the right to bear arms, but the purpose is to maintain a militia to keep their governing body in check, not to go to the grocery store with a 9mm in the small of their back because they have a concealed carry license. Those people represent as much of a danger to me as the drug dealer on the corner with his 9mm.

I think it's a blatant misreading of an outmoded "law" which was drafted in a very different world, and it's convoluted and distorted to no end, and for no real benefit to the citizens as a whole.


but you have the same rights he does, he's not barring you from anything. in fact, more than likely, he's just like you: a law abiding citizen. so you're saying, that in order to facilitate your false sense of security (because remember, criminals carry guns in gun free zones, that's why they're criminals) you would bar someone their right to an actual sense of security in the fact that they have the ability to defend themselves from the criminals who don't care about the law? i take personal offense that you are calling me a criminal. i know it wasn't meant that way, but i am the person in the grocery store with my concealed handgun, and to compare me, and all the people like me, to a criminal who commits violence as a means of facilitating his illegal enterprise, is a gross misrepresentation of us, or an outright insult (i don't think you meant it that way though). i don't understand how a principle that has proven itself out over and over can be said to be out dated, or out moded. the benefit comes from the more than 5,000 honest citizens who defend themselves everyday in this country with firearms. it comes from the fact that chicago, which has had the strictest gun laws of any city in the nation, has the highest murder rate, at one point up to a murder every 3.5 hours, and tampa, a city in florida aka the gun-shine state, just recorded their first murder last week. it comes from safer schools in utah, where teachers carry guns and there has never been a school shooting, and safer streets in our cities and towns. anyone who says the second ammendment is outdated and we need to prohibit citizens from carrying needs to pay attention: the US is one giant experiment where different flavors of law are implimented across the country to see which one is best. where liberals reign, there are stricter gun laws, higher crime, higher poverty, higher unemployment, and where true conservatives have control there is less gun control, lower crime rates, lower poverty, and lower unemployment.

[Osiris]

but you have the same rights he does, he's not barring you from anything. in fact, more than likely, he's just like you: a law abiding citizen. so you're saying, that in order to facilitate your false sense of security (because remember, criminals carry guns in gun free zones, that's why they're criminals) you would bar someone their right to an actual sense of security in the fact that they have the ability to defend themselves from the criminals who don't care about the law? i take personal offense that you are calling me a criminal. i know it wasn't meant that way, but i am the person in the grocery store with my concealed handgun, and to compare me, and all the people like me, to a criminal who commits violence as a means of facilitating his illegal enterprise, is a gross misrepresentation of us, or an outright insult (i don't think you meant it that way though). i don't understand how a principle that has proven itself out over and over can be said to be out dated, or out moded. the benefit comes from the more than 5,000 honest citizens who defend themselves everyday in this country with firearms. it comes from the fact that chicago, which has had the strictest gun laws of any city in the nation, has the highest murder rate, at one point up to a murder every 3.5 hours, and tampa, a city in florida aka the gun-shine state, just recorded their first murder last week. it comes from safer schools in utah, where teachers carry guns and there has never been a school shooting, and safer streets in our cities and towns. anyone who says the second ammendment is outdated and we need to prohibit citizens from carrying needs to pay attention: the US is one giant experiment where different flavors of law are implimented across the country to see which one is best. where liberals reign, there are stricter gun laws, higher crime, higher poverty, higher unemployment, and where true conservatives have control there is less gun control, lower crime rates, lower poverty, and lower unemployment.

Curious that you drew the conclusion I called you a criminal. I'd encourage you to point that out to me with a direct quote. As of now, you're interpreting my words the same way you interpret the "right to bear arms." And that is--as I see it, mind you--falsely.

That aside, this is exactly where we get into the rub. What is a right? What are the rights of citizens? What are the rights of gun owners? What are the rights of humans? I encourage you to read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While I may not be in agreeance with the UN or all that it stands for, I believe in the charter of human rights at its core. Article 3 states


Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

You have the right to security, as do I. I feel that someone standing behind me in the checkout with a pistol is as much a threat to my personal security as the drug dealer standing outside with the pistol in his pocket. Now, to be completely clear: This does NOT equate the average gun owner with the average drug dealer. What that means is the person standing in front of me has as much potential to harm me with that pistol as the person standing outside. I don't want him to have a gun any more or less than I want the person standing in front of me to.

I think there is room to improve gun laws, and I think there is room to improve the consequences of breaking those laws. They are far too lenient.

As for arguing that "law abiding" gun owners differ from "criminal" gun owners, you can't really make that argument without raising the questions of mental stability of individuals. Saying that the guy you go shooting with every weekend isn't going to snap on Tuesday morning when he comes home to find his wife in bed with his neighbour. It doesn't go very far in defence of that argument when the guns and ammunition used in Aurora were purchased legally. Or Colorado, again legal acquisition. This is the area that needs the work. Who can buy, as well as what they can buy. You can argue now that, "Well, the drug dealers have assault rifles, so we should be able to have them, too," and I'll tell you, "No, that's both near-sighted, and short-sighted." The fact that they are made available is the reason they are on the streets.

I can tell you for a fact, the guy at the Pho restaurant down the road selling guns gets them from a local gun store, not Colombian warlords. It is too easy to get things that are not needed--rather, shouldn't be--in a first world country. As far as your support of the idea that guns don't kill people, people kill me people--as evident by the statistics you've thrown out--I say that simply isn't true. People with guns kill people. There is no evidence to support your thesis that carrying weapons prevent violent crimes. That's a myth, plain and simple. I could say, "More guns being available equates to higher incidences of gun related fatalities," and I would be correct, because the numbers add up.

As far as your politics, that's your own business. I'm not going to argue the merits of one over the other, as it isn't applicable to the fundamental issue: who is violating whose rights, and which is more important? How do you separate them? Are you arbitrarily assigning a greater value to one simply because it conflicts with something you feel you shouldn't have to give up? What right is worth more in the grand scheme of things, and which is fitting more fitting for an advanced, intelligent civilization that we seem to be striving for?

[reaper239]

so if they're a threat, then arm yourself. and yes, i did take a little liberal interpretation with what you said, but that is certainly one way of taking it, because it seems that you are equateing all people who carry the same. they are not. you and i differ greatly on our definition of "improve." from my point of view, improvement would be getting rid of gun free zones, getting rid of the permit system (ie you don't need a permit to carry), and removing restrictions on what people can buy. who defines need? and as far as myth goes, the only myth is the myth of police protection. all you have to do is look at gun laws across the US, go ahead this is a challenge, and then look at violent crime. my thesis is a fact. while correlation does not automatically equal causation, the facts are that violent crime sees a precipetous drop whenever concealed carry has been enacted. it's not the wild west, there are no rivers of blood, it's just law abiding citizens defending themselves from criminals. as far as rights go, what gives you the right to tell me what i can and can't carry? what gives you the right to determine what rights i can have? i say the more civilized and advanced society doesn't attempt to micro manage their citizens and instead entrusts them to mangage themselves in all aspects. without violating their rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and property. and after all, that's all guns are, property.

[Osiris]

so if they're a threat, then arm yourself. and yes, i did take a little liberal interpretation with what you said, but that is certainly one way of taking it, because it seems that you are equateing all people who carry the same. they are not. you and i differ greatly on our definition of "improve." from my point of view, improvement would be getting rid of gun free zones, getting rid of the permit system (ie you don't need a permit to carry), and removing restrictions on what people can buy. who defines need? and as far as myth goes, the only myth is the myth of police protection. all you have to do is look at gun laws across the US, go ahead this is a challenge, and then look at violent crime. my thesis is a fact. while correlation does not automatically equal causality, the facts are that violent crime sees a precipetous drop whenever concealed carry has been enacted. it's not the wild west, there are no rivers of blood, it's just law abiding citizens defending themselves from criminals. as far as rights go, what gives you the right to tell me what i can and can't carry? what gives you the right to determine what rights i can have? i say the more civilized and advanced society doesn't attempt to micro manage their citizens and instead entrusts them to mangage themselves in all aspects. without violating their rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and property. and after all, that's all guns are, property.

Again, what gives you the right to force me to conform to your way of thinking? You seem intent to push your way of thinking upon anyone and everyone around you, content that your beliefs are the only ones that matter. That simply isn't true. As far as your facts, they are also not true. You show me the proof, and I'll say sure. You can't do that, because that proof doesn't exist. The reason it doesn't is simple: it isn't true. Harvard seems to support the idea that more guns equate to more gun related crimes and fatalities. The studies are on their website if you care to read them.

The idea that you have the ability to define and manipulate the law to fit your way of thinking is 80% of the problem with gun crime. Registered owners are just as likely to commit crimes with their weapons as anyone. Sorry, but that's just a fact of human behaviour. It has nothing to do with a piece of paper. You can't argue against that because thousands of years of human history support me. Human nature is not defined with a piece of paper. As far as getting rid of "gun free zones," we're once again getting into whose right is more important? It's simple. If I don't have a gun, and you don't have a gun then neither one of us can shoot the other. Therefore, we are safe as houses from gun crime. If you have a gun, and I don't have a gun then you can shoot me, and one of us is no longer safe as houses from gun crime. Therefore, it is my right to make myself safe by having your gun removed from the equation. You can argue that I should simply arm myself, but now I've comprimised violated someone else's right in doing so.

You can argue that guns are property, but I can argue that anything can be construed as property, and we'd both look like idiots for doing so. Again, it's a manipulation of language to stand in favour of a personal opinion, not at all in the spirit or intent of the language in which it was written. Which is what makes it antiquated, and outmoded. It doesn't apply any longer. Just ask the blade runner. Registered gun owner, caps his old lady. He's not safe, what makes you safe? Because you say you are? I bet he said he was safe, too.

[Osiris]

It's a circular argument--gun law.

That said, I hate Fox "News."

[reaper239]

Again, what gives you the right to force me to conform to your way of thinking? You seem intent to push your way of thinking upon anyone and everyone around you, content that your beliefs are the only ones that matter. That simply isn't true. As far as your facts, they are also not true. You show me the proof, and I'll say sure. You can't do that, because that proof doesn't exist. The reason it doesn't is simple: it isn't true. Harvard seems to support the idea that more guns equate to more gun related crimes and fatalities. The studies are on their website if you care to read them.

which is the exact same thing you are doing. you say that i'm forcing my view onto you, but that's exactly what you're doing by denying me my rights. how can you not see that? you say no one should have a gun, and that arguing against you is forcing you to conform to my way of thinking, but you are doing the same thing. as far as facts, do a little studying yourself, look at the statistics, honest and unbiased, and if you still say there's no correlation, then i say you are dilluded.


The idea that you have the ability to define and manipulate the law to fit your way of thinking is 80% of the problem with gun crime. Registered owners are just as likely to commit crimes with their weapons as anyone. Sorry, but that's just a fact of human behaviour. It has nothing to do with a piece of paper. You can't argue against that because thousands of years of human history support me. Human nature is not defined with a piece of paper. As far as getting rid of "gun free zones," we're once again getting into whose right is more important? It's simple. If I don't have a gun, and you don't have a gun then neither one of us can shoot the other. Therefore, we are safe as houses from gun crime. If you have a gun, and I don't have a gun then you can shoot me, and one of us is no longer safe as houses from gun crime. Therefore, it is my right to make myself safe by having your gun removed from the equation. You can argue that I should simply arm myself, but now I've comprimised violated someone else's right in doing so.

you can say that, but the fact is that most people do not commit crimes. how can i say that? because there aren't daily bloodbaths with people killing each other over the same few dollars they stole from that schmuck under all the other bodies. and sure, we're safe from guns, until a criminal shows up with a gun and then, OH! neither one of us has a gun to defend from that guy! you cannot control criminals, that's why there's a booming drug trade (in case you were wondering). owning property (ie a gun) does not violate anyones right. misuse of that property may constitute a violation of a third parties rights, but taking that property away from the rightful owner is definitely a violation. you cannot preserve rights by violating rights, that's like saying to get out of debt you have to spend more money, or to lose weight, eat more cake. it doesn't work, it's a fundamental truth. if you are going to make arguments like that, you clearly don't have a solid understanding of the concept of "rights," so it wouldn't make any sense for me to continue debating this with you as we have two diametricly opposed points of reference.


You can argue that guns are property, but I can argue that anything can be construed as property, and we'd both look like idiots for doing so. Again, it's a manipulation of language to stand in favour of a personal opinion, not at all in the spirit or intent of the language in which it was written. Which is what makes it antiquated, and outmoded. It doesn't apply any longer. Just ask the blade runner. Registered gun owner, caps his old lady. He's not safe, what makes you safe? Because you say you are? I bet he said he was safe, too.

see above.

[Osiris]

which is the exact same thing you are doing. you say that i'm forcing my view onto you, but that's exactly what you're doing by denying me my rights. how can you not see that? you say no one should have a gun, and that arguing against you is forcing you to conform to my way of thinking, but you are doing the same thing. as far as facts, do a little studying yourself, look at the statistics, honest and unbiased, and if you still say there's no correlation, then i say you are dilluded.

Speculative. Show me definitive proof. There isn't any. I can show you examples of people who followed the system to the letter only to commit crimes later on. Please tell me that those stories are made up by the media who are in favour of gun control to sway public opinion. Please tell me that they are lies. Who is deluded here? I'm standing on 2000 years of human history, what are you standing on?


you can say that, but the fact is that most people do not commit crimes. how can i say that? because there aren't daily bloodbaths with people killing each other over the same few dollars they stole from that schmuck under all the other bodies. and sure, we're safe from guns, until a criminal shows up with a gun and then, OH! neither one of us has a gun to defend from that guy! you cannot control criminals, that's why there's a booming drug trade (in case you were wondering). owning property (ie a gun) does not violate anyones right. misuse of that property may constitute a violation of a third parties rights, but taking that property away from the rightful owner is definitely a violation. you cannot preserve rights by violating rights, that's like saying to get out of debt you have to spend more money, or to lose weight, eat more cake. it doesn't work, it's a fundamental truth. if you are going to make arguments like that, you clearly don't have a solid understanding of the concept of "rights," so it wouldn't make any sense for me to continue debating this with you as we have two diametricly opposed points of reference.

Again, a distortion of the language and numbers to suit the argument. Who said that guns bring daily blood baths? Nobody. You're putting words in my mouth to suit your argument. As far as "can't violate rights to preserve them" this is entirely true. You're not preserving my rights by violating them. Remember you said that when you hide behind that argument, because it no longer holds weight for your cause. You can't rail against what you're trying so desperately to hold dear. That's just futile. As far as my understanding of "rights" trying to argue that violating my rights is your own right, shows that you don't have an understanding of the principle, proof of which being you've failed to understand the question put forth. It's a question you haven't answered yet: What gives you the right to determine where my rights end, and what gives your rights precedence over my own?

So answer it.

Further, saying the drug trade is booming because of an inability to control criminals is akin to saying that freedom to carry a gun wherever you like lowers crime rates across the board. There's no evidence that supports this. There isn't. If there was you would have shown me already, ending the argument. You can't. Neither can anyone else who stands on your side of the table. Arguing about taking away property with the examples you cited shows me that you're not understanding the language I'm using. So let me put it to you this way:

Are you against smoking in public? It's a matter of property. The cigarettes are my property, I've a right to do with them as I please.
What about drugs? I have a right to do with my drugs as I please, so is it ok for me to shoot up in public, or to give those drugs to someone else? Perhaps outside of a school yard? It's a matter of property by your definition of the law.
How about nudity? My body is my property, are you going to refuse my right to do with my property as I see fit? Even if what I see fit is to walk naked into your business?

The law you're arguing is purposely ambiguous.

Continue your ravings, I'm finished.

[Cabbage Patch]

It's a circular argument--gun law.

That said, I hate Fox "News."


At least you have the option of seeing Fox News for yourself to help form an opinion. You have watched it, right?

[Osiris]

At least you have the option of seeing Fox News for yourself to help form an opinion. You have watched it, right?

I have, yes. I also don't go in for CNN. In fact, I don't watch news programming simply because it is biased one way or the other. I read the news, and I do so from as many sources as I can, and for the most part ignore anything that tends to editorialize--as that is often the most coloured with bias.

[nikvoodoo]

My two cents: I don't agree with Fox News' politics. I also think its ludicrous to say Fox "leans" to the right. Fox News is right. No question. They are as far to the right as MSNBC is to the left with CNN leaning left in the middle and no one watching C-SPAN which is actually centrist.

I watch and listen to those to the right of me because you will learn what those of conflicting political views think faster if you watch their programming.

Watch Fox News now, and you'll see stories never seen in left media outlets. Watch lefty programs and you'll see coverage of things the right won't cover. I miss the news. Centered unbiased news. I don't want opinion programs dressed up as news.

[Osiris]

My two cents: I don't agree with Fox News' politics. I also think its ludicrous to say Fox "leans" to the right. Fox News is right. No question. They are as far to the right as MSNBC is to the left with CNN leaning left in the middle and no one watching C-SPAN which is actually centrist.

I watch and listen to those to the right of me because you will learn what those of conflicting political views think faster if you watch their programming.

Watch Fox News now, and you'll see stories never seen in left media outlets. Watch lefty programs and you'll see coverage of things the right won't cover. I miss the news. Centered unbiased news. I don't want opinion programs dressed up as news.

It doesn't exist anymore. :(

[scbubba]

It doesn't exist anymore. :(

Very true. The media and "news organizations" exist as businesses primarily. They will do what makes the money (mainly advertising or donations)

While most of them don't outright lie (for the most part) they cover what gets the viewers & in ways that keep them. I find you have to get info from multiple sources from both sides.

[turbo]

SNL's weekend update is all the news I need :D

[Osiris]

Very true. The media and "news organizations" exist as businesses primarily. They will do what makes the money (mainly advertising or donations)

While most of them don't outright lie (for the most part) they cover what gets the viewers & in ways that keep them. I find you have to get info from multiple sources from both sides.

Agreed. The ultimate news broadcast would have both sides of the coin represented equally. Unfortunately, that's never going to happen as long as there is money to be made via competitiveness.

[reaper239]

Agreed. The ultimate news broadcast would have both sides of the coin represented equally. Unfortunately, that's never going to happen as long as there is money to be made via competitiveness.

incorrect, the ultimate news would be facts, no politics. i'm conservative, but i don't want slant, in any direction. i just want to know what happened. the facts. that, in my opinion, would be ultimate news of ultimate destiny.

[Osiris]

incorrect, the ultimate news would be facts, no politics. i'm conservative, but i don't want slant, in any direction. i just want to know what happened. the facts. that, in my opinion, would be ultimate news of ultimate destiny.

Since that's impossible . . .

[Cabbage Patch]

Agreed. The ultimate news broadcast would have both sides of the coin represented equally. Unfortunately, that's never going to happen as long as there is money to be made via competitiveness.

Growing up I had fond memories of the BBC as a thorough, balanced, and objective news source. I was either very stupid when I was young or the BBC became vastly more ideological, and overtly anti-American over the years. During the Invasion of Iraq they might as well have been an arm of Iraqi State Television. I understand they've gotten better since the Labour Government purged their management a few years back, but I'm unwilling to give them another chance.

The ITN International News seemed like a good source back when it was available to watch in the US (via PBS), but I haven't seen it around for years.

[LiamKerrington]

The SPD, what a comedy group. Sadly.

Which is kind of true. Although I don't like speaking in favor of this political party, I must also say that it is a political party with nearly half a million members who do the major political work; and most of it is actually as much ok as the political work of most other political parties in Germany. (We have like 1.2-1.4 Million people organized as members in political parties; and they area involved in many social, economical, and care-taking activities on local, regional, and territorial levels...) And this 'real' political work has little to do with what is going on in the "political elite", which is the group of people you see in the media all the time. Thus I would prefer to think of at least some of the political elite of the SPD as jesters and fools and comedians - and yet I think that this is not true for all of them either. Just think of it how many SPD-politicians (or elite-politicians in general) are members in all 17 parliamts of Germany, the EU-parliament and the supporting administration; I bet most of them do a somewhat decent job. Again ... Generalization based on exceptions ... :p


why not? they aren't hurting anybody? i understand that in europe that's ilegal (i don't mean that all of europe is the same, but i'm pretty sure that's not allowed anywhere) but why should it be?who's rights are they violating? their clearly there for the sole purpose of making a visible protest, who is actually afraid here? i doubt if they were going to cause any harm they would be standing there taking pictures and posing for the camera.

The whole history of gun-ownership and gun-regulation in many areas of Europe is so different from what is going on in the US that it is a safe assumption that gun-ownership is not only per default forbidden in the EU, but also is its forbidding/ illegality tradition in the EU. It's in our heads.
edit: the main idea behind this is prevention of 'criminal' activities - whether it is the people longing for independence from the rulers or 'real' criminals, that is a totally different question. /edit
Regardless of that we also have criminal activities in Germany/ the EU as well. But only very few people speak in favor of free or more legalized gun-ownership to bring those numbers down. The reason is simple: Compared with the many other criminal activities the fatalities or criminal assaults in which guns are involved are very small in number.


My two cents: I don't agree with Fox News' politics. I also think its ludicrous to say Fox "leans" to the right. Fox News is right. No question. They are as far to the right as MSNBC is to the left with CNN leaning left in the middle and no one watching C-SPAN which is actually centrist.

I watch and listen to those to the right of me because you will learn what those of conflicting political views think faster if you watch their programming.

Watch Fox News now, and you'll see stories never seen in left media outlets. Watch lefty programs and you'll see coverage of things the right won't cover. I miss the news. Centered unbiased news. I don't want opinion programs dressed up as news.

I think this is probably the "best" approach. But it is one which requires you to have the time to do so. Many people simply don't have the time to dive into the different news-services in order to try to get the big picture of of opinions and news ...


incorrect, the ultimate news would be facts, no politics. i'm conservative, but i don't want slant, in any direction. i just want to know what happened. the facts. that, in my opinion, would be ultimate news of ultimate destiny.

It depends. News as part of the media or the press have also the purpose to support you creating your own opinion. And this they achieve by simply taking certain positions themeselves - through selecting what news they want to spread as well as commentary or tendentious reports. This actually is rooted deeply in the constitutional guarantees of the press - in Germany Art. 5 I GG. And I think this is similar in at least most Western/ 1st World countries.
Therefore it is simply 'normal' to have lefty, rightie, centristic or 'middly' news-services with (in theory) all news-services together providing you the biggest possible picture of mere facts and opinions. edit: But it is you who has to choose and evaluate the news-services you recognize, which is part of the opinion-building-process. /edit

All the best!
Liam

[Osiris]

Growing up I had fond memories of the BBC as a thorough, balanced, and objective news source. I was either very stupid when I was young or the BBC became vastly more ideological, and overtly anti-American over the years. During the Invasion of Iraq they might as well have been an arm of Iraqi State Television. I understand they've gotten better since the Labour Government purged their management a few years back, but I'm unwilling to give them another chance.

The ITN International News seemed like a good source back when it was available to watch in the US (via PBS), but I haven't seen it around for years.

I don't know how unbiased they used to be. I think that it's proportionate. We all have a very different perception of the world now as opposed to fifteen or twenty years ago. Hell, even five years ago. I think it's more reflective of the cultures they represent, American news being very partisan due to the nature of its political structure, and so on. Canadian media is no different. I think now we have more options than we used to. I can remember a time (at least in Canada) where you had three channels, CBC, PBS, french. There was really only one outlet for news and that was CBC. Now things have grown to the point where Canada has two or three different news channels in each province. So really, it doesn't feel like the media's values have spun to either side of a coin, as much as we're just presented with more views.

I agree with you in that I had always held BBC in high regard for its neutral sort of factual reporting style, but that seemed due in large part to a lack of editorializing. Here's the shit you need to know, I'm not going to tell you what it means to me or how I've interpreted it because that isn't relevant. The fact is, "A bomb exploded, and 17 people died, no groups have come forward to claim responsibility. Stocks are shite again today, except gold which is up, etc." As far as their coverage of Iraq . . . no comment beyond "They reported the news as the majority of the free world saw it." You can say what you like about the merits of invading Iraq, but the fact is a large portion of the world did not agree with it. Maybe the BBC could have spun things the way Americans would have liked, but they didn't. They shouldn't. They're not American news. And again, there's that partisanship. Are lines necessary country to country? Is it important that the news is reported one way in Britain, and another in America? Or Spain?

It becomes a question of what is propaganda, and how do you trust any source? Do you think that people today are better at separating fact from fiction, when we're inundated with both so freely and easily that the lines are too blurred to provide clear definition for either?

[Condor]

To be honest? I don't feel safe being around someone with an assault rifle slung around their neck if they aren't in a uniform. I have no idea who the guy is. Why would I trust him enough to be comfortable with that? I have to agree with the principle of random citizens being barred from bringing firearms to any type of legislative building. Who knows what asshole is going to walk into a place and start shooting? Whose rights are they violating? Mine. It's violating my right to freedom, because as long as someone is standing in front of me with a gun, I'm not free. I'm restricted to what they allow me.

I cannot abide someone standing behind an misinterpreted clause on a bit of paper no longer applies to the modern world. It's misguided, misinformed, and antiquated. The world has evolved beyond that, and the laws need to catch up. This is not to say that I'm supportive of gun control laws one way or the other. It doesn't mean that I don't believe an individual has a right to protect his/herself. It means I'm against any citizen, anywhere having the ability to walk into a place carrying an assault rifle, pistol or musket where the officials that I have elected are holding court.

It means I'm against anyone having the ability to carry a weapon in public. Period. I agree that citizens should have the right to bear arms, but the purpose is to maintain a militia to keep their governing body in check, not to go to the grocery store with a 9mm in the small of their back because they have a concealed carry license. Those people represent as much of a danger to me as the drug dealer on the corner with his 9mm.

I think it's a blatant misreading of an outmoded "law" which was drafted in a very different world, and it's convoluted and distorted to no end, and for no real benefit to the citizens as a whole.

First off, those aren't "assault rifles". By definition "assault rifles" are fully automatic military rifles. The rifles in the photo are simply semi-automatic rifles. As a matter of fact the one carried by the guy prominently centered is a .22lr Walther G22.

I get you don't like guns, don't want to be around them, I can respect that. BUT, why can't you or other anti-gunners respect those of us who are law-abiding citizens that do like guns, want to use them for recreational target shooting and to have them if they are needed for self-defense? Yes the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow Americans to defend against a tyrannical government (some would argue we are facing that today), but if it's argued that it's an outdated idea then I suppose this discussion on the internet isn't protected by the 1st Amendment since the "Freedom of the press" originally referred (literally) to newspaper presses.


but you have the same rights he does, he's not barring you from anything. in fact, more than likely, he's just like you: a law abiding citizen. so you're saying, that in order to facilitate your false sense of security (because remember, criminals carry guns in gun free zones, that's why they're criminals) you would bar someone their right to an actual sense of security in the fact that they have the ability to defend themselves from the criminals who don't care about the law? i take personal offense that you are calling me a criminal. i know it wasn't meant that way, but i am the person in the grocery store with my concealed handgun, and to compare me, and all the people like me, to a criminal who commits violence as a means of facilitating his illegal enterprise, is a gross misrepresentation of us, or an outright insult (i don't think you meant it that way though). i don't understand how a principle that has proven itself out over and over can be said to be out dated, or out moded. the benefit comes from the more than 5,000 honest citizens who defend themselves everyday in this country with firearms. it comes from the fact that chicago, which has had the strictest gun laws of any city in the nation, has the highest murder rate, at one point up to a murder every 3.5 hours, and tampa, a city in florida aka the gun-shine state, just recorded their first murder last week. it comes from safer schools in utah, where teachers carry guns and there has never been a school shooting, and safer streets in our cities and towns. anyone who says the second ammendment is outdated and we need to prohibit citizens from carrying needs to pay attention: the US is one giant experiment where different flavors of law are implimented across the country to see which one is best. where liberals reign, there are stricter gun laws, higher crime, higher poverty, higher unemployment, and where true conservatives have control there is less gun control, lower crime rates, lower poverty, and lower unemployment.
I totally agree, not sure I could have said it better.


You have the right to security, as do I. I feel that someone standing behind me in the checkout with a pistol is as much a threat to my personal security as the drug dealer standing outside with the pistol in his pocket. Now, to be completely clear: This does NOT equate the average gun owner with the average drug dealer. What that means is the person standing in front of me has as much potential to harm me with that pistol as the person standing outside. I don't want him to have a gun any more or less than I want the person standing in front of me to.

I think there is room to improve gun laws, and I think there is room to improve the consequences of breaking those laws. They are far too lenient.

As for arguing that "law abiding" gun owners differ from "criminal" gun owners, you can't really make that argument without raising the questions of mental stability of individuals. Saying that the guy you go shooting with every weekend isn't going to snap on Tuesday morning when he comes home to find his wife in bed with his neighbour. It doesn't go very far in defence of that argument when the guns and ammunition used in Aurora were purchased legally. Or Colorado, again legal acquisition. This is the area that needs the work. Who can buy, as well as what they can buy. You can argue now that, "Well, the drug dealers have assault rifles, so we should be able to have them, too," and I'll tell you, "No, that's both near-sighted, and short-sighted." The fact that they are made available is the reason they are on the streets.

I can tell you for a fact, the guy at the Pho restaurant down the road selling guns gets them from a local gun store, not Colombian warlords. It is too easy to get things that are not needed--rather, shouldn't be--in a first world country. As far as your support of the idea that guns don't kill people, people kill me people--as evident by the statistics you've thrown out--I say that simply isn't true. People with guns kill people. There is no evidence to support your thesis that carrying weapons prevent violent crimes. That's a myth, plain and simple. I could say, "More guns being available equates to higher incidences of gun related fatalities," and I would be correct, because the numbers add up.

As far as your politics, that's your own business. I'm not going to argue the merits of one over the other, as it isn't applicable to the fundamental issue: who is violating whose rights, and which is more important? How do you separate them? Are you arbitrarily assigning a greater value to one simply because it conflicts with something you feel you shouldn't have to give up? What right is worth more in the grand scheme of things, and which is fitting more fitting for an advanced, intelligent civilization that we seem to be striving for?

Sadly anytime a crime is committed with a gun, legal gun owners are almost always vilified as just as guilty as the criminal, even though 93% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally and less than 1% of all firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime. Also, 90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type.

There are already over 20,000 gun laws. The problem is those aren't being enforced and the ones that are the offender gets less than a slap on the wrist as punishment. For example, the girl (mentioned in the state of the union speech) from Chicago that was shot and killed. The person arrested for that was on parole from a prior gun violation and in fact should have been locked up at the time of the murder for a parole violation, but wasn't due to a clerical error. So, yes harsher punishments for violators are definitely needed, but new gun laws, NO. No new laws will help, especially when current ones aren't being enforced.

Now, mental stability, that's not really a black and white issue. The example you give of a husband catching his wife cheating, sorry but no amount of mental screening could predict or prevent that. For that matter, even if the husband didn't have a gun, what's to prevent him from using a knife, bat, rock or whatever and that goes for any violent crime. As for the guy in Colorado (& Connecticut), there were plenty of red flags that should have had them locked up in a mental hospital. The problem is lack of facilities and funding for mental health care. The mom in Connecticut had repeatedly tried to get help for her son, but no one would help her. There is also a growing problem among military veterans being flagged with PTSD at VA hospitals for minor issues of depression and anxiety and that medical notation will forever take away their legal right to own a gun. I do realize there are severe cases of PTSD that would & should disqualify gun ownership, but I'm talking about vets that have temporary issues that they can and do overcome.

As for your guy at the restaurant, he's a criminal selling guns illegally. He may have a clean criminal record (for now) and can legally buy from the gun shop, but him reselling them is basically a "straw purchase", which is illegal.

To borrow a quote from Ted Nugent, "If guns kill people, all mine are defective."


Again, what gives you the right to force me to conform to your way of thinking? You seem intent to push your way of thinking upon anyone and everyone around you, content that your beliefs are the only ones that matter. That simply isn't true. As far as your facts, they are also not true. You show me the proof, and I'll say sure. You can't do that, because that proof doesn't exist. The reason it doesn't is simple: it isn't true. Harvard seems to support the idea that more guns equate to more gun related crimes and fatalities. The studies are on their website if you care to read them.

The idea that you have the ability to define and manipulate the law to fit your way of thinking is 80% of the problem with gun crime. Registered owners are just as likely to commit crimes with their weapons as anyone. Sorry, but that's just a fact of human behaviour. It has nothing to do with a piece of paper. You can't argue against that because thousands of years of human history support me. Human nature is not defined with a piece of paper. As far as getting rid of "gun free zones," we're once again getting into whose right is more important? It's simple. If I don't have a gun, and you don't have a gun then neither one of us can shoot the other. Therefore, we are safe as houses from gun crime. If you have a gun, and I don't have a gun then you can shoot me, and one of us is no longer safe as houses from gun crime. Therefore, it is my right to make myself safe by having your gun removed from the equation. You can argue that I should simply arm myself, but now I've comprimised violated someone else's right in doing so.

You can argue that guns are property, but I can argue that anything can be construed as property, and we'd both look like idiots for doing so. Again, it's a manipulation of language to stand in favour of a personal opinion, not at all in the spirit or intent of the language in which it was written. Which is what makes it antiquated, and outmoded. It doesn't apply any longer. Just ask the blade runner. Registered gun owner, caps his old lady. He's not safe, what makes you safe? Because you say you are? I bet he said he was safe, too.
I'll ask the same question, "what gives you the right to force me to conform to your way of thinking?"
You want facts and statistics, how about these: http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf
I'll admit I haven't read all of this, but I'm sure the information is more up-to-date and accurate than any of the anti-gunner statistics and propaganda, like the president's pronouncement that 40% of all gun sales are done without a background check. That 40% number comes from a 1994 survey of only 251 people, yeah, real up-to-date and accurate.

Is there violence in human nature? Yes, but taking away the guns won't stop that. We'd have to also ban knives, bats, sticks, rocks, fists, etc.
Look at the UK, there are over 2000 violent crimes per 100,000 population vs 466 per 100,000 in the US and 935 per 100,000 in Canada. These are numbers of ALL violent crimes, not just gun crimes.


Speculative. Show me definitive proof. There isn't any. I can show you examples of people who followed the system to the letter only to commit crimes later on. Please tell me that those stories are made up by the media who are in favour of gun control to sway public opinion. Please tell me that they are lies. Who is deluded here? I'm standing on 2000 years of human history, what are you standing on?

Sadly, yes the mainstream media does often manipulate or totally make up stories (MSNBC), especially related to gun violence and/or gun control.



Are you against smoking in public? It's a matter of property. The cigarettes are my property, I've a right to do with them as I please.
What about drugs? I have a right to do with my drugs as I please, so is it ok for me to shoot up in public, or to give those drugs to someone else? Perhaps outside of a school yard? It's a matter of property by your definition of the law.
How about nudity? My body is my property, are you going to refuse my right to do with my property as I see fit? Even if what I see fit is to walk naked into your business?


Not in to any of that personally, but I really don't have a problem with someone else doing it if they want.
Smoking, can't stand to be around it, but tobacco money paid for the property I live on. I'll walk away from smokers if it bothers me, but I won't raise a fuss.
Drugs, feel free to do all you want, just stay away from me.
Public nudity, I all for it if she's hot, heck even if she's not hot or a dude I don't have to look. Don't expect me to join in, don't want a sunburn on a sensitive area.

To be honest, I'm pretty much against all government control in our lives. When the government starts telling people what they can/can't eat or drink that's going too far. Enough of telling people what they can/can't do with their own property and telling people what you can/can't buy.

[Osiris]

First off, those aren't "assault rifles". By definition "assault rifles" are fully automatic military rifles. The rifles in the photo are simply semi-automatic rifles. As a matter of fact the one carried by the guy prominently centered is a .22lr Walther G22.

You really want to split hairs that bad? The average citizen isn't going to see a .22lr Walther G22. He's going to see four guys with assault rifles. You can't say that those weapons are ONLY semi-automatic, because you haven't handled those weapons. Unless you're going to tell me that it's also impossible to turn a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic rifle. I'll tell you that you're lying or you just don't know how to do it. I know it can be. But that's not he point. The point is perception. I'm sorry, but you lose that battle 9 out of 10 times.


I get you don't like guns, don't want to be around them, I can respect that. BUT, why can't you or other anti-gunners respect those of us who are law-abiding citizens that do like guns, want to use them for recreational target shooting and to have them if they are needed for self-defense? Yes the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow Americans to defend against a tyrannical government (some would argue we are facing that today), but if it's argued that it's an outdated idea then I suppose this discussion on the internet isn't protected by the 1st Amendment since the "Freedom of the press" originally referred (literally) to newspaper presses.

If it's for recreational target shooting, then what is it doing at the House of Representatives? There a big need for self-defence there? Or is it simple intimidation? There lots of skeet shooting going on down at the local grocery store? Give me a break.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Let's not split hairs about what right is being protected here. Take the amendment in full or don't argue against it to suit your example. So let's look at the second:


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Where does it say "It's your right to carry a concealed weapon in a public place." Please highlight that for me, because I just can't see it.


Sadly anytime a crime is committed with a gun, legal gun owners are almost always vilified as just as guilty as the criminal, even though 93% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally and less than 1% of all firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime. Also, 90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type.

There are already over 20,000 gun laws. The problem is those aren't being enforced and the ones that are the offender gets less than a slap on the wrist as punishment. For example, the girl (mentioned in the state of the union speech) from Chicago that was shot and killed. The person arrested for that was on parole from a prior gun violation and in fact should have been locked up at the time of the murder for a parole violation, but wasn't due to a clerical error. So, yes harsher punishments for violators are definitely needed, but new gun laws, NO. No new laws will help, especially when current ones aren't being enforced.

Now, mental stability, that's not really a black and white issue. The example you give of a husband catching his wife cheating, sorry but no amount of mental screening could predict or prevent that. For that matter, even if the husband didn't have a gun, what's to prevent him from using a knife, bat, rock or whatever and that goes for any violent crime. As for the guy in Colorado (& Connecticut), there were plenty of red flags that should have had them locked up in a mental hospital. The problem is lack of facilities and funding for mental health care. The mom in Connecticut had repeatedly tried to get help for her son, but no one would help her. There is also a growing problem among military veterans being flagged with PTSD at VA hospitals for minor issues of depression and anxiety and that medical notation will forever take away their legal right to own a gun. I do realize there are severe cases of PTSD that would & should disqualify gun ownership, but I'm talking about vets that have temporary issues that they can and do overcome.

As for your guy at the restaurant, he's a criminal selling guns illegally. He may have a clean criminal record (for now) and can legally buy from the gun shop, but him reselling them is basically a "straw purchase", which is illegal.

To borrow a quote from Ted Nugent, "If guns kill people, all mine are defective."

You're right. New laws won't help. The laws in place don't help. The penalties aren't deterrents. Violence isn't a deterrent to violence. I'm curious as to your source for the statistics. I'd be interested to see the study.



I'll ask the same question, "what gives you the right to force me to conform to your way of thinking?"

That's the question posed. And still nobody can answer it. What gives your right precedence over my own? I'm not asking to be an asshole, I'm asking because I genuinely want to know how that conclusion is reached. If I had an answer I would have given it already, so instead of being snarky, give me your answer.


You want facts and statistics, how about these: http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf
I'll admit I haven't read all of this, but I'm sure the information is more up-to-date and accurate than any of the anti-gunner statistics and propaganda, like the president's pronouncement that 40% of all gun sales are done without a background check. That 40% number comes from a 1994 survey of only 251 people, yeah, real up-to-date and accurate.


Sorry, but I won't buy into Guy Smith's bias. Show me a non-partisan study and I'll gladly read it.


Is there violence in human nature? Yes, but taking away the guns won't stop that. We'd have to also ban knives, bats, sticks, rocks, fists, etc.
Look at the UK, there are over 2000 violent crimes per 100,000 population vs 466 per 100,000 in the US and 935 per 100,000 in Canada. These are numbers of ALL violent crimes, not just gun crimes.

facepalm.jpg



Sadly, yes the mainstream media does often manipulate or totally make up stories (MSNBC), especially related to gun violence and/or gun control.

So every story in the news about someone who shoots someone else, is completely fabricated by the media.


Not in to any of that personally, but I really don't have a problem with someone else doing it if they want.
Smoking, can't stand to be around it, but tobacco money paid for the property I live on. I'll walk away from smokers if it bothers me, but I won't raise a fuss.
Drugs, feel free to do all you want, just stay away from me.
Public nudity, I all for it if she's hot, heck even if she's not hot or a dude I don't have to look. Don't expect me to join in, don't want a sunburn on a sensitive area.

To be honest, I'm pretty much against all government control in our lives. When the government starts telling people what they can/can't eat or drink that's going too far. Enough of telling people what they can/can't do with their own property and telling people what you can/can't buy.

:hsugh:

[HardKor]

I have to say that FOX News is solidly and unabashedly on the right. I find it hard to believe that anyone can dispute that at this point. And MSNBC has positioned itself as an equal left counterpoint to FOX. CNN, in my opinion sits somewhere in the middle with a center-left position. I think CNN tries to be more centrist but I also think CNN wants to stake itself out as the more "internationalist" news channel (at least as "internationalist" as an American news network can be).
And I'll admit that I am an unapologetic liberal and I do not like FOX in any way and do tend to like MSNBC (although cable news in general, even if it does match my outlook is still a lot of talk and "horse-race" style commentary with very little depth so I like to look for more meaningful sources for news)

And you can say that the way news has split into ideological/partisan camps is unfortunate, but really, if you look at the history of American journalism its not a new thing. The entire concept of centrist, unbiased news coverage is really a product of the mid-20th century. (At least in America, I really don't know what the history of journalism is outside of the U.S.) Prior to then, news sources were unmistakably partisan. Newspapers were proud "organs" of one party or the other, and towed the party line. So I don't know if the partisan divide in modern American news is as bad as we might think. We've been brought up to believe that news should be unbiased and present both sides equally, but that's not what it used to be and I think we might just be reverting back to the way it used to be. I think the biggest thing is we can get our "news" from anywhere now and I don't think we've taught ourselves the necessary skills to judge what's real, if maybe biased, and what's truly bullshit.

[Osiris]

I have to say that FOX News is solidly and unabashedly on the right. I find it hard to believe that anyone can dispute that at this point. And MSNBC has positioned itself as an equal left counterpoint to FOX. CNN, in my opinion sits somewhere in the middle with a center-left position. I think CNN tries to be more centrist but I also think CNN wants to stake itself out as the more "internationalist" news channel (at least as "internationalist" as an American news network can be).
And I'll admit that I am an unapologetic liberal and I do not like FOX in any way and do tend to like MSNBC (although cable news in general, even if it does match my outlook is still a lot of talk and "horse-race" style commentary with very little depth so I like to look for more meaningful sources for news)

And you can say that the way news has split into ideological/partisan camps is unfortunate, but really, if you look at the history of American journalism its not a new thing. The entire concept of centrist, unbiased news coverage is really a product of the mid-20th century. (At least in America, I really don't know what the history of journalism is outside of the U.S.) Prior to then, news sources were unmistakably partisan. Newspapers were proud "organs" of one party or the other, and towed the party line. So I don't know if the partisan divide in modern American news is as bad as we might think. We've been brought up to believe that news should be unbiased and present both sides equally, but that's not what it used to be and I think we might just be reverting back to the way it used to be. I think the biggest thing is we can get our "news" from anywhere now and I don't think we've taught ourselves the necessary skills to judge what's real, if maybe biased, and what's truly bullshit.

Got to agree with most of this. I should do some digging about the history of journalism, maybe I'll hit the bookstore tomorrow.

I think the divide means less in this day and age. Consider how readily available information is now, we're given the opportunity to draw our own conclusions. It's a beautiful thing. It's just a shame that there isn't that one source, just one, that isn't leaning.

[LiamKerrington]

I should do some digging about the history of journalism, maybe I'll hit the bookstore tomorrow.

I think the divide means less in this day and age. Consider how readily available information is now, we're given the opportunity to draw our own conclusions. It's a beautiful thing. It's just a shame that there isn't that one source, just one, that isn't leaning.

I would say this: Actually it all started with the printing machine and the Civil War in the United Kingdom. Because the 'free press' broke the networked and fix structures which were under control of very few people and strict laws ... And in that particular case it was the "lefty tendencies" against conservatism, oligarchy and to some degree even against the nobility*. (sorry; corrected; see Osiris's posting)

All the best!
Liam

[Osiris]

I would say this: Actually it all started with the printing machine and the Civil War in the United Kingdom. Because the 'free press' broke the networked and fix structures which were under control of very few people and strict laws ... And in that particular case it was the "lefty tendencies" against conservatism, oligarchy and to some degree even against Royalty.

All the best!
Liam

Oh no you di'int just bring up The Queen.

[LiamKerrington]

Oh no you di'int just bring up The Queen.

No, not the Queen. I think I wanted to say: Nobility, nobelness, gentry - starting with knights and ending at Your Majesty ... Whatever suits best. Sorry.

[Condor]

You really want to split hairs that bad? The average citizen isn't going to see a .22lr Walther G22. He's going to see four guys with assault rifles. You can't say that those weapons are ONLY semi-automatic, because you haven't handled those weapons. Unless you're going to tell me that it's also impossible to turn a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic rifle. I'll tell you that you're lying or you just don't know how to do it. I know it can be. But that's not he point. The point is perception. I'm sorry, but you lose that battle 9 out of 10 times.


Yes, I will split hairs that bad. The biggest problem that gun owner face today is the lack of firearm knowledge by non-gun owners and anti-gunners. There are tons of mis-information and flat out lies being presented by media outlets, uninformed politicians, and anti-gun groups. They use made-up terms like "assault weapon" to mislead the public. There have been news stories where they will show someone firing a full-auto M-16 and calling it an AR-15. A lot of people think the current gun ban proposals will ban machine guns and that is totally false. Fully automatic weapons already are and have been heavily regulated since the 1930s. I will admit, I can't be 100% sure the rifles aren't full-auto, but MY perception is semi-auto. Knowing that (legal) full-autos are extremely expensive (at least $20,000 for an M-16) and require a very complicated & lengthy process to buy one, IF you can find one that is transferable. The Gun Control act of 1986 prohibits manufacture of new machine guns for civilian ownership. Since I know the Walther was made after 1986 (they're relatively new rifles) I think I can be pretty certain about that one. If someone knows what they are doing, they can modify an AR-15 to fire full-auto, BUT THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL.


If it's for recreational target shooting, then what is it doing at the House of Representatives? There a big need for self-defence there? Or is it simple intimidation? There lots of skeet shooting going on down at the local grocery store? Give me a break.

Of course I was speaking in terms of general gun ownership or self defense use. I don't know why they'd be carrying at the House of Representatives either, I'm guessing laws there are different, because where I live it would be illegal and not allowed.

Obviously, you seem to be against concealed carry. For the record I have a concealed carry permit and do indeed carry most of the time when I'm out. The only time I don't carry is when I know I'm going to a gun-free area. You said earlier (basically) that you feel a good guy with a concealed gun is just as dangerous as a bad guy with a concealed gun. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that. I have a feeling nothing I say will change your mind on that, and I know knowing anyone says will change my mind.

Do you think a person has the right to defend themselves if they are attacked or threatened? I'm not specifically talking with a gun, could be your fist, a stick, or a knife.
Is it OK for someone to defend their life with a gun?
Should that gun be allowed for defense only when the person is at home?
What if a woman coming out of that local grocery store is grabbed in the parking lot, pulled into a van, where the bad guy tries to rape her?
Should she tell the rapist "please take me home so I can get my gun to defend myself" or should she pull out her concealed handgun and blow this scumbag's brains out?


You're right. New laws won't help. The laws in place don't help. The penalties aren't deterrents. Violence isn't a deterrent to violence. I'm curious as to your source for the statistics. I'd be interested to see the study.

That's the question posed. And still nobody can answer it. What gives your right precedence over my own? I'm not asking to be an asshole, I'm asking because I genuinely want to know how that conclusion is reached. If I had an answer I would have given it already, so instead of being snarky, give me your answer.
My source was primarily the link I posted (which notates the original sources of the info provided). I also got some of it from "NRA News Cam & Co" TV show and "Guntalk Radio" & "Downrange Radio" podcasts.

I wasn't trying to be snarky or an asshole either by asking the same question. I legitimately don't understand why someone else's right to NOT own a gun, if they choose, should override my right to own one. No one is being forced to own a gun if they don't want to. I have never heard of a pro-gun person or group trying to force someone to own a gun against their will. However, almost every anti-gunner tries to completely disarm legal gun owners against their will.


So every story in the news about someone who shoots someone else, is completely fabricated by the media.

That wasn't what I was saying exactly, but they do often report stories from a slanted perspective or edit footage to give the story a totally different meaning. I can think of 2 specific stories in the last couple weeks. I'll have to find those later for you, I've got to get to sleep for now.



I have to say that FOX News is solidly and unabashedly on the right. I find it hard to believe that anyone can dispute that at this point. And MSNBC has positioned itself as an equal left counterpoint to FOX. CNN, in my opinion sits somewhere in the middle with a center-left position. I think CNN tries to be more centrist but I also think CNN wants to stake itself out as the more "internationalist" news channel (at least as "internationalist" as an American news network can be).
And I'll admit that I am an unapologetic liberal and I do not like FOX in any way and do tend to like MSNBC (although cable news in general, even if it does match my outlook is still a lot of talk and "horse-race" style commentary with very little depth so I like to look for more meaningful sources for news)

And you can say that the way news has split into ideological/partisan camps is unfortunate, but really, if you look at the history of American journalism its not a new thing. The entire concept of centrist, unbiased news coverage is really a product of the mid-20th century. (At least in America, I really don't know what the history of journalism is outside of the U.S.) Prior to then, news sources were unmistakably partisan. Newspapers were proud "organs" of one party or the other, and towed the party line. So I don't know if the partisan divide in modern American news is as bad as we might think. We've been brought up to believe that news should be unbiased and present both sides equally, but that's not what it used to be and I think we might just be reverting back to the way it used to be. I think the biggest thing is we can get our "news" from anywhere now and I don't think we've taught ourselves the necessary skills to judge what's real, if maybe biased, and what's truly bullshit.
CNN is just as bad as MSNBC if not worse. I don't watch any of the mainstream news programs as I don't trust them to be unbiased.

[LiamKerrington]

For the sake of simplicity.

1. Not the gun kills a person, but a person pulling the trigger of the gun while aiming with it at himself or another one. It does not matter, if things happen on purpose or accidentally or based on whatever cause.
This is only true, when the other truth applies:
2. As long as a gun holds lethal ammunition, this kind of ammunition supports the killing of people, if they hit the right spot on the target - like the head, neck, heart, main arteries or whatnot.
Please consider this as well:
3. People not used to guns/ weapons, not knowing guns/ weapons well enough or who had bad experiences with guns/ weapons, will feel uncomfortable, when they see people running around them while those ones carry their guns of whatever kind openly. This is not a question of "who did something wrong", but more a question about considering ones personal freedoms in relation to a sense of community or social interaction.

Anything else you may know about weapons may be a plus, but it is absolutely not necessary to understand the lethal qualities. Actually I don't give a shit about what nice letter-digit-abbreviation-naming a gun has, if its ammo-clips hold 10, 15, 27, 8.313,4 bullets, whether it is full-, semi-, square-root of 2, or non-automatic; same applies for information like weight, what armies or groups or persons love to buy them, the catalogue- and the 2nd hand-market-pricing, what crimes are connected with them and what else shit. I think you get the point here. edit: All these qualities, attributes, details have no value in relation to the simple facts mentioned above.
edit:
Thus it really does not matter if someone addresses a weapon with a wrong naming, or simply confuses certain weapon-statistics. Things like these are something for professionals only. I guess it is the same as for technicians specialized in cars, lawyers specified in certain legal matters, chefs specialized in a certain cuisine. Complaining about non-professionals is simply put lame.
/edit

That said: A gun held and shot by a person with the muzzle aimed at a person and a lethal ammunition being released against that person will most likely kill or hurt that person.

I so much wonder what this has to do with FOX NEWS or NEWS in general ...

All the best!
Liam

[Osiris]

Yes, I will split hairs that bad. The biggest problem that gun owner face today is the lack of firearm knowledge by non-gun owners and anti-gunners. There are tons of mis-information and flat out lies being presented by media outlets, uninformed politicians, and anti-gun groups. They use made-up terms like "assault weapon" to mislead the public. There have been news stories where they will show someone firing a full-auto M-16 and calling it an AR-15. A lot of people think the current gun ban proposals will ban machine guns and that is totally false. Fully automatic weapons already are and have been heavily regulated since the 1930s. I will admit, I can't be 100% sure the rifles aren't full-auto, but MY perception is semi-auto. Knowing that (legal) full-autos are extremely expensive (at least $20,000 for an M-16) and require a very complicated & lengthy process to buy one, IF you can find one that is transferable. The Gun Control act of 1986 prohibits manufacture of new machine guns for civilian ownership. Since I know the Walther was made after 1986 (they're relatively new rifles) I think I can be pretty certain about that one. If someone knows what they are doing, they can modify an AR-15 to fire full-auto, BUT THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL.

So your perception that this is all on the up and up should be blindly accepted by everyone else. I see what you're saying. You're the voice that matters, because you're a . . . safe gun owner? Defining assault weapon or assault rifle are not relevant to the argument. It's a way to mislead the person you're arguing against into believing that they don't have all the facts, that their argument is wrong. It's coercive. The only difference between an M-16 and AR-15 is the name--public perception. That's what matters to you in this argument, not that both of them will put a round through someone's head just as easily as the other. That's the underlying truth of this argument that you're avoiding.



Of course I was speaking in terms of general gun ownership or self defense use. I don't know why they'd be carrying at the House of Representatives either, I'm guessing laws there are different, because where I live it would be illegal and not allowed.

There is no reason for it. None at all.


Obviously, you seem to be against concealed carry. For the record I have a concealed carry permit and do indeed carry most of the time when I'm out. The only time I don't carry is when I know I'm going to a gun-free area. You said earlier (basically) that you feel a good guy with a concealed gun is just as dangerous as a bad guy with a concealed gun. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that. I have a feeling nothing I say will change your mind on that, and I know knowing anyone says will change my mind.

I thought I had made my position on that clearer. I'm not against concealed carry. I'm against citizens carrying unsafe firearms in public. I'll guess you don't put a trigger lock on your piece when you're out and about? I don't see locks on the weapons in the photograph. That makes it unsafe to the public in its vicinity. How? Anyone can take that weapon from you, and use it.


Do you think a person has the right to defend themselves if they are attacked or threatened? I'm not specifically talking with a gun, could be your fist, a stick, or a knife.

With equal force. That's all. If someone tries to throw a punch at you, you throw one at them. Someone has a stick, you ok to have a stick. But if someone threatens you with a stick, are you saying it's ok to pull out your gun and shoot them? Because that's what it sounds like.


Is it OK for someone to defend their life with a gun?
Should that gun be allowed for defense only when the person is at home?
What if a woman coming out of that local grocery store is grabbed in the parking lot, pulled into a van, where the bad guy tries to rape her?
Should she tell the rapist "please take me home so I can get my gun to defend myself" or should she pull out her concealed handgun and blow this scumbag's brains out?

Short answer no. Long answer, no I do not.

What if a woman coming out of a local grocery store is followed through the parking lot, by a man. He follows her right to her driver's side door, she thinks he's reaching to grab her, drops her groceries, pulls out her piece, and shoots him. He dies because he parked beside her, and was putting his groceries on the front seat. She should tell his wife and kids, oh I'm so sorry, but I was certain he was about to attack me, and rape me. No, I don't think the average citizen really has the capacity to assess situations in moments of high stress with clear and rational thought. I really don't think most cops are able to. But I feel a lot safe around someone who has been professionally trained to deal with the stressful situations that you're choosing to exemplify.


My source was primarily the link I posted (which notates the original sources of the info provided). I also got some of it from "NRA News Cam & Co" TV show and "Guntalk Radio" & "Downrange Radio" podcasts.

So, your information is based on statistics from fellow gun advocates. Right.


I wasn't trying to be snarky or an asshole either by asking the same question. I legitimately don't understand why someone else's right to NOT own a gun, if they choose, should override my right to own one. No one is being forced to own a gun if they don't want to. I have never heard of a pro-gun person or group trying to force someone to own a gun against their will. However, almost every anti-gunner tries to completely disarm legal gun owners against their will.

Again, I thought this was more clear. I'm not denying your right to OWN a gun. I believe every home should have a hunting rifle or a bow. What I don't advocate is citizens owning weapons that are easily converted to fully automatics. If these weapons weren't available to the general public, they wouldn't be on the streets in the hands of gang members, and criminals. That's a fact. I grew up around guns, I'm not a stranger to the world, and I'm not uneducated about firearms. I don't believe there is a need for semi-automatics to be made available to the general public.

I'm not an "anti-gunner" as you call it. I'm against any average citizen carrying a weapon to an area where there isn't a firing range. I'm against any asshole walking past my kid's school with a pistol in the small of his back, or a rifle slung over his shoulder. I'm against any citizen taking a firearm into a building where the officials that I elect are trying to run my city, province, state, or country. That should be completely clear now.


That wasn't what I was saying exactly, but they do often report stories from a slanted perspective or edit footage to give the story a totally different meaning. I can think of 2 specific stories in the last couple weeks. I'll have to find those later for you, I've got to get to sleep for now.
CNN is just as bad as MSNBC if not worse. I don't watch any of the mainstream news programs as I don't trust them to be unbiased.

Speculative based on personal and obvious political bias. But that's fine.

I've said all I'm saying on the matter. Feel free to carry on the great gun debate, as people have since the birth of black powder.

[Osiris]

I'll say this:

Look, it's not a question of who is right, and who is wrong because the question isn't black and white, so how could the answer be. I think in theory many of the laws would work, I also think in theory time travel works--we know how that one figures out don't we? It will never matter how many facts are presented from either side, in the end it comes down to what is right for the individual. The principles are the same in both instances: understanding, respect, safety.

I want you to understand why I come from the position that I do, just as you want me to understand yours. We all want our positions to be respected. Safety is really the abstract here. It's a question of what makes someone feel safe, and what doesn't. How can one be safer than the other? Can you chose safety for someone else, and how do you determine for them what that looks like? Now, I'm not saying that you're doing for me--at least, I'm not intentionally steering us in that direction. I'm simply posing the question to us all. How do we determine what is safe?

Is a pistol behind three locks safer than one that isn't? At first glance I would argue that it is, in certain aspects. It is safer for a child. Is it presenting a safer environment all around? That's subjective; you have to factor in the human equation which is difficult enough on a good day.

Where do we draw the lines between what a safe weapon is and is not? Is a semi-automatic rifle safer to the public than a bolt action rifle? Again, is subjective and depends on the person behind the trigger. There are too many variables to consider, so how do we arrive at an answer to the first question: What is safe? I'm not asking the questions to challenge your knowledge, I'm asking the questions in the hope that instead of regurgitating statistics you will not only think for yourself, but think about something other than yourself.

So I pose a question to you all now.

How do we determine what is safe for everyone?

[LiamKerrington]

How do we determine what is safe for everyone?

Simply put: This is impossible. Any solution may get near to what one assumes to be "safe". And this highly depends on the point of view on the one hand and the outer circumstances on the other hand.

To remain with guns and weapons: I would consider Germany or the EU safe, even compared with the US - and that although or because we have no legalized and free gun-ownership. And yet we have criminal activities in which guns are involved - either for threatening or even harming (killing) people. Compare with the overall situation those crimes are few in number, which is why I would say: They exist, but they don't make 'my place' an unsafe location - neither on the local in Saltgate (my town) nor up to the supranational territorical level of the EU.

That being said: Considering the News and reports about things happening overseas in the US I could say: the USA seem to be a fucking crazy and unsafe place; but the only things I see are reports about the really outstanding criminal events; this does not allow any judgement about the overall situation, which is why I feel inclined to say: even the USA, although or because gun-ownership is generally allowed, are a safe place to live in.

Now - which one is safer? And to what degree? I don't know. And actually I don't care.

All the best!
Liam

[Solanine]

As many of you may know I side with Osiris. Its a logical rather than emotional/ ideological thing for me but thats irrelevant.

Back to the subject at hand.

I don't mind editorials, in fact they're essential to provoking debate. What gets me is when an item of news etc is presented as factual but is an opinion piece.
Often "Journalists" are guilty of manipulating the facts in order to support there own position on a topic.
There is no excuse for journalists mis-informing the public, especially when they are in a position of trust.

For example, how furious would you be if a teacher, whom a student is told is there to teach them facts was found to be actively promoting any religious doctrine?
If such a person tells a student God/Allah/Jehova created the universe then the student will base their world view around this, seeing it as a "Fact".

As Adults we often put our trust in journalists to relay facts and information around which we make decisions.
If we cannot do this how are we supposed to make informed decisions with regards to politics, finance etc?

Ideally newspapers/ programmes/ news sites would post a disclaimer at the start of the piece, ensuring that people are informed they are consuming an opinion piece.
Not nearly enough new sources etc adopt easily accessible ethics policies. The only example i know of is a games site known as Polygon.

It is also disappointing how much influence big business have on papers. Monopolies such as the Murdoch empire should, in my belief, be broken up ensuring journalistic independence and integrity.
I absolutely don't support Govt' regulation of the press (there is nothing more dangerous to our freedoms) but I'm a big advocate of independent regulators whom are answerable to the public.

[LiamKerrington]

Besides:

A discussion about "safe" or "what is safe" requires a definition of "safe/ safety" everyone would agree on. And this is probably not as easy as it may seem on first sight ...

[Osiris]

As many of you may know I side with Osiris. Its a logical rather than emotional/ ideological thing for me but thats irrelevant.

Back to the subject at hand.

I don't mind editorials, in fact they're essential to provoking debate. What gets me is when an item of news etc is presented as factual but is an opinion piece.
Often "Journalists" are guilty of manipulating the facts in order to support there own position on a topic.
There is no excuse for journalists mis-informing the public, especially when they are in a position of trust.

For example, how furious would you be if a teacher, whom a student is told is there to teach them facts was found to be actively promoting any religious doctrine?
If such a person tells a student God/Allah/Jehova created the universe then the student will base their world view around this, seeing it as a "Fact".

As Adults we often put our trust in journalists to relay facts and information around which we make decisions.
If we cannot do this how are we supposed to make informed decisions with regards to politics, finance etc?

Ideally newspapers/ programmes/ news sites would post a disclaimer at the start of the piece, ensuring that people are informed they are consuming an opinion piece.
Not nearly enough new sources etc adopt easily accessible ethics policies. The only example i know of is a games site known as Polygon.

It is also disappointing how much influence big business have on papers. Monopolies such as the Murdoch empire should, in my belief, be broken up ensuring journalistic independence and integrity.
I absolutely don't support Govt' regulation of the press (there is nothing more dangerous to our freedoms) but I'm a big advocate of independent regulators whom are answerable to the public.

I disagree with the highlighted text. It is entirely relevant to the topic! In fact, that's exactly what we're discussing!

[Osiris]

Simply put: This is impossible. Any solution may get near to what one assumes to be "safe". And this highly depends on the point of view on the one hand and the outer circumstances on the other hand.

To remain with guns and weapons: I would consider Germany or the EU safe, even compared with the US - and that although or because we have no legalized and free gun-ownership. And yet we have criminal activities in which guns are involved - either for threatening or even harming (killing) people. Compare with the overall situation those crimes are few in number, which is why I would say: They exist, but they don't make 'my place' an unsafe location - neither on the local in Saltgate (my town) nor up to the supranational territorical level of the EU.

That being said: Considering the News and reports about things happening overseas in the US I could say: the USA seem to be a fucking crazy and unsafe place; but the only things I see are reports about the really outstanding criminal events; this does not allow any judgement about the overall situation, which is why I feel inclined to say: even the USA, although or because gun-ownership is generally allowed, are a safe place to live in.

Now - which one is safer? And to what degree? I don't know. And actually I don't care.

All the best!
Liam

Do you think that the media plays too big a part in how we form our perceptions of the worlds overseas? I'm sure that a lot of Americans would disagree with the general perception is that they live in a violent culture, as many South Africans would say the same. We're given access to so much in first world countries, but we're still viewing it all through the coloured lenses of generic media outlets. I can see it being difficult to build better-informed idealogical structures that are based in logic and fact as opposed to fear and misinformation.

[Witch_Doctor]

Besides, it is true (not meant in a satirical/ironical/cynical way), we Europeans do not know much about the U.S. domestic Policy topics.

And we would/could not take guns to our parliaments.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/991570916bcfec1afc770462b9351add/tumblr_mhy06tIsOZ1qmb6tzo1_1280.jpg

Source: http://oregonianphoto.tumblr.com/post/42651006146/salem-oregon-february-8-2013-jacob-kalmbach


why not? they aren't hurting anybody? i understand that in europe that's ilegal (i don't mean that all of europe is the same, but i'm pretty sure that's not allowed anywhere) but why should it be?who's rights are they violating? their clearly there for the sole purpose of making a visible protest, who is actually afraid here? i doubt if they were going to cause any harm they would be standing there taking pictures and posing for the camera.

regarding fox news: fox news is the most watched news program in the united states http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/02/15/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-february-14-2013/169564/. the reason is that, while fox news does lean slightly right, the other networks are so far left, they don't even try to hide it anymore. the other "news" agencies cover up stories, misrepresent stories, report out right lies, and the people are tired of it.

:omgomg: Ooo, ooo, ooo!!! What if they were wearing Turbans? :omgomg:

[Osiris]

:omgomg: Ooo, ooo, ooo!!! What if they were wearing Turbans? :omgomg:

Interesting, but I think we all know the answer to that. They would have been gunned down in a hail of bullets. Touchy subject, but sure. What effect does race, and religion have on all of this? I feel equally ill-at-ease with the "good ol' boys" in this photo as I would if they were any other color. I think public opinion would be vastly different. Those people standing up and saying, "My fucking gun rights," would be saying, "The fuck are those guys doing with guns there!? That's some bullshit!"

[LiamKerrington]

Do you think that the media plays too big a part in how we form our perceptions of the worlds overseas? I'm sure that a lot of Americans would disagree with the general perception is that they live in a violent culture, as many South Africans would say the same. We're given access to so much in first world countries, but we're still viewing it all through the coloured lenses of generic media outlets. I can see it being difficult to build better-informed idealogical structures that are based in logic and fact as opposed to fear and misinformation.

This is a very good question. But before I get down on this one, let me first focus on a small detail:

Media and news are two different things. And both have different tasks, and if not task, they both aim at different goals they try to achieve.
The News Services focus on most recent events or current questions which are or are to be discussed in the public - like for instance: guns, gun-ownership, gun-control. The News provide information about the facts on the one side, while each News Service connects the facts with a certain opinion or tendency of opinion. They do this with a couple of different types of articles and with different methods of filtering information - just reporting mere facts, commentary on matters, prolonged reports, interviews with specialists or involved people, polls, and prior to all of this: selection and prioritization of topics, nomally based on the decisions of the editor or a group of editors.
The Media has a very different approach. They don't necessarily stick with recent events on the one side. And also they are not limited to the tools of trade like the News are. The Media, actually, is much more broader then the News with the News being one part of what the Media provides as one of many different services. Other services include documentaries, talk shows with major topics, reviews of what other services of different types have discussed, movies and TV-shows; and doing all these things, that allows them to delve much deeper into any topic then what the News-Services can ever achieve. But there are a few similarities nevertheless: The Media itself governs what they want to show and how they want to get involved in certain topics, and the major decisions are again made by top-editors.

Now, why this distinction? Simple: While I mentioned earlier that the News are very much focussed on displaying criminal and violent assaults and thus on providing only a very small fraction of what is going on in the USA, the Media does not do this. The Media provides much more different content regarding the USA - about culture, society, politics, economy, sciences, 'the land' or 'the nation' in general allowing the audience to get a much broader and thus much better, though still to some degree filtered picture about the USA; but the USA is not reduced to a gun-crazy nation, like what we receive from the News. The focus here therefore is on The News-Services and not so much on Media in general.

But this judgement about the News-Services in Germany or the EU in relation to the events taking place in the USA is only half true; because the News also provide a lot of information about current events in the USA like what the President of the USA does, what political tensions on certain matters exist, what economy does, what other natural hazards take place, what crazy or impressive sport-events happen etc. The interesting thing, though, is that the emotional impact is much bigger and harder to digest, when the News give a report about one/ few madmen shooting in a frenzy and killing many people without any cause; and here, actually, it does not even matter if any News Service does so in an opinionated way. And such News shape the opinion about the USA much stronger then any other News - which is, actually, weird. Theory: And I think this happens because the foreign audience automatically compares their tradition and situation with what - according to the News - seems to be the case in the USA; and since such violent acts have a much more personal feel to them, I think, the members of the audience feel much more touched to it - like based on a certain 'social empathy' or something ... (I hope this makes some sense, what I write here ...)

Having said all this: This does not only apply to the situation between foreign News Services and events in the USA; this seems to be true for national News and the current events within the same nation.

Therefore the question would be: Is anything wrong with the way News-Services filter news and choose the method of displaying news?

All the best!
Liam

[reaper239]

How do we determine what is safe for everyone?

i would have to say that what is safest for everyone is what puts everyone on equal footing: freedom. legislation restricts the law abiding, but the criminals violate law with impunity, they don't care, and therefore they have an advantage over the people who follow the law. regarding carry, criminals do where forbidden, law abiding citizens don't. sandy hook was a gun free zone, but that didn't stop the psycho from shooting kids. i'm not saying this to bring anything emotional into the mix, it's a fact: the gun free zone sign didn't give the mass murderer pause for even a second. if there had been law abiding citizens with guns on the scene, they may have been able to stop him, but they followed the law. again, the law restricts only those who would follow it in the first place, not criminals. which is why i hold the position that freedom is the best solution to keep people safe. now this will not save every life, and it will not mean that everyone will exercis this freedom, but everyone will have their fate in their own hands, their protection will be a matter for themselves and no one else, and that will encourage more people to be responsible and protect themselves, and their families, and the innocent people they don't know.

[reaper239]

:omgomg: Ooo, ooo, ooo!!! What if they were wearing Turbans? :omgomg:

i would personally have no problem with it, you want to protest peacefully? that's you're right. just like i feel that it's wrong for the army to deny people their right to arms in other countries. i feel that not matter who you are or where your from you should be able to coexist with the rest of us peacefully and so should be able to do what you want. now, if anyone doing this raises a weapon in a threatening manner (which would pretty much be at all) they should expect a quick and decisive bullet to the brainpan, but as long as they are peaceful, there should be no restrictions. it's like this, i should have a right to carry anywhere i have a legal right to be. i have a right to be in the legislative building, i have a right to self defense there, i have a right (whether recognized or not) to carry there. and if i want to protest peacefully, i have a right to do it in any way i see fit. or should have that right, anyway.

[reaper239]

one more thing,

osiris, in an earlier post you asked me to define rights. i wrote up a post for my blog in which i define and establish the confines of rights and posted it here (http://poli-tick.blogspot.com/2013/02/poli-ticks-and-primer-of-rights.html). i bring up our conversation in the post and present examples.

[Osiris]

one more thing,

osiris, in an earlier post you asked me to define rights. i wrote up a post for my blog in which i define and establish the confines of rights and posted it here (http://poli-tick.blogspot.com/2013/02/poli-ticks-and-primer-of-rights.html). i bring up our conversation in the post and present examples.

Awesome! I'll check it out this afternoon!

[Osiris]

i would have to say that what is safest for everyone is what puts everyone on equal footing: freedom. legislation restricts the law abiding, but the criminals violate law with impunity, they don't care, and therefore they have an advantage over the people who follow the law. regarding carry, criminals do where forbidden, law abiding citizens don't. sandy hook was a gun free zone, but that didn't stop the psycho from shooting kids. i'm not saying this to bring anything emotional into the mix, it's a fact: the gun free zone sign didn't give the mass murderer pause for even a second. if there had been law abiding citizens with guns on the scene, they may have been able to stop him, but they followed the law. again, the law restricts only those who would follow it in the first place, not criminals. which is why i hold the position that freedom is the best solution to keep people safe. now this will not save every life, and it will not mean that everyone will exercis this freedom, but everyone will have their fate in their own hands, their protection will be a matter for themselves and no one else, and that will encourage more people to be responsible and protect themselves, and their families, and the innocent people they don't know.

This is one of the biggest issues that I have with the gun debate, "people with guns were there, let me tell you . . . would of been different."

It certainly would have been different. It would have been bloodier, and more lives would have been lost. I know you buy into the idea that because you own a gun you're going to respond to the pressure with logic, and reason. Are you going to shoot him in the leg so that he can stand trial? Or are you going to enforce the death penalty? It's an argument to take the law into your own hands. You argue for the freedom to do so, but you argue against my freedom at the same time. You keep drawing a line of distinction between criminals and "legal" owners. You keep citing that criminals are going to carry no matter what, and you're ignoring the argument that even those who are "legal" present a danger. Dorner is a good example of that. You can keep arguing that "those are criminals" but the fact is they come from all walks of life. The inarguable fact remains: if you don't have a gun, you cannot shoot me with it. That is a far more appealing world than one where everyone may or may not have a gun.

[Osiris]

Also, I just read your blog. Next time don't rely on wikipedia so heavily, and you won't argue against a semantics argument with a semantics argument. Or did you not notice you were doing that? Either way, well done.

In the end, it's a question of interpretation of that laws. We've established that fairly well, but I totally liked your dig, I totally liked it. I'm just disappointed that you didn't post it in your blog here as well!

[reaper239]

Also, I just read your blog. Next time don't rely on wikipedia so heavily, and you won't argue against a semantics argument with a semantics argument. Or did you not notice you were doing that? Either way, well done.

In the end, it's a question of interpretation of that laws. We've established that fairly well, but I totally liked your dig, I totally liked it. I'm just disappointed that you didn't post it in your blog here as well!


i didn't rely on wikipedia at all.

also, when did i argue semantics? i said that natural rights cannot infringe on other natural rights, it's against the natural law. i said you have the right to self defense against violation of your right to life, and your right to property, and you cannot defend yourself without countervailing force, therefore, you have an inherent right to carry. but i trace every right to the two fundamental rights, life and property, and explain that your rights only have power over your life and property.

[reaper239]

This is one of the biggest issues that I have with the gun debate, "people with guns were there, let me tell you . . . would of been different."

It certainly would have been different. It would have been bloodier, and more lives would have been lost. I know you buy into the idea that because you own a gun you're going to respond to the pressure with logic, and reason. Are you going to shoot him in the leg so that he can stand trial? Or are you going to enforce the death penalty? It's an argument to take the law into your own hands. You argue for the freedom to do so, but you argue against my freedom at the same time. You keep drawing a line of distinction between criminals and "legal" owners. You keep citing that criminals are going to carry no matter what, and you're ignoring the argument that even those who are "legal" present a danger. Dorner is a good example of that. You can keep arguing that "those are criminals" but the fact is they come from all walks of life. The inarguable fact remains: if you don't have a gun, you cannot shoot me with it. That is a far more appealing world than one where everyone may or may not have a gun.

if i'm there with my gun, i'm going to seek to stop the threat as quickly as possible. a gun is lethal force, so lethal consequences should be expected. i'll say this, 15 dead kids and one dead asshole, would've been better than 20 dead kids. i don't buy that it would've been bloodier. there is simply no evidence, since every mass shooting where there is a law abiding citizen with a gun isn't a mass shooting, it's one, maybe two dead, and a dead perp, instead of 20 kids. it's a fact, you can look it up. it doesn't make it to the main stream media, because it doesn't fit the narrative, but it's true. there are more defensive handgun uses that offensive handgun uses, and more people were killed last year with a hammer than with an assault rifle. seriously, look up the stats. and at what point have i argued to restrict your freedom? never. and you're right, dorner is a perfect example of why everyone should carry, not just cops. look, you can say what you want, but the vast majority of people are law abiding citizens, and the fact that America, with all it's guns, isn't a giant shooting range is the proof.

[Osiris]

i didn't rely on wikipedia at all.

:hsugh:

I have--and had--a firm grasp of what human rights are. I think you missed the idea of this conversation which is more a discussion of the philosophy of the nature of the laws. Hence the questions as opposed to lecturing. Think of it as type of analytical jurisprudence, minus the lectern.

[Osiris]

if i'm there with my gun, i'm going to seek to stop the threat as quickly as possible. a gun is lethal force, so lethal consequences should be expected. i'll say this, 15 dead kids and one dead asshole, would've been better than 20 dead kids. i don't buy that it would've been bloodier. there is simply no evidence, since every mass shooting where there is a law abiding citizen with a gun isn't a mass shooting, it's one, maybe two dead, and a dead perp, instead of 20 kids. it's a fact, you can look it up. it doesn't make it to the main stream media, because it doesn't fit the narrative, but it's true. there are more defensive handgun uses that offensive handgun uses, and more people were killed last year with a hammer than with an assault rifle. seriously, look up the stats. and at what point have i argued to restrict your freedom? never. and you're right, dorner is a perfect example of why everyone should carry, not just cops. look, you can say what you want, but the vast majority of people are law abiding citizens, and the fact that America, with all it's guns, isn't a giant shooting range is the proof.

The point at which you restrict my freedom to live in an area WITHOUT guns, so yes "always." When did I argue that Dorner is a good example of why everyone should carry? Dorner is a prime example of good guy gone bad, comprehension failed you there big time. The fact that America IS a great big shooting range is proven again and again with its propensity for mass shootings. Don't be blind to that fact, it isn't serving you well.

[reaper239]

The point at which you restrict my freedom to live in an area WITHOUT guns, so yes "always." When did I argue that Dorner is a good example of why everyone should carry? Dorner is a prime example of good guy gone bad, comprehension failed you there big time. The fact that America IS a great big shooting range is proven again and again with its propensity for mass shootings. Don't be blind to that fact, it isn't serving you well.

if you want to live in an area without guns, move to the country side and put up no gun signs. then defend it with guns :D you didn't argue that about dorner, i did, you said he was a good example and i agree, just to a different reason as to why he's a good example. maybe should have made that clearer. and, i'm sorry, russia? mexico? brazil? south africa? congo? these are places with "fewer" guns (in the hands of law abiding citizens(ie gun control)) and murder rates that make ours look like a nice stroll down whoville

[Osiris]

This is a very good question. But before I get down on this one, let me first focus on a small detail:

Media and news are two different things. And both have different tasks, and if not task, they both aim at different goals they try to achieve.
The News Services focus on most recent events or current questions which are or are to be discussed in the public - like for instance: guns, gun-ownership, gun-control. The News provide information about the facts on the one side, while each News Service connects the facts with a certain opinion or tendency of opinion. They do this with a couple of different types of articles and with different methods of filtering information - just reporting mere facts, commentary on matters, prolonged reports, interviews with specialists or involved people, polls, and prior to all of this: selection and prioritization of topics, nomally based on the decisions of the editor or a group of editors.

The Media has a very different approach. They don't necessarily stick with recent events on the one side. And also they are not limited to the tools of trade like the News are. The Media, actually, is much more broader then the News with the News being one part of what the Media provides as one of many different services. Other services include documentaries, talk shows with major topics, reviews of what other services of different types have discussed, movies and TV-shows; and doing all these things, that allows them to delve much deeper into any topic then what the News-Services can ever achieve. But there are a few similarities nevertheless: The Media itself governs what they want to show and how they want to get involved in certain topics, and the major decisions are again made by top-editors.

I should have clarified. When I'm saying media I'm referring to media in the broadest sense of the term: the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely. I would say that news coverage falls within the confines of that definition. We could also include news papers, blogs, lectures, etc under that umbrella.


Now, why this distinction? Simple: While I mentioned earlier that the News are very much focussed on displaying criminal and violent assaults and thus on providing only a very small fraction of what is going on in the USA, the Media does not do this. The Media provides much more different content regarding the USA - about culture, society, politics, economy, sciences, 'the land' or 'the nation' in general allowing the audience to get a much broader and thus much better, though still to some degree filtered picture about the USA; but the USA is not reduced to a gun-crazy nation, like what we receive from the News. The focus here therefore is on The News-Services and not so much on Media in general.

Can you give us some examples of strictly "News Services" and examples of average media? I'm not entirely certain that I'm clear on how you're drawing the distinction.


But this judgement about the News-Services in Germany or the EU in relation to the events taking place in the USA is only half true; because the News also provide a lot of information about current events in the USA like what the President of the USA does, what political tensions on certain matters exist, what economy does, what other natural hazards take place, what crazy or impressive sport-events happen etc. The interesting thing, though, is that the emotional impact is much bigger and harder to digest, when the News give a report about one/ few madmen shooting in a frenzy and killing many people without any cause; and here, actually, it does not even matter if any News Service does so in an opinionated way. And such News shape the opinion about the USA much stronger then any other News - which is, actually, weird. Theory: And I think this happens because the foreign audience automatically compares their tradition and situation with what - according to the News - seems to be the case in the USA; and since such violent acts have a much more personal feel to them, I think, the members of the audience feel much more touched to it - like based on a certain 'social empathy' or something ... (I hope this makes some sense, what I write here ...)

Having said all this: This does not only apply to the situation between foreign News Services and events in the USA; this seems to be true for national News and the current events within the same nation.


Therefore the question would be: Is anything wrong with the way News-Services filter news and choose the method of displaying news?

All the best!
Liam

I think you're right about the sensationalist approach to violence in the news media (clarified). It seems the easiest way to garner social empathy for a cause. I would argue that it certainly is wrong for anyone reporting facts to ignore anything that doesn't fit the headline or by line. Again, its a sensationalist approach that is so hard to stand outside of, and I think a lot of that stems from ego, personal politics, etc.

I'll about to make a broad generalization about journalism, and journalists--personal opinion, not rooted in fact:

Journalists are people, and people want acceptance and recognition. If you're a journalist, then the biggest possible pat on the back from the world is the Pulitzer. That's the ticket, man. That's what we want, we crave, and we work for. We broke that story, we roped the attention of the entire world, and focused it on one tiny suburb of one tiny town, in one small corner of one large country. You do that with a powerful story. More often than not, we rearrange, editorialize, and manipulate the story to be just that, a story.

Oh, he ran a marathon, he did it for his wife, and his kids, and kids all over the world that are disabled, and he did it without any mother-fucking legs! Oh it's a heart warming story, and on and on. It reads different than "Disabled man ran in marathon with new prosthesis." I suppose one places more emphasis on the technological advance than other. One would appeal to a different reader than the other.

Journalists are just writers, and writers story-tellers. They're definitely the facilitators of the sensationalist approach. You can turn on the nightly news, and see a variation of the theme. The anchor that is giving you the facts, is given them in a predetermined order designed by the person writing the copy that is scrolling on the prompter above the lens. I'm not sure we could ever move away from that. I would certainly like to.

[Osiris]

if you want to live in an area without guns, move to the country side and put up no gun signs. then defend it with guns :D you didn't argue that about dorner, i did, you said he was a good example and i agree, just to a different reason as to why he's a good example. maybe should have made that clearer. and, i'm sorry, russia? mexico? brazil? south africa? congo? these are places with "fewer" guns (in the hands of law abiding citizens(ie gun control)) and murder rates that make ours look like a nice stroll down whoville

Egads, man. Seriously, go back and re-read the passage prior to the Dorner reference to get back on equal footing here. You're still arguing the hypothetical here. Have you no other basis for your opinion? Which is what this comes down to, an argument of opinion. You're running in circles here, man. If you're going to bring up Third World countries--or countries teetering on the precipice of--you also have to account for all of the factors that attribute to violent crimes. It isn't just gun control laws that cause violence, and it isn't gun control laws that prevent violence. I think we've already agreed on that, if you're still going to argue that then you won't get anywhere here.

[LiamKerrington]

I should have clarified. When I'm saying media I'm referring to media in the broadest sense of the term: the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely. I would say that news coverage falls within the confines of that definition. We could also include news papers, blogs, lectures, etc under that umbrella. [Quote]

Yeah, I think that is what I meant - sensationalist/ -ism.

To get back to your first question: I would like to try another distinction then:

If we had only one media available, then I would have some trouble accepting the way information is presented to the audience/ people. The risk of having a one-sided approach to any topic is quite high. And I think the media would become something what we have in North Korea.
But for as long as there is a certain variety in media and you as the receiving end have the option to choose from different sources I am not so critical anymore about the media. But the problem here would be: What diversity is necessary to allow this idealistic situation. In a world in which many different media-sources are in the hands of very few bosses (Murdoch, Berlusconi, Bertelsmann) the variety might be nothing else but a delusion ...

[QUOTE=Osiris;56889]Can you give us some examples of strictly "News Services" and examples of average media? I'm not entirely certain that I'm clear on how you're drawing the distinction.

Sure:
News Service:
- hourly news broadcasting (TV, radio, stream) which tries to put as much information from all kind of news-areas (politics, economy, hazards, sport-events, weather ...) as possible into the 5, 10, or maximum 15 minute-block entitled to the news-show
- websites providing news with texts, pictures, videos, voice-onlys - and all that updated in "a frenzy"
- daily news-papers which focus on 'the effect' and 'headlines' alone - German example: Bild; British example: Sun
- is one part of the media

Media:
- anything a certain TV channel or radio channel spews out; and naturally: the total of any kind of broadcasting
- with regard to the printing: weekly/ double-weekly/ monthly magazins and newspapers focussing much more on content, background, indepth-views, documentaries etc.
- daily-newspaper as soon as they try to put a lot more effort to fill the gap between the sensationalist newspapers from "News Services" and the newspapers mentioned right above this line
- especially professional blogs, news-services like the print-media mentioned in this section
- thus: media includes News Services, but it offers a lot more

edit
Think of two concentric circles. The smaller one - the News Service - falls within the area covered by the bigger one - the media; but there is enough room for other things as well, which makes the News Services only one of many facettes of the media.


I'll about to make a broad generalization about journalism, and journalists--personal opinion, not rooted in fact: ...
...
Journalists are just writers, and writers story-tellers. They're definitely the facilitators of the sensationalist approach.
...
I'm not sure we could ever move away from that. I would certainly like to.

Nothing to add. Am confirming everything what you wrote about journalism/ journalists - even the stuff I abbreviated with the dots.

All the best!
Liam

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

In my opinion, being a journalist is becoming more and more difficult. The media are supposed to come up with important news because otherwise the people who book commercial breaks / newspaper will reduce funding the specific medium. However, the number of daily news is finite. The competitive pressure increases the more different journalistic participants there are. And let's face it, the common media recipient demands short, pithy news presentations as the attention span has decreased significantly over the last two decades. Do not get me wrong, there are exceptions of course. But, if a news section is considered to be too boring / uninteresting, the consumer will presumably turn it off / change the channel / switch to something else. For example, take a look at the internet, it is rather called browsing than reading a website. You want to see something interesting. You want to have the hottest news fast, now, with an instant update push button please.

The media have recognized that because they have to do their homework or better: market analysis. Most them give their consumers what they think they like most: simplified (I mean it not in a condescending way), reduced to the essentials subjective statement news. Again, there are exception to that rule. Nevertheless, the same applies to internet blogs and podcasts.

[Osiris]

In my opinion, being a journalist is becoming more and more difficult. The media are supposed to come up with important news because otherwise the people who book commercial breaks / newspaper will reduce funding the specific medium. However, the number of daily news is finite. The competitive pressure increases the more different journalistic participants there are. And let's face it, the common media recipient demands short, pithy news presentations as the attention span has decreased significantly over the last two decades. Do not get me wrong, there are exceptions of course. But, if a news section is considered to be too boring / uninteresting, the consumer will presumably turn it off / change the channel / switch to something else. For example, take a look at the internet, it is rather called browsing than reading a website. You want to see something interesting. You want to have the hottest news fast, now, with an instant update push button please.

The media have recognized that because they have to do their homework or better: market analysis. Most them give their consumers what they think they like most: simplified (I mean it not in a condescending way), reduced to the essentials subjective statement news. Again, there are exception to that rule. Nevertheless, the same applies to internet blogs and podcasts.

You raise a really good point. Does money dictate what is, and what isn't newsworthy? If Coke doesn't want a story run, pull the sponsorship. Gotta have that Coke money!

But you would think that just the opposite would happen in a medium that is less bound by commercialism to be effective. Blogs. Granted you have to generate interest, but in the day of social media it isn't as hard to do. You have Twitter followers? You have a built in fan base for whatever you do. It feels like more, and more serious journalists would look to the internet to get out the stories that they feel matter.

Which raises another question about what stories actually matter?

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Yes, I enjoy reading blogs a lot. But I think that one has to be cautious what to read. Blogs can be *sponsored* by a company, they can also be set up as part of a marketing / publicity campaign - there have been such nasty things in the past.

I can only answer your last question indirectly.

Bad news are actually "good" news. And those type of news which satisfy primal instincts - because they are mass compatible:

violence
murder
sex, porn
something that makes you feel superior to others (a fallen star for example: drug abuse, a car accident, a shaved head - hello to Lindsay and Britney!)
tax increases (why, damn it?)

[Solanine]

I disagree with the highlighted text. It is entirely relevant to the topic! In fact, that's exactly what we're discussing!

This is a bad journalism bashing thread not a gun control thread. That already exists.

[Osiris]

This is a bad journalism bashing thread not a gun control thread. That already exists.

True, but the inclusion of the photograph lead the thread into the direction it went, and a great deal of discussion about media influence have come from it. It's an issue that is an oft maligned topic in media. There's no reason we shouldn't discuss it, and explore how its perceptions are affected by media coverage.

[Solanine]

True, but the inclusion of the photograph lead the thread into the direction it went, and a great deal of discussion about media influence have come from it. It's an issue that is an oft maligned topic in media. There's no reason we shouldn't discuss it, and explore how its perceptions are affected by media coverage.

By all mean discuss it with regards to media coverage, the media have a tendency to jump to conclusions because they're simple and easy connections to make rather than because there is any truth to them.
For example "Violent video games make people more violent" is a favourite although the evidence is marginally weighted in the opposite direction.

How ever it turned into a gun control debate not a "Guns in the media" debate. That is the distinction I'm making. When threads get so long and go off on tangents it makes it supremely difficult for anybody new to join the debate.

[Osiris]

By all mean discuss it with regards to media coverage, the media have a tendency to jump to conclusions because they're simple and easy connections to make rather than because there is any truth to them.
For example "Violent video games make people more violent" is a favourite although the evidence is marginally weighted in the opposite direction.

How ever it turned into a gun control debate not a "Guns in the media" debate. That is the distinction I'm making. When threads get so long and go off on tangents it makes it supremely difficult for anybody new to join the debate.

I'll agree that reaper and I picked at each other quite a bit, but if you read the arguments in full, there is a great deal of questioning on both sides about how politics plays into it all, which leads to more questions about politics in media, and so on. I'm going to let it stand unless the thread starter has an issue, at which time I'll be more than happy to split the thread. It's been a good thread with an evolving topic. In any event, the thread continues on its track exploring the short-comings of the media at large.

[Osiris]

Yes, I enjoy reading blogs a lot. But I think that one has to be cautious what to read. Blogs can be *sponsored* by a company, they can also be set up as part of a marketing / publicity campaign - there have been such nasty things in the past.

I can only answer your last question indirectly.

Bad news are actually "good" news. And those type of news which satisfy primal instincts - because they are mass compatible:

violence
murder
sex, porn
something that makes you feel superior to others (a fallen star for example: drug abuse, a car accident, a shaved head - hello to Lindsay and Britney!)
tax increases (why, damn it?)

Agreed. It's hard to find credible sources online, and that's the shitty end of the stick. There's so much chaff to try and sift through in order to find one or two grains of truth. You really have to dig to find a name that you feel comfortable with, and again personal politics will come into play. One thing that I can't stand, yet can't stop being hungry for: stories about celebrities melting down. I don't think that any of it is newsworthy, I don't really care what celebrity is fucking what other celebrity's wife or who got drunk, and crashed into Linsday Lohan this week. I can't help but watch, I can't help but click the link to see what the story was. Even though I don't care about these people or their lives, I want to watch them fall apart. I guess maybe I want to because it's that reminder that they're just people, they aren't superheroes. They can fuck up their lives just like everyone else, the only difference is they do it with a camera in their face.

[Condor]

So your perception that this is all on the up and up should be blindly accepted by everyone else. I see what you're saying. You're the voice that matters, because you're a . . . safe gun owner? Defining assault weapon or assault rifle are not relevant to the argument. It's a way to mislead the person you're arguing against into believing that they don't have all the facts, that their argument is wrong. It's coercive. The only difference between an M-16 and AR-15 is the name--public perception. That's what matters to you in this argument, not that both of them will put a round through someone's head just as easily as the other. That's the underlying truth of this argument that you're avoiding.

I won't avoid the fact that both the M-16 and AR-15 fire the same round and both could kill. Defining "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are very relevant to the argument. They are indeed coercive terms that were created and made-up by anti-gunners to mislead the public. Most gun owners find the terms very offensive, because the media and politicians use them as nothing more than a scare tactic for the general, uninformed public.

I know this is a wasted argument, but I'm going to say it anyway. The ban list that is being proposed is pretty illogical. For example:
Which of these rifles is an "assault weapon"?
#1 http://www.bushmaster.com/img/firearms/90289_XM15.jpg
#2 http://www.remington.com/~/media/Images/Firearms/Centerfire/Model-750/Model-750-Woodmaster/750-prod.ashx
You answered #1, right, and according to legislators, you'd be right.
Now, does labeling it "assault weapon" make it any deadlier than #2? According to legislators it is, but is it? Both can kill, but ballisticly speaking #2 fires a larger, deadlier (.30-06) round vs the much smaller .223 of the AR. Here's the kicker, both function virtually identical. They are both semi-automatic rifles, but there are attempts to ban #1, where as #2 is fine.


I thought I had made my position on that clearer. I'm not against concealed carry. I'm against citizens carrying unsafe firearms in public. I'll guess you don't put a trigger lock on your piece when you're out and about? I don't see locks on the weapons in the photograph. That makes it unsafe to the public in its vicinity. How? Anyone can take that weapon from you, and use it.



With equal force. That's all. If someone tries to throw a punch at you, you throw one at them. Someone has a stick, you ok to have a stick. But if someone threatens you with a stick, are you saying it's ok to pull out your gun and shoot them? Because that's what it sounds like.



What if a woman coming out of a local grocery store is followed through the parking lot, by a man. He follows her right to her driver's side door, she thinks he's reaching to grab her, drops her groceries, pulls out her piece, and shoots him. He dies because he parked beside her, and was putting his groceries on the front seat. She should tell his wife and kids, oh I'm so sorry, but I was certain he was about to attack me, and rape me. No, I don't think the average citizen really has the capacity to assess situations in moments of high stress with clear and rational thought. I really don't think most cops are able to. But I feel a lot safe around someone who has been professionally trained to deal with the stressful situations that you're choosing to exemplify.
If a person is properly carrying a concealed firearm, no one else should know or be able to tell that they have a weapon. Key word there is concealed. In many areas, including my own, open carry is allowed meaning the guns are visible to the public and that's what the guys in the photo are doing. Even though open carry is legal in my area, I'm not a fan of it either. With an exposed gun, it does make it easier for someone else to come up and grab it. Of course, that's theoretically possible with concealed carry, but not very likely if no one can see you have a gun. Also, to me, open carry is too much of a fine line between legal and "terrorizing the public". Someone could see the gun and call the police because they are nervous and/or unfamiliar with the laws. Even though it's legal, it would be a hassle to deal with the police if they come out.

No, I don't use trigger locks on my guns and I don't think that makes them "unsafe".

Equal force? No offense, but that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. So when I get ready to go out, I have to figure out whether I might be attacked by a stick, knife, or gun so I'll know which to take? "The bad guy has a gun and I only have a stick today, guess I'm screwed."
Seriously, could a small stature woman fight off a 300lb body builder with only her fists? Hell no. What about someone who is physically disabled and confined to a wheelchair? They can't run away. They need an equalizer.
Every defensive situation is different, there is no textbook that says "if this happens, do this, and this will happen". No, I don't think it's justified to shoot someone just because they are threatening me with a stick. My first thought would be to try and get away and/or verbally stop the attack. "Stop!", "Back off", maybe even "I have a gun". If that didn't work, I'd draw my pistol and point it at the attacker. If he had half a brain, he would drop the stick and run away. If none of that worked and he kept coming, I would not hesitate to fire and would be perfectly justified in doing so if I felt my life was threatened. Just because a gun is present doesn't mean it will be fired.
Armed or not, a good safety tip that most people don't follow is awareness of your surroundings. How often do people walk down the street or through parking lots with their nose buried in a cell phone texting? As you're walking, look around. If you see something or someone that looks suspicious, go the other way, go back into the store, call the police. Avoiding a situation is much easier and better than trying to get out of one you're already in.

I can't totally disagree that people wanting to carry a firearm in public shouldn't be required to go though a training course. A lot of people do take training classes, a lot don't. I hate to say I am in the untrained category, but I do want to take classes.




I'll say this:

Look, it's not a question of who is right, and who is wrong because the question isn't black and white, so how could the answer be. I think in theory many of the laws would work, I also think in theory time travel works--we know how that one figures out don't we? It will never matter how many facts are presented from either side, in the end it comes down to what is right for the individual. The principles are the same in both instances: understanding, respect, safety.

I want you to understand why I come from the position that I do, just as you want me to understand yours. We all want our positions to be respected. Safety is really the abstract here. It's a question of what makes someone feel safe, and what doesn't. How can one be safer than the other? Can you chose safety for someone else, and how do you determine for them what that looks like? Now, I'm not saying that you're doing for me--at least, I'm not intentionally steering us in that direction. I'm simply posing the question to us all. How do we determine what is safe?

Is a pistol behind three locks safer than one that isn't? At first glance I would argue that it is, in certain aspects. It is safer for a child. Is it presenting a safer environment all around? That's subjective; you have to factor in the human equation which is difficult enough on a good day.

Where do we draw the lines between what a safe weapon is and is not? Is a semi-automatic rifle safer to the public than a bolt action rifle? Again, is subjective and depends on the person behind the trigger. There are too many variables to consider, so how do we arrive at an answer to the first question: What is safe? I'm not asking the questions to challenge your knowledge, I'm asking the questions in the hope that instead of regurgitating statistics you will not only think for yourself, but think about something other than yourself.

So I pose a question to you all now.

How do we determine what is safe for everyone?
I can agree with that, we're just looking at it from different directions. What you feel is "safe" for you and your family is radically different from what I feel is "safe" for me and my family.
That's the biggest debate with gun control, what gives a politician or anyone else the right to tell me (or anyone) what I need or don't need. They don't know my way of thinking. They don't know what I think I need for defense. They don't know what the area I live in is like. They don't know my physical stature or abilities. They don't really know much about firearms, there is no one size fits all firearm (contrary to what the VP says).


This is one of the biggest issues that I have with the gun debate, "people with guns were there, let me tell you . . . would of been different."

It certainly would have been different. It would have been bloodier, and more lives would have been lost. I know you buy into the idea that because you own a gun you're going to respond to the pressure with logic, and reason. Are you going to shoot him in the leg so that he can stand trial? Or are you going to enforce the death penalty? It's an argument to take the law into your own hands. You argue for the freedom to do so, but you argue against my freedom at the same time. You keep drawing a line of distinction between criminals and "legal" owners. You keep citing that criminals are going to carry no matter what, and you're ignoring the argument that even those who are "legal" present a danger. Dorner is a good example of that. You can keep arguing that "those are criminals" but the fact is they come from all walks of life. The inarguable fact remains: if you don't have a gun, you cannot shoot me with it. That is a far more appealing world than one where everyone may or may not have a gun.
Just because someone carries a gun doesn't mean they WANT to use it. Admittedly there is a very small handful of criminals or nutjobs that actively seek to do others harm and there are absolutely no amount of laws that could ever stop that, but the rest hope they NEVER, EVER have to fire a shot in self defense. The choice to carry a gun is mostly a matter of erring on the side of having it and not needing it vs needing it and not having it. In most cases when a firearm is used in self defense, the mere presence of the weapon will defuse the situation and no shots are ever fired. Before you ask, no I don't have exact statistics on that.

You claim an armed concealed carrier would make a situation "bloodier", I can give a perfect example where an armed civilian did indeed, save lives and lower the death toll. A few weeks before the Connecticut shooting, there was a mass murderer who started shooting inside an Oregon mall. There was a conceal carry permit holder also in the mall at the time. This man drew his pistol, took cover behind a column, and took to aim at the bad guy. The man hesitated to fire his weapon because he couldn't get a clear shot at the bad guy. When the bad guy saw the armed good guy, he turned his gun on himself and committed suicide. The permit holder never fired a shot because he was afraid of hitting an innocent bystander. So in that case it's pretty safe to say a good guy with a gun did stop a bad guy with a gun.
Most of the the mainstream news outlets conveniently left this little detail out when they reported the story. Which gets us back to the news media manipulating a story by leaving out important details because it didn't suit their agenda.
This is one of the stories I referred to in an earlier post, the other was an entirely fabricated story by MSNBC:
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/heckler-msnbc-selectively-edits-video-smear-gun-rights-supporters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFHuqdhc8CQ
I'm sure you'll say these are from biased sources, but if you'll watch both videos, it's pretty clear that MSNBC created controversy where there was none.

[LiamKerrington]

This is one of the stories I referred to in an earlier post, the other was an entirely fabricated story by MSNBC:
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/heckler-msnbc-selectively-edits-video-smear-gun-rights-supporters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFHuqdhc8CQ
I'm sure you'll say these are from biased sources, but if you'll watch both videos, it's pretty clear that MSNBC created controversy where there was none.

Is this the exception or just the tip of the iceberg?
Does this apply for MSNBC only, or is this something happening all media?

To be honest: I am not so sure if this, what MSNBC did here, is really kind of a misinformation; the thing I would acknowledge though is the angled or tendentious style of the report. The reason for this is simple: If you pay close attention, the griefing man only challenges certain guns and actually provokes parts of the audience by drawing them all on his opinion about those certain guns, although this is not what he intended to do, but simply did without thinking thoroughly enough about it. The flaw in the MSNBC report is not so much that the man allowed the audience to react which was cut away; the flaw is more that MSNBC cut away the retreat of the griefing man from his statement and then him accepting that things are open to different opinions actually. After all the MSNBC report "uncovered" what actually was obvious: different opinions are available. The tendentious part of this report is to emphasize the victimization of the griefing man - first the loss of his child, then the pressure by gun-lovers; but this is not so much a matter of misinformation, but more of opinion.
I have not finished thinking about it ... I am kind of biased here ...

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Is this the exception or just the tip of the iceberg?
Does this apply for MSNBC only, or is this something happening all media?

Hi Liam, I do not want to sound too pessimistic, but I think it applies to most media coverage. Take a look at the public broadcasting landscape in Germany for example. First off, all news have to fit in 15 minutes. However, there a some striking differences between the two big networks how certain news are - hmm - condensed to merely 90 seconds. The most controversial news are often followed by a pointy commentary which helps to exonerate most of the recipients from forming a view on their own. The same applies to most networks around the world, I guess.

[LiamKerrington]

Hi Liam, I do not want to sound too pessimistic, but I think it applies to most media coverage. Take a look at the public broadcasting landscape in Germany for example. First off, all news have to fit in 15 minutes. However, there a some striking differences between the two big networks how certain news are - hmm - condensed to merely 90 seconds. The most controversial news are often followed by a pointy commentary which helps to exonerate most of the recipients from forming a view on their own. The same applies to most networks around the world, I guess.

Is this misinformation, which would be bad? Or is this opinionated and tendentious journalism, which imho is not bad for as long as there are different opinion-poles available?

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Can there be a line drawn between misinformation and tendentious journalism? In my opinion, those who post to this thread are not the ordinary news recipients who just rely on one, maybe two sources.

[LiamKerrington]

Can there be a line drawn between misinformation and tendentious journalism? In my opinion, those who post to this thread are not the ordinary news recipients who just rely on one, maybe two sources.

Boiled down even the most neutral news is tendentious, because it is selected news and thus has influence on the process of building and influencing opinion.
Also each news is misinforming, because the selection of each news and the selection of what exactly is to be reported in detail (and commented) naturally leads to other information not being made available through the news-service or media.
So, from this perspective it seems that the distinction between both - I would say - categories could be moot.

And yet I think a distinction can be made, if you look at the intentions behind each decision.
Why does a journalist, his supervisor, the main editor, maybe the media-leadership decide ...
a) what information is to be provided and
b) how the information is to be displayed and
c) if a certain agenda or purpose is to be followed and
d) who the target-group of the information is?

Just imagine even small news-services: You not only have your single journalist who has his personal opinion on things and follows his personal agenda (make the world a better one, work for profit, pulizer price, self-manifestation ...); he nearly always (exception: his personal website or blog he can afford to fill with information and control) works for news-services which are organized.
And these organized structures don't follow a strict I/O-based scheme, but these structures provide room for agendas and forming of opinion on multiple levels - granted on a top-to-down-system; this may have a comparable range as the agenda of the single journalist itself from making the world a better one over revenue up to dark conspiracies.
The next level then is "the market of the audience". Especially ambitious or sophisticated news-services/ media are only consumed by a quite small audience, while simplifying news-services/media will reach a much bigger audience. Any kind of news-service heavily relies on money from the outside - by selling their stuff, leaving room for commercials and maybe other sources as well -, because they need to pay their various bills (power-bill, printing- or broadcasting-costs, emplyoees, insurances, lawyers etc.). Therefore any news-service or media needs to make decisions about their target-group and thus their level information and annotation and especially their opinion they want to share with what is outside their structures. This will lead to a certain competition with other news-services/ media - especially, the more the target-groups overlap.
Now here is the funny thing: The competition on the one side dictates what news are to be reported and discussed; so if something like 'Aurora' happens, you can rest assured that most (all?) media will jump to it. Is this mere 'selection' now misinforming or tendentious? It is misinforming, because other news have to step back or even get erased from the schedule; but it is not tendentious. That, what makes it tendentious, are the questions and the basic structures I have outlined above.

Considering these different levels and the more or less huge number of people involved it is thus very likely that almost any news is tendentious - at least slightly up to obnoxiously penetrant. I really don't have trouble with that; but I would have it, if there was only one news-service/ media-source available. But with the diversity of news-services and media we have (in at least the Western World) anyone as part of the audience may decide what news to watch and maybe even to compare ...

All the best!
Liam

[Osiris]

I won't avoid the fact that both the M-16 and AR-15 fire the same round and both could kill. Defining "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are very relevant to the argument. They are indeed coercive terms that were created and made-up by anti-gunners to mislead the public. Most gun owners find the terms very offensive, because the media and politicians use them as nothing more than a scare tactic for the general, uninformed public.

I know this is a wasted argument, but I'm going to say it anyway. The ban list that is being proposed is pretty illogical. For example:
Which of these rifles is an "assault weapon"?
#1 http://www.bushmaster.com/img/firearms/90289_XM15.jpg
#2 http://www.remington.com/~/media/Images/Firearms/Centerfire/Model-750/Model-750-Woodmaster/750-prod.ashx
You answered #1, right, and according to legislators, you'd be right.
Now, does labeling it "assault weapon" make it any deadlier than #2? According to legislators it is, but is it? Both can kill, but ballisticly speaking #2 fires a larger, deadlier (.30-06) round vs the much smaller .223 of the AR. Here's the kicker, both function virtually identical. They are both semi-automatic rifles, but there are attempts to ban #1, where as #2 is fine.


If a person is properly carrying a concealed firearm, no one else should know or be able to tell that they have a weapon. Key word there is concealed. In many areas, including my own, open carry is allowed meaning the guns are visible to the public and that's what the guys in the photo are doing. Even though open carry is legal in my area, I'm not a fan of it either. With an exposed gun, it does make it easier for someone else to come up and grab it. Of course, that's theoretically possible with concealed carry, but not very likely if no one can see you have a gun. Also, to me, open carry is too much of a fine line between legal and "terrorizing the public". Someone could see the gun and call the police because they are nervous and/or unfamiliar with the laws. Even though it's legal, it would be a hassle to deal with the police if they come out.

No, I don't use trigger locks on my guns and I don't think that makes them "unsafe".

Equal force? No offense, but that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. So when I get ready to go out, I have to figure out whether I might be attacked by a stick, knife, or gun so I'll know which to take? "The bad guy has a gun and I only have a stick today, guess I'm screwed."

I honestly read this far, stopped, shook my head, and stopped. Tell you what, you bring your gun, I'll bring my bomb, and we'll see which one of us was right. That's your argument. If this is your stance, please stop arguing the point.

[Osiris]

Can there be a line drawn between misinformation and tendentious journalism? In my opinion, those who post to this thread are not the ordinary news recipients who just rely on one, maybe two sources.

They're almost identical ideas when you break it down to the intent of either, aren't they? I can't distinguish easily between one or the other.

[orion]

"The more voices there are the more spin there is. The truth becomes that much harder to find. In the end its just all noise."

[LiamKerrington]

"The more voices there are the more spin there is. The truth becomes that much harder to find. In the end its just all noise."


Interesting. In Germany we have a saying: "The truth lies inbetween." But in contrary to our saying in with "lie" the sense of "alocate" the English version has a certain ambiguity, doesn't it? Awesome ...

Besides: Is all this a question about spreading the truth or about forming opinion or about both? Or from the perspective of the audience: expecting or accepting 'a' instead of 'the' truth or just opinions?
From another angle: What is the task of nems-services or media; and are they even capable of sueccessfully passing the challenge?

Journalists and their editors spread their information they have collected in the first place. And most information they extract from a huge variety of sources: statistics, interviews, informants, press-releases, hearsay, conclusions, bribery(?) etc, while it might be imortant to highlight that first-hand-information may play a rather small role all of this. Therefore the information provided by news-services/ media is by no means 'neutral' in the first place, although almost any information has a neutral core. Small example:
Two news-services report about a car-accident on a junction caused by a bloody young driver with no experience at all and a very old driver. Both news share the same core: there was a car-accident; but because both journalists have chosen to talk to different whitnesses and looked at different pictures about the scene, both news have different tendencies: the first one gives you the impression that the young driver might have underestimated the situation which might have caused the accident, while the second news tells you about danger of traffic by old people over-estimating their skills considering their loss of reaction-time, sight, etc.
Which news is a news?
This example you can extrapolate on many other news being reported.

All this being said: maybe news-services/ media are just intermediaries or multipliers for any kind of information. The tendentious work might be a problem for some people, because it does not correlate with their expectations or even acceptance, while again it suits the expectation of the other part of the audience.

My conclusion from this long and interesting discussion therefore is: For as long as news-services or media simply do not outright lie about things, anything may be possible, some things could be made better; but I don't see any case of misinformation or wrongful doings by the news-services or media - even if I don't like the tendentious work of at least some of those services.

I would be very glad, if someone challenges these thoughts, if there are major flaws in it I should have taken care off ...

All the best!
Liam

[reaper239]

I honestly read this far, stopped, shook my head, and stopped. Tell you what, you bring your gun, I'll bring my bomb, and we'll see which one of us was right. That's your argument. If this is your stance, please stop arguing the point.

but see, here you're advocating a showdown, and you're saying that in that showdown, you plan to employ force above and beyond what your adversary is equipped with. condor and i aren't, our point is, as you so entheusiastically pointed out previously, there are violent people, and in order to prepare to deal with that violence, we would like to carry force at least equal to what we are most likely to encounter in the execution of our daily lives. why can't we have the right to defend ourselves and our families the way we want, just as you have the same? you don't want to have a gun? that's fine, but why do you have to force your views on us?

[reaper239]

Is this misinformation, which would be bad? Or is this opinionated and tendentious journalism, which imho is not bad for as long as there are different opinion-poles available?

opinionated and tendentious journalism isn't news, it's opinion. news is facts, and if you want to broadcast the news, you should not be editing a story so you can point fingers at someone else and say "see? those are bad people." if you want to say your opinion, don't disguise it as news, because it's not. it's misinformation because it was never declared to be an opinion, it was presented as a fact.

[LiamKerrington]

opinionated and tendentious journalism isn't news, it's opinion. news is facts, and if you want to broadcast the news, you should not be editing a story so you can point fingers at someone else and say "see? those are bad people." if you want to say your opinion, don't disguise it as news, because it's not. it's misinformation because it was never declared to be an opinion, it was presented as a fact.

In theory I would agree with you, if news services and media were only about giving you the facts. I have doubts that you could boils down as easily. Just consider all the different topics, in which facts are anything but easily obtained. As I pointed out over my various walls of words news-services and media are actually everything else but limited to the presentation of facts only - especially since the sources they rely on do neither necessarily nor generally provide facts alone, but only parts of it at best. Here one major part of activity is to raise questions - as for example about he "why" or the "who else".

Since this thread started with one particular "weak" article by FOX-News, I would say: Even FOX News, although some of you have highlighted how important this news-service or the media-group of FOX, does not do simple reportings of facts alone. And in this FOX is no different then any other (mass)media or news-service.

And please consider that the selection of what news, even if it is only about simple facts alone, is already tendentious in itself. To stay with the gun-examples and look at the evening-prime-time news: 15 minutes only reports in which journalists only speak about people shooting other people - without asking how things evolved, why things happened, and without questioning the background. No. Facts alone, that alone is not what news-services are there for.

All the best!
Liam

[reaper239]

In theory I agree with you; but as I pointed out over my various walls of words news-services and media are actually everything else but limited to the presentation of facts only - especially since the sources they rely on do neither necessarily nor generally provide facts alone, but only parts of it at best.

which is a problem with the media. objective journalism is technically impossible, since it is impossible to completely remove your world view from a report, but does that then mean that it is acceptable to go to the extreme and make a story that only serves the purpose of creating bias? certainly not. there is a principle that arose, i believe, from the double slit experiment, that observing an event affects the outcome, but observing is not the same as interfereing directly. observation can certainly change the outcome of a heart surgery since the doctor now knows he is being watched and might be more carefull or his nerves make him more prone to mistakes, but that's a far cry from running into the OR and hitting the patient with a sledge hammer. and that's what that story is, taking a sledge hammer to objectivism, and then masquereding it as news. i'll go ahead and say it, the made a claim that was patently false: the man asked a question that everyone assumed was rhetorical and when it became clear that it was not, some in the crowd answered his question. the reporter and editor lied to their viewers.

[Cabbage Patch]

Interesting. In Germany we have a saying: "The truth lies inbetween."

You may have hit upon the true importance of Fox News to the American people, whether we appreciate it or not. Without Fox there is no "in between" in television news reporting. Getting that competing viewpoint, and the chance to find the truth inbetween is worth the occassional misinformed guest or confused host. And what does it say about the motives of those who are so hellbent on silencing Fox News, and thus the competing viewpoint?

[LiamKerrington]

which is a problem with the media. objective journalism is technically impossible, since it is impossible to completely remove your world view from a report, but does that then mean that it is acceptable to go to the extreme and make a story that only serves the purpose of creating bias? certainly not. there is a principle that arose, i believe, from the double slit experiment, that observing an event affects the outcome, but observing is not the same as interfereing directly. observation can certainly change the outcome of a heart surgery since the doctor now knows he is being watched and might be more carefull or his nerves make him more prone to mistakes, but that's a far cry from running into the OR and hitting the patient with a sledge hammer. and that's what that story is, taking a sledge hammer to objectivism, and then masquereding it as news. i'll go ahead and say it, the made a claim that was patently false: the man asked a question that everyone assumed was rhetorical and when it became clear that it was not, some in the crowd answered his question. the reporter and editor lied to their viewers.

I highlighted a certain part of your posting. And I feel inclined to agree with you. And yet I am hesitant. Even if media objectives something, they do this on the ground of whatever acceptable or unacceptable moral ground - and if it only is about the cause to question something. Almost any moral or ethical point of view - although being highly subjective and thus anything else but objective in itself - is something the media can perform - even in the way of displaying their news.
The only thing I would not accept is, if a news service blatantly lies or acts against its better judgement by providing false information which can be easily falsified. I guess here things may become very problematic, because it may be very difficult to draw the line between extraordinarily exaggerated sensationalism on the one side and an outright lie on the other side. It is in the interest of any nes-service or media to keep straight enough, though, in order to keep a certain reputation. I think any news-service that would tell real lies and are proven having done this intentionally would cease to exist, because there would be no acceptance at all for them anymore.

As for the last part of your posting: The media certainly would have made a much better job, if they would have stressed the - I guess - fact that the griefing man did provoke certain reactions from the audience - if with or without intention, this, I think, does not matter at all. But the focus of the report was very different. The news-service emphasized that there was no agreement on what the man proposed or wished; and the media services simply "uncovered" that this was the case although children were killed, and thus the media raises the expectancy that things should be as simple as the griefing man demands. In order to give this - actually - fact about the conflict between a moral demand and the disagreement a certain inertia the media edited things in a sensationalist way. I guess this really is a question of interpretation of what the media did here. I don't see a "lie" or something over here (except for mentioning that the griefing man was interrupted; this was not true at all and should be challenged by any means possible); but as I said earlier I am biased about what the media did here, because the overall moral question simply exists, which the media highlighted.

This particluar example of MSNBC is at least as bad as the FOX-News provided in the starting article by YABC. I would like to raise the question, if things like this are plain and simple "normal" in any media in the USA (in Germany there is kind of a variety regarding the usage of neutrality as much as possible on the one extreme and full-blown "infotainment" or sensationalism on the other). And the follow-up question would be: Is there a certain balance in the media about it which may root in the competition of the media?

All the best!
Liam

[LiamKerrington]

You may have hit upon the true importance of Fox News to the American people, whether we appreciate it or not. Without Fox there is no "in between" in television news reporting. Getting that competing viewpoint, and the chance to find the truth inbetween is worth the occassional misinformed guest or confused host. And what does it say about the motives of those who are so hellbent on silencing Fox News, and thus the competing viewpoint?

This is a very good question. As a first reflex I would say: This is not good at all.

[Osiris]

but see, here you're advocating a showdown, and you're saying that in that showdown, you plan to employ force above and beyond what your adversary is equipped with. condor and i aren't, our point is, as you so entheusiastically pointed out previously, there are violent people, and in order to prepare to deal with that violence, we would like to carry force at least equal to what we are most likely to encounter in the execution of our daily lives. why can't we have the right to defend ourselves and our families the way we want, just as you have the same? you don't want to have a gun? that's fine, but

That isn't the argument. That's the place you want to take the argument to try and prove your point.


why do you have to force your views on us?

I've been asking you this since the beginning. This is what the argument has degraded into. You cannot answer the question without citing scenarios in which the only way out for you is a gun. Good job. Unless you come up with an answer to the question, move on.

[reaper239]

I highlighted a certain part of your posting. And I feel inclined to agree with you. And yet I am hesitant. Even if media objectives something, they do this on the ground of whatever acceptable or unacceptable moral ground - and if it only is about the cause to question something. Almost any moral or ethical point of view - although being highly subjective and thus anything else but objective in itself - is something the media can perform - even in the way of displaying their news.
The only thing I would not accept is, if a news service blatantly lies or acts against its better judgement by providing false information which can be easily falsified. I guess here things may become very problematic, because it may be very difficult to draw the line between extraordinarily exaggerated sensationalism on the one side and an outright lie on the other side. It is in the interest of any nes-service or media to keep straight enough, though, in order to keep a certain reputation. I think any news-service that would tell real lies and are proven having done this intentionally would cease to exist, because there would be no acceptance at all for them anymore.

As for the last part of your posting: The media certainly would have made a much better job, if they would have stressed the - I guess - fact that the griefing man did provoke certain reactions from the audience - if with or without intention, this, I think, does not matter at all. But the focus of the report was very different. The news-service emphasized that there was no agreement on what the man proposed or wished; and the media services simply "uncovered" that this was the case although children were killed, and thus the media raises the expectancy that things should be as simple as the griefing man demands. In order to give this - actually - fact about the conflict between a moral demand and the disagreement a certain inertia the media edited things in a sensationalist way. I guess this really is a question of interpretation of what the media did here. I don't see a "lie" or something over here (except for mentioning that the griefing man was interrupted; this was not true at all and should be challenged by any means possible); but as I said earlier I am biased about what the media did here, because the overall moral question simply exists, which the media highlighted.

This particluar example of MSNBC is at least as bad as the FOX-News provided in the starting article by YABC. I would like to raise the question, if things like this are plain and simple "normal" in any media in the USA (in Germany there is kind of a variety regarding the usage of neutrality as much as possible on the one extreme and full-blown "infotainment" or sensationalism on the other). And the follow-up question would be: Is there a certain balance in the media about it which may root in the competition of the media?

All the best!
Liam

but the media wasn't highlighting any moral question. this was immediately picked up by several politicians (and dropped almost as quickly) and sounded like a war cry that the "gun-lobby" has no respect for the dead or grieving. it was blatant and malicious. there is no need to highlight that there are different points of view on the matter, everyone in America has an opinion on it, that was a political ploy designed to garner favor on one side. and what's worse, no one holds these people accountable. there hasn't been, and prolly never will be, any sort of apology for this farce, it just gets swept back under the rug of failed media/political ploys that haven't worked, never to be heard from again. and fox news is just as guilty of throwing bs out there just to see if it sticks.

[reaper239]

I've been asking you this since the beginning. This is what the argument has degraded into. You cannot answer the question without citing scenarios in which the only way out for you is a gun. Good job. Unless you come up with an answer to the question, move on.

so why won't you answer the question? what makes your views and opinions more valuable than mine?

[Osiris]

so why won't you answer the question? what makes your views and opinions more valuable than mine?

I answered that question already. Maybe you should go back, and read.

[reaper239]

I answered that question already. Maybe you should go back, and read.

humor me

[LiamKerrington]

but the media wasn't highlighting any moral question. this was immediately picked up by several politicians (and dropped almost as quickly) and sounded like a war cry that the "gun-lobby" has no respect for the dead or grieving. it was blatant and malicious. there is no need to highlight that there are different points of view on the matter, everyone in America has an opinion on it, that was a political ploy designed to garner favor on one side. and what's worse, no one holds these people accountable. there hasn't been, and prolly never will be, any sort of apology for this farce, it just gets swept back under the rug of failed media/political ploys that haven't worked, never to be heard from again. and fox news is just as guilty of throwing bs out there just to see if it sticks.

Thank you.
It looks both of us have drawn different conclusions from the same report. And I am pretty sure others will have come to varying conclusions as well. In my opinion this is actually one task news-services and media have to fulfill.
Besides: I agree with you that the methods MSNCB used in this particular case are at least problematic.
As for the accountability for things gone wrong: Maybe there are no legal ways to challenge MSNBC (or other media/ news-services) for comparable actions; but that's what the competing news-services and media are there for. And this is something I tried to put forward several times. And again I say: As long as anyone from the audience has the chance to choose from different sources and maybe even to compare different sources, the tendentious activities of any news-service or media is not beyond what it is supposed to do.

Now - if there is demand that a news-service or the media is only there to provide the news in terms of "facts only", I wonder who would like pay for this kind of news in order to let it survive in the multi-layered world of news-services and media; I guess it is safe to assume that such a "facts only news service" would not last long; and if it does nevertheless, two more questions spring to my mind: how many would watch it, and who controls this news-service, if they really provide facts or at least choose the news wisely.

All the best!
Liam

[scbubba]

Now - if there is demand that a news-service or the media is only there to provide the news in terms of "facts only", I wonder who would like pay for this kind of news in order to let it survive in the multi-layered world of news-services and media; I guess it is safe to assume that such a "facts only news service" would not last long; and if it does nevertheless, two more questions spring to my mind: how many would watch it, and who controls this news-service, if they really provide facts or at least choose the news wisely.

All the best!
Liam

In a lot of the cases that people complain about bias, the story is actually running facts only. But it may not be "all" the facts. Or the choice of which stories they run is biased. In other words, there really isn't a way to prevent some sort of bias coming to bear in a news service or media outlet.

So, how many would watch it? I don't think it would go over big here in the US. Unfortunately, we have a very large number of people that want the 60 seconds of someone else's opinion instead of the facts. One gives them something to a) sound smart about when they parrot it at work and b) most likely support an opinion that they have already formed. It's a sad state.

Here are two things that I think come into play heavily when people consume news/media/information:

Confirmation Bias (From http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/)
The Misconception: Your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis.
The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information which challenged your preconceived notions.

The Backfire Effect (From http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/)
The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.
The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.

So, reporting facts only probably isn't profitable for anyone - not even in public broadcasting...

[reaper239]

osiris, i commented on my blog post, but since i didn't go back for a long time to check it, i figured no one else would either so i'll post it here.

ok, so what you're asking me is why your right to infringe on my rights is less important than my rights you seek to infringe upon? come on dude, that's like saying my right to live in an environment without cars is supreme to your right to own a car. a car is more likely to kill you than a gun. so, let's turn this discussion on it's head, i believe in a world without computers, i believe computers are evil and should not be allowed in public, therefore all laptops and other computing devices must be banned from public. it's my right after all, so why is your right to have your ipod or laptop in public supreme to my right to live in a world without those things?

the very nature of requireing someone else to do something, by force, in order to satiate your desire to live the way you want is tyranny, not freedom. you don't have a right to be a tyrant, that's not a natural right, tyranny requires coersion to accomplish the tyrants goals, and coersion is a violation of human rights.

i'm not trying to goad you, but you asked me for my answer.

[Osiris]

the very nature of requireing someone else to do something, by force, in order to satiate your desire to live the way you want is tyranny, not freedom. you don't have a right to be a tyrant, that's not a natural right, tyranny requires coersion to accomplish the tyrants goals, and coersion is a violation of human rights.

By your very definition, you're acting tyrannical when you infringe on my right to live in an area without guns. You don't have the right to do so. Your goal is to finally be permitted to do whatever you like with your firearms which, by your very definition, is coercive in nature, and thereby violates my human rights. It's not so easy to re-write a law that is just, and encompasses the needs of the populous, is it? You can't arbitrarily decide what is good for another person, simply because you believe it is.

There's nothing wrong with owning a gun (I've said this numerous times before in this thread). Keep your fucking gun at home, there's no reason for you to carry it past my kid's school or to the grocery store that my mother shops at. You're not hunting for game at Target. You're not a vigilante out fighting crime, because that's against the law you're vehemently trying to convince me that you're following. This is not the wild west. You don't need a gun on you at all times for protection from wild animals. Your arguments about rights fall apart when you try and force them down the throat of another. I really don't see how me asking you to leave your pistol at home is a violation of your human rights, whereas you endangering my life, and the lives of my family members though your actions is a violation of my human rights.

You want a clear, honest answer to the question? My rights take precedence over yours because they are mine. Don't sit, and argue that you're protecting everyone's rights, because you are not if you are trying to violate mine. You're only trying to protect the ones that you believe to be important, if you weren't we wouldn't be having this conversation. You'd be saying, "You're right. You have the right to live in a peaceful, arms free environment, and I have the right to bear arms. So I'm going to leave my guns at home until such time that I need them to defend my country, or take down a tyrannical governing body." That's harmony. You're intentionally creating a discordant environment for the sake of it. It doesn't need to be. You just want it to be because you don't feel safe without it. Otherwise, you'd leave it in the closet.

That said, we're done with the gun argument in this thread. If you'd like to continue, feel free to PM me or fire up a guns and rights thread, but let's keep this on track here. If the gun argument pertains to your views on the news media, different story, but let's put a moratorium on rights with regard to firearms. We've pretty well covered it to death, and it's turned into an a never-ending parade of what if scenarios, and we've both answered the question posed. Cool? Cool.

Onward!

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

I recently found a nice example of bad / good journalism.

Last monday, the Italians elected a new parliament. Wow, democracy in action. What is the catch? The German media's main goal seems to be making fun of the outcome of the election. Besides the mainstream winner (Mr Bersani), the Italians mainly voted for Mr Berlusconi (a real comedian) and Mr Grillo (a former comedian). And that is it, you do not get much more information from the German media. Most of the articles try to foster the German Angst. "We will all die because the Italians voted wrong. This is definitely the coffin nail to Europe as we know it."

However, I also found a good article, I think that it is an example for good journalism. I like the style very much, how about you?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/26/italy-grillini-young-female

[LiamKerrington]

Hi there,

first of all: the news I read or followed were about the mere result in Italy at first; but they quickly turned to the level of analyzing, evaluating and commenting things. Yeah, sure ... Many voices seem to see the end of the world, or at least the end of the EU ... But as it seems: German news-services don't seem to be alone on this. The world-wide stock-markets gave in for 2-5% as a reaction to what has happened in Italy. And I think this led to some more sensationalists' gibberish.

I am not sure what to think about the article you provided. Is this a good article? A bad one? What's the scale for this, and how would you rate each information? I wonder, what prosecco and mane-haired have much to do with Italian elections or politics ... ;)

All the best!
Liam

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

I consider the article a good one. And I guess that using mane-haired to describe Grillo's appearance is fairly ok, as well as the prosecco thing. In my opinion, the stock-exchange losses are not that extraordinary if you take a look at the German DAX for example in February 2013. There is no panic. It had its ups and downs.

But back to the article, it lacks a distinct showmanship, I think it is informative and well written. It is just my opinion and if you have a complete different one, you are welcome. I like diversity.

[Cabbage Patch]

I recently found a nice example of bad / good journalism.

Last monday, the Italians elected a new parliament. Wow, democracy in action. What is the catch? The German media's main goal seems to be making fun of the outcome of the election...[/URL]

Since this thread all started with comments on Fox News reporting I thought it was only fitting to share their take on the Italian election results:

On the election results: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02/25/italy-faces-political-gridlock-after-crucial-election/

On the potential economic impact: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02/26/qa-election-deadlock-raises-fears-new-crisis-in-recently-calmer-eurozone/

[LiamKerrington]

I consider the article a good one. And I guess that using mane-haired to describe Grillo's appearance is fairly ok, as well as the prosecco thing. In my opinion, the stock-exchange losses are not that extraordinary if you take a look at the German DAX for example in February 2013. There is no panic. It had its ups and downs.

No reason to challenge most of you wrote there - except for the stock-exchange-drop. Today I listened to a press-review, in which articles from the press from all over Europe was covered. And there the drop in the stock-exchange was directly related to the elections in Italy; but this is a mott point to discuss the quality of such news, since - as you say - changes on the stock-exchanges happen all the time. ;)


But back to the article, it lacks a distinct showmanship, I think it is informative and well written. It is just my opinion and if you have a complete different one, you are welcome. I like diversity.

This is exactly the point: "I think", "my opinion", "you have a complete different one", "diversity".
Again I raise the question: What makes news, a news-service, or media a "good" one? What is the measure for "good"? You refer to your opinion, which is exactly what I do all the time. And I also throw in that any media basically gets down to "opinions" as well - no matter how close you get to neutral 'facts'.

All the best!
Liam

[LiamKerrington]

Since this thread all started with comments on Fox News reporting I thought it was only fitting to share their take on the Italian election results:

On the election results: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02/25/italy-faces-political-gridlock-after-crucial-election/

On the potential economic impact: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02/26/qa-election-deadlock-raises-fears-new-crisis-in-recently-calmer-eurozone/

No offense intended, YABC, but the quality of the FOX articles are - in my opinion - a lot better then the article provided by The Guardian, since FOX News does not seem to focus on unimportant trivia like what The Guardian does.

BUT: Both articles are worth reading anyway, because both have their particular foci and adress different audiences ... So, which one is the better one?

All the best!
Liam

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

No offense intended, YABC, but the quality of the FOX articles are - in my opinion - a lot better then the article provided by The Guardian, since FOX News does not seem to focus on unimportant trivia like what The Guardian does.

BUT: Both articles are worth reading anyway, because both have their particular foci and adress different audiences ... So, which one is the better one?

All the best!
Liam

I think that you cannot compare both articles because they cover different aspects of the Italian vote. The Fox article gives a basic overview. Bersani is a former communist, a left-wing politician, well yes. I guess that there is nothing nice to say aber Silvio, he wants to give the people their money back, that is ok as well. Grillo is a comedian, a provocateur convicted of manslaughter. But "Grillo's forces are the greatest unknown", come on, Fox do your homework. There are a lot of sources. All in all, the article is ok.

I have more problems with the second article, just because it is a Q&A one. I have not read one article of this kind that really helped me to understand the European financial crisis. Not one. The whole structure those kind of articles suggest that there are short and easy answers. There have been a whole bunch of augurs and analysts, but nobody provided a solution to the problem.

What are good news? I do not know. Maybe we all have to invest more time in reading articles / background information. Do not believe in condensed information (high-level statements), whatever.