Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 26, 2013 at 11:50 AM in reply to: OT: Proof that mainstream media has a deep-seated liberal bias #761672
Jazzman
ParticipantMainstream media is by it’s nature progressive, or ‘liberal’ in democracies. When it’s not, it’s used as a propaganda tool by totalitarian regimes. I don’t know of anywhere, where this isn’t the case.
ParticipantCAR, in a violent culture, people will arm themselves. That’s only natural, and I would do the same. But are we living in a violent culture? This is the US, which has major problems, but it is stable politically and economically. Some urban areas have horrific crime, but you have a choice where to live. Owning a gun is a palliative, not a cure. Is the only, or best way to defend yourself with a gun? Should we wait for the more complex socio-economic causes to be righted, before we start to deal with gun proliferation and the disproportionately high loss of life it causes.
I understand where you are coming from, and yes I have been threatened by criminals, been burgled while at home, been to South Central and witnessed a shooting, walked and driven through some dangerous parts of South Africa, worked in a fortress type environment in Moscow, been lifted off my feet by my lapels, was born into a gun owning family, but have never contemplated carrying or using a gun. I would not want to go through the revenge process that usually follows the shooting of a criminal, and I would not want to go through the judicial process with the possibility of manslaughter charges if the defense was strong, or the emotional strain that is inevitable. Instead, I would do what I could to defend myself, and take preventative measures rather than take my chances with a shoot out. That for me is the rational and logical course to take.
Now let me ask you a question. Have any of your children been killed in a Sandy Hook type incident? Forgive me, it’s a rhetorical question, but we all know the answer is not to arm schools that could explode into war zones. Less guns and not more guns will reduce gun violence. Something has to give. There has to be a starting point for that process to begin, and responsible citizens would inevitably lead by example. Why should it be the good guys? That is the sacrifice (of feeling exposed) for the betterment of society.
Part of the problem is the ingrained culture of fear that has been instilled into everyone which is to an extent illusory. It is the result of carefully targeted actions of organizations like the NRA, who is in the business of selling guns, and they are overly influential both in a political sense and with inculcating this cultural mindset. It has been spectacularly successful with the 2nd Amendment argument.
I’m not an idealist, but a realist. I don’t believe the problem of gun related deaths will go away completely. When you consider the impasses over more benign legislation, it’s a wonder anything gets done in Washington. But I do think it is possible to reduce gun violence. Who knows, may be even to tolerable levels, and a very tangible way to do that is by a reduction in gun ownership, whether legitimate of otherwise. I also believe there needs to be a process before that. People are not going to give up their guns unless they know why, and that boils down to education and research into causes. Once the problem is better understood, and explained scientifically with irrefutable evidence, half that battle is over.
Many of the underlying causes of gun crime have their roots in socio-economic problems. Terrorism shares similar characteristics. These are societal issues, often with centuries of evolution going into their making, and are therefore highly complex in their formation. We simply don’t understand these things well enough. Mental illness can produce violent behavior, and many causes of those illnesses are environmental, which again are complex and research is still in its infancy. There is an argument that while we don’t understand everything, we understand enough to make things better, but the political will seems to be absent, or political structures, by their nature incapable of acting efficiently. That of course begs the question of why, and I’m sure a lot of research delves into those issues.
So what are we left with? The easiest, most practical solutions with tangible results? Or a protracted continuation of the status quo, in the hope an act of God will produce a beacon if light, and lead the way? For every argument that seeks to find an obstacle to this process, another life is lost pointlessly. We live in a society, and it is therefore for society to seek solutions to our problems. Individual initiatives have their place, but should act within reasonable confines that do not put others at risk, or be deemed selfish. Self defense is not selfish, but denying a truth is.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Jazzman: I have no problem with lofty, and I understand the greater good, especially as it relates to a social/civic compact. Where it breaks down is in the practical application. There are an estimated 300 million guns in the US. How in the name of God do you see that number of weapons being seized, confiscated, etc?
Not trying to be intentionally difficult, but this would appear to be an insoluble problem.[/quote]
Yep, a major stumbling block, so would need to be done in phases over several years. Perhaps if all the guns are melted down you could build a high speed link rail from New York to LA.
Participant[quote=desmond]”Does the right to bear arms over-ride the right to live in a peaceful, and safe environment? If you answer in the affirmative, it may be that you either lack a sympathetic imagination, have sociopathic tendencies, or are ignorant by virtue of not having direct experience with the consequences”
Yes, yes, you are the Jazzman. Pathetic.[/quote]
I see there is an ignore user button. Bye!
ParticipantAlan, I hear you. You are “being penalized for the actions of others”, because you live in a society where many less socially responsible than you are forcing the issue? Society needs to act for the greater good. If the threat of violence is removed you don’t need to defend yourself, but if by defending yourself you form part of the chain of violence, you are stuck in a cycle. Something needs to give, and that means sacrifices, and those sacrifices sometimes need to be made by the people least likely to benefit directly. I know that all sounds very lofty, and easy to say, difficult to do, but standing from afar that’s what seems to make the most sense to me.
Participant[quote=desmond][quote=Jazzman][quote=desmond]What happened? Really now. You will never be able to scream and demand gun control (a la POS Morgan). All the belittling, emails, stats, celebrities, etc, are just a waste of time. And I think they just are feel good measures not to accomplish anything but look at me actions.[/quote]
I don’t believe this to be true in every instance. Piers Morgan stepped over the line as a foreigner telling the US how to run its country, but his reaction is a natural one coming from a country that does not have the same gun culture. Keeping the debate alive for as long as possible is tactical, not (just) theater. I personally laud anyone with the courage to ask the questions that so many are either fearful of asking, or don’t wish to become unpopular by asking, or worse, didn’t know they should ask.[/quote]
Laud all you want. The problem is what does somebody like PM actually know about guns? From what I hear from him-nothing. If needed changes are to be made, and they need to be, loud mouth know-it-alls need to change their approach, as I said above. btw, that is not “courage” and it demeans the real people with actual courage.[/quote]
What does someone like Morgan need to know other than guns are highly dangerous. However, I agree his initial outburst did not help, but he is keeping the debate alive and invites those with very opposite views to debate with him. But this is neither here nor there. The issue is not media personalities, it’s about making the US a safer place to live.
Michael Moore is more factual in his approach, but he’s made as many enemies. I believe these people have a genuine concern, not just for victims of gun violence, but for the frighteningly obdurate views, backed by special interests that don’t allow the debate to breath. It is sometimes difficult to equate, or reconcile a civilized society with the need to be having this debate at all. Does the right to bear arms over-ride the right to live in a peaceful, and safe environment? If you answer in the affirmative, it may be that you either lack a sympathetic imagination, have sociopathic tendencies, or are ignorant by virtue of not having direct experience with the consequences.
ParticipantI agree it is a symptom, and you need to look at the wider socio-economic aspect; demographics, employment rate, media violence and so on. There is a plentiful supply of potential contributing factors, but the more you wade into the minutiae, the further you remove yourself from resolving the problem. There is prima facie evidence in the form of a tangible object (guns) that would be much simpler to tackle, than a restructuring of a social order, and would likely yield quicker results.
I would favor a incremental gun control policy, backed up by research and education. Within a generation you would be able to enforce a complete ban on all guns, and reduce deaths dramatically. It should form part of a wider policy to eradicate the more indirect causes. It would be healthier for all.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Jazzman: Not asking this facetiously, but what questions do you feel still need to be asked?
There was a ban on assault weapons that included a reduction in magazine capacities to less than 10 rounds. Subsequent to the ban’s sunset, groups as diverse as the National Institute of Justice (NIJ, the research arm of the Department of Justice), the CDC and the National Research Council, all issued reports on the effectiveness of the ban. Nearly universally, it was held to not have worked, largely because those weapons deemed as “assault weapons” are infrequently used in gun murders. Also, reduced capacity magazines did not negatively impact gun murder rates, either.
There has also been similar reportage on universal background checks, which found that due to strawman purchases (47%) and theft (26%), the efficacy of such checks would be reduced. Implementing a universal background check that solely focused on minimizing strawman purchases was held to be of benefit, but hugely costly and cumbersome.
Coming so shortly on the heels of the Newtown strategy, the president’s push for gun control was political theater (especially with his pervasive use of either children or first responders at his various speaking venues), combined with opportunism. Obama is a skilled orator and campaigner and undoubtedly struck while the iron was hot. If anything demonstrates the sheer muscle of the NRA, it was this Senate vote.[/quote]
Isn’t the assault weapon ban argument related to the mass killings arena, and not the general debate on gun murders?
If background checks are hugely expensive, what are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? My understanding is these wars were fought to protect the American people.
I believe (maybe naively) the President actually wants to do something to prevent gun violence. The theatrics seem to be on both sides, but the pro-gun lobby is going for the Oscar.
As my post above points out, a major obstacle would appear to be that research into the whole gun issue was banned by law. Much of the debate therefore is vulnerable to bias, and you are never quite sure who to believe. To me, the overwhelming number of anti-gun reports align more readily with conventional wisdom. The pro-gun lobby seems to have been very active in presenting facts (or otherwise) that support their argument. I am hard pressed to take them seriously, especially since we know how much ($$$) is at stake.
Look, death is an unpleasant business, and if you don’t believe so, society has no place for you. Minimizing death is the calling, and the quickest, most effective start in that direction is reducing access to deadly weapons. I would be very suspicious of any ‘impartial’ research that would purport to prove otherwise. The other more complex causes such as socio-economic should be tackled, but will take longer.
It’s regrettable the issue has become politicized.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=Jazzman]
I care neither one way, nor the other, so am completely dispassionate and divorced from the event. From where I am standing, the pro-gun arguments are completely sterile in the face of a rationale profound in its simplicity. Attempts to derail the truth, with puerile, and hackneyed arguments, or demands for factual evidence that clearly needs no evidencing are as misguided as they are unhelpful. The world watches on in total bewilderment as brokers of fictitious nonsense ply their craft, in an episodic pantomime. The absurdity is so wearisome, most prefer to rise above the fray, in the (fairly) safe knowledge that time will allow the truth its moment of glory. The question is how do you wish your legacy to read? The world was flat?
FYI, violent crime statistics in the UK are distorted by a large number of kid-on-kid assaults over cell phones. This is just another example of an untruth being manipulated to serve an end. I’ve heard all these arguments over and over, and have read enough statistics and facts that have satisfied my own curiosity.[/quote]
What “ficticious nonsense”? With every anti-gun argument so far, it’s based entirely on emotional, hysterical nonsense. I have yet to see any facts or data to back up the pro-gun argument. If you don’t believe that facts and statistics have a place in this argument, that’s entirely your choice; but don’t think that it entitles you to push for legislation that would very negatively affect other people’s lives just because the anti-gun position makes you feel better.
I’ve made this point before, but will make it again: My mother and almost all of her friends lived through WWII in Austria, Germany, Poland, etc. They had to live through horrible atrocities because they were not able to defend themselves (against soldiers from all sides, since they were all guilty of committing crimes against the citizens there). Why? Because, in the early stages and prior to the war, Hitler and others decided that the people needed to be disarmed “for their own safety.” I do not trust any entity/government that thinks it should be able to overpower the masses, and I’m especially cynical when they claim it’s “for our safety.”
Additionally, for three years I had to deal with a stalker who had threatened to kidnap me and take me to Mexico to have his “Jesus babies.” I had never had relations of any kind with him, but he was convinced that I was his “wife” and even expressed his beliefs to the police. I slept with a gun under my pillow every single night, and that was the only thing that got me through that period of time. Under no circumstances do you or anyone else have the right to take away my ability to defend myself or my family.
If a person doesn’t like guns, don’t buy guns, but do NOT think you have the right to push your beliefs (which are based exclusively on “feelings,” and not facts or evidence) on others who strongly disagree with your “logic” and opinions.[/quote]
So what is the above if not an emotional response? I don’t see much in the way of factual evidence from you either. And as to my rights to express my opinion, that will be equal to yours, yes? However, I do respect your personal situation and understand how you felt threatened. The gun may have made you feel safer, but would you have used it? Would you have been prepared to face the consequences and emotional ordeal of taking a life? In respect of war time, your argument is weak.
I pulled up some interesting data that may be of interest. They are the least biased I could find, but add weight to the anti-gun debate. Crucially, much factual evidence needs to be considered in the light of the severe restrictions placed on research in this area, which has been outlawed (see below).
Direct quote:
The dubious distinction of having the most gun violence goes to Honduras, at 68.43 homicides by firearm per 100,000 people, even though it only has 6.2 firearms per 100 people. Other parts of South America and South Africa also rank highly, while the United States is somewhere near the mid-range. Still, America sees far more gun violence than countries in Europe, and Canada, India and Australia, which is perhaps how it gets its bloody reputation among comparatively peaceful nations.
While the United States has the highest level of gun ownership per capita in the world, its rate of gun homicides, about three per 100,000 people, is far lower than that of Honduras, the country with the world’s highest gun homicide rate (roughly 68 gun murders per 100,000 people).
But America’s homicide rate varies significantly by city and metro area…
The pattern is staggering. A number of U.S. cities have gun homicide rates in line with the most deadly nations in the world.
If it were a country, New Orleans (with a rate 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people) would rank second in the world.
Detroit’s gun homicide rate (35.9) is just a bit less than El Salvador (39.9).
Baltimore’s rate (29.7) is not too far off that of Guatemala (34.8).
Gun murder in Newark (25.4) and Miami (23.7) is comparable to Colombia (27.1).
Washington D.C. (19) has a higher rate of gun homicide than Brazil (18.1).
Atlanta’s rate (17.2) is about the same as South Africa (17).
Yes, it’s true we are comparing American cities to nations. But most of these countries here have relatively small populations, in many cases comparable to large U.S. metros.
The sad reality is that many American cities have rates of gun homicides comparable to the some of the most violent nations in the world.
With less than 5% of the world’s population, the United States is home to roughly 35-50 per cent of the world’s civilian-owned guns…
U.S. gun violence has had several decades-long cycles over the past three centuries, but shows a long-term downward trend. Overall homicide rates were similar to Western Europe until the 1850s, but since then violence has declined more slowly in the U.S.
It’s tempting to plot the relationship between gun ownership and gun violence across countries, but recent research suggests that gun violence is shaped by “socio-historical and cultural context,” which varies regionally, meaning that it’s not always possible to make direct comparisons. However, it’s still reasonable to compare places with similar histories, and more guns still correlate with more homicides in Western nations. Meanwhile, in developing countries, cities with more guns have more homicides.
We lack some of the most basic information we need to have a sensible gun policy debate, partially because researchers have been prevented by law from collecting it …the Centers for Disease Control, the main U.S. agency that tracks and studies American injuries and death, has been effectively prevented from studying gun violence, due to a law passed by Congress in 1996.
NRC report, and additional data up through 2006, and reaffirmed that there is no evidence that right-to-carry laws reduce crime. …other studies have suggested that reduced access to guns would result in less crime. These studies compared homicide rates with gun availability in various states and cities. The most comprehensive estimate is that a 10% reduction in U.S. households with guns would result in a 3% reduction in homicides.
Background checks are promising because a high fraction of future killers already have a criminal record. In one study in Illinois, 71% of those convicted of homicide had a previous arrest, and 42% had a prior felony conviction.
In 1968, Franklin Zimring examined cases of knife assaults versus gun assaults in Chicago. The gun attacks were five times more deadly. …many homicides are unplanned. The outcome depends, at least partially, on the weapon at hand. In that restricted sense, guns do kill people.
The U.S. has one of the highest rates of violent crime and homicide, per capita, of any developed country. According to 2008 figures compiled by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the U.S. homicide rate for 2010 is 5.1 per 100,000 people. Only Estonia’s is higher, at 6.3. The next most violent country is Finland, which has a homicide rate of 2.5, half that of the U.S. The remaining 28 developed countries are even lower, with an average of 1.1 homicides per 100,000 people.
End direct quote.
The biggy here is the research issue, or lack thereof. I believe there are moves to reverse that law.
I read another very interesting report that highlights the partisan distinctions. Democrat gun-ownership has seen a marked drop over recent years, compared to Republican gun-owners. It makes you wonder how different the post Sandy Hook gun-debate would be shaping under a Republican watch.
IMO, a major obstacle is the very large number of guns already in circulation, but all things being equal I don’t see that as insurmountable.
Another very salient point I hear often is raised by spokesmen for the police who are unhappy about putting their lives on the line when facing the large number of armed criminals. I feel the police should have some input here.
If the US can dispatch its armed forces on a revenge mission to kill terrorist at a cost of 4-6 trillion dollars, for the deaths of 3,000 people, then why can’t it divert some of those resources to reducing the 10,000 annual gun-related deaths on its home turf?
I believe the gun-debate is as complex or as simple as you wish to make it. The more politicized the more complex. The more simple the approach, the more effective the outcome.
Participant[quote=desmond]What happened? Really now. You will never be able to scream and demand gun control (a la POS Morgan). All the belittling, emails, stats, celebrities, etc, are just a waste of time. And I think they just are feel good measures not to accomplish anything but look at me actions.[/quote]
I don’t believe this to be true in every instance. Piers Morgan stepped over the line as a foreigner telling the US how to run its country, but his reaction is a natural one coming from a country that does not have the same gun culture. Keeping the debate alive for as long as possible is tactical, not (just) theater. I personally laud anyone with the courage to ask the questions that so many are either fearful of asking, or don’t wish to become unpopular by asking, or worse, didn’t know they should ask.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=Jazzman]The whole pro-gun argument is pretty vacuous. The overwhelming evidence suggests the higher the rate of gun ownership, and the more lax the gun control measures, the higher the rate of gun-related fatalities. It is so simple a child could understand it. However, common sense has been besmirched by visceral arguments, which emanate from an overly-possessive desire to allow the current status quo to prevail. With the waters so muddied, fallacy can masquerade as reason, and is stoked by prejudice and fear. It is the creation of a pluralistic society that has severed ties with competing interests by allowing corporate hegemony the unfair advantage to influence legislation. For sensible gun control to happen, the debate needs to be kept alive until the next (inevitable) Sandy Hook. Hopefully, the impetuous will compel constituents to pressure their representatives enough to shake-off the NRA’s grip.[/quote]
You’re referring specifically to “gun-related fatalities.” Those of us who support the Second Amendment couldn’t care less about how one decides to kill; we care that someone is willing and able to kill, irrespective of the tool(s) they chose to use in their crimes.
In the U.K., where they have some of the strictest anti-gun regulations, violent crime is off the charts. IMHO, we have the right (and duty!) to protect ourselves and our families. Nobody else’s emotionally-based feelings about guns should trump our rights to self-defense.
The legislation that’s been pushed would not have prevented Sandy Hook, nor the devastation caused by the scum in Boston. Gun registration does NOT prevent crimes, and background checks (which I would support if we could be sure that once someone is checked, their information would be permanently deleted) provide minimal protection against homicidal acts. Criminals can use stolen guns and background checks would do nothing to stop this.
Please provide *evidence* that gun bans and registration reduce homicides or violent crimes. From everything I’ve seen, cities/states with some of the strictest gun laws tend to have the highest crime/murder rates.[/quote]
I care neither one way, nor the other, so am completely dispassionate and divorced from the event. From where I am standing, the pro-gun arguments are completely sterile in the face of a rationale profound in its simplicity. Attempts to derail the truth, with puerile, and hackneyed arguments, or demands for factual evidence that clearly needs no evidencing are as misguided as they are unhelpful. The world watches on in total bewilderment as brokers of fictitious nonsense ply their craft, in an episodic pantomime. The absurdity is so wearisome, most prefer to rise above the fray, in the (fairly) safe knowledge that time will allow the truth its moment of glory. The question is how do you wish your legacy to read? The world was flat?
FYI, violent crime statistics in the UK are distorted by a large number of kid-on-kid assaults over cell phones. This is just another example of an untruth being manipulated to serve an end. I’ve heard all these arguments over and over, and have read enough statistics and facts that have satisfied my own curiosity.
ParticipantThe whole pro-gun argument is pretty vacuous. The overwhelming evidence suggests the higher the rate of gun ownership, and the more lax the gun control measures, the higher the rate of gun-related fatalities. It is so simple a child could understand it. However, common sense has been besmirched by visceral arguments, which emanate from an overly-possessive desire to allow the current status quo to prevail. With the waters so muddied, fallacy can masquerade as reason, and is stoked by prejudice and fear. It is the creation of a pluralistic society that has severed ties with competing interests by allowing corporate hegemony the unfair advantage to influence legislation. For sensible gun control to happen, the debate needs to be kept alive until the next (inevitable) Sandy Hook. Hopefully, the impetuous will compel constituents to pressure their representatives enough to shake-off the NRA’s grip.
Participant[quote=outtamojo][quote=Jazzman]
Lest you have forgotten the recent past, many have earned the right to be picky. I’m reading the reaction of other posters here, and the popular sentiment is not exactly upbeat. As a Realtor you ignore that at your peril[/quote]
I’d like to point out that the Piggington of today is not the same Piggington of 3,6, or 9 months ago – many post rarely some not at all, so
your sentiment barometer is not quite right.[/quote]Not sure I really understand the relevance.
ParticipantBG said: “The perils of the wanna-be Pigg buying crowd (yourself included in the first two categories, Jazzman :)) are threefold, in order of impact:
-waited too long to buy due to being overly picky
-perceived inventory shortages, leading to less ability to be picky
-interest rates could gradually rise, leading to even less ability to be picky, and even possibly being eventually shut out altogether”
Lest you have forgotten the recent past, many have earned the right to be picky. I’m reading the reaction of other posters here, and the popular sentiment is not exactly upbeat. As a Realtor you ignore that at your peril.
You are also guilty (again) of miscategorizing me. I bought a year ago, and invested in RE two years ago, just not in the over-priced markets. I bought well enough that I can now afford a second home. Inventory shortages were low, but nowhere as bad as they are now.
Less ability to be picky is just as likely to lead to more pickiness, which is far from being “shut out”. More like walking away, since home ownership is yet again proving to be a perilous and pointless exercise.
I don’t need to explain to you the potential impact of softening rents, on a housing market still in the throes of a crisis, as you know I know you know that.
If you are moving to the Bay area, and plan on buying a fixer good luck. You’ll need plenty of money. It must be nice not being picky about what you pay for something, or what it looks like, or who your neighbors are.
-
AuthorPosts
