Fox News vs. mental stability

[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-fa...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-fa...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.

[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