Fox News vs. mental stability

[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
#2
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-...hts-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-...hts-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
#2
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.