Yesterday, the NY Times published an article about "a summer of mass shootings". In short, they tried to do what Life Magazine did to the Vietnam War.
Here's the thing: For awhile, the definition of "mass shooting" has been four dead victims, not counting the shooter(s). But, for the purposes of making their point, the Times redefined that to three dead victims.
So what we have, therefore is the old "how to tell damned lies with statistics."
My biggest gripe about the Times and the rest is that they tend to comport themselves as though the Bill of Rights only has one Amendment. You don't see them getting too outraged about all of the "sneak and peek" being done by the FBI and other agencies under the ill-named Patriot Act. There's no editorial campaign about the cops using civil forfeiture laws to seize the property of law-abiding Americans.
They're pretty much catapulting the propaganda.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
To a certain extent, they are playing a game the NRA started...and it’s immensely disappointing. There really isn’t a need to inflate the number to show we have an issue with guns, but it’s the twisting to make the issue the one you want versus the one that exists that is hypocritical. There are plenty of ways to argue things need to change with guns, but making shit up isn’t helpful, and actually undermines some of the good work on both sides of the debate (yea, there is good stuff on both sides, mainly out of the spotlight).
It’s kinda like the “assault weapon is defined as...” shit. Let’s be honest, 100 round magazines have no real sporting or hunting purpose...they jam, are heavy and are unreliable. 5 round magazines are dead reliable and light, but they don’t fill quite a few needs. The problem is too many are completely committed to one side or the other...and both side refuse to recognize that the other side has valid concerns and valid rights too.
As long as we treat this like a zero sum game, it’s gonna be a long and ugly fight, as the Comrade says, what’s in it for me?
So, CP: How many cartridges SHOULD a magazine hold before it is illegal?
Yes, I agree, I, personally, have nether a need nor a want for hundred round magazines for my rifles. But if someone wants one for fun, why should they not be allowed? How many is ok in your mind? 10? 15? 20? The fear is that once a number is mentioned and used as a limit, that the limit will then be lowered. It isn't an unreasonable fear, either. Once the camel;s nose is under the tent....
What "Valid" "rights" are the pro second amendment folks refusing to recognize? What "Valid" concerns are we failing to recognize?
The NYT is no longer a news organization. It is a propaganda machine disguised as a newspaper.
There is a season...when we listen to the young.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW3IQ-ke43w
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=parkland+survivor+speech
Their view of many of us older humans makes me uncomfortable. Why is that so? Is it the honesty maybe? Perhaps it's because so many of us are not listening and our indifference is deafening amplified by the power we grasp oh, so tightly to ourselves.
Never feel sorry for someone with an AR-15. - Da Romani
DA
CP88, it is a zero-sum game.
If I'm in a self-defense situation, why shouldn't I have a Glock 19 with 15+1 rounds or my beloved BHP, also with 15+1? Why must I be limited to ten-round magazines?
(I'll point out that the civilian cops are not bound by any restrictions.)
To my mind, that's like saying that because the NY Times printed classified material, that every newspaper in the country has to have their editions reviewed for security violations.
B., you didn’t even get the point. I never even said the 100 rounders should be made illegal, only that almost ever AR owner I work with thinks they are useless trinkets, owned by poseurs.
Comrade, it’s a zero sum game the way we are playing it now, and that’s the problem. Again I’m back to we need to figure out what the real issue is, and tackle that...by doing that we both protect rights and lives.
DA Romani, because I moved to a less-free state, I had to sell my AR-15 target rifle. I had never shot it at anything other than paper targets and yes, I shot some rifle matches with it. That griped me when I sold it and it gripes me to this day.
So I'd use my backup rifle, now, a M-1. By the calculation of Robert F. O'Rourke, it's a less-powerful .30-06.
Sometimes I hate the inability to edit here, but it makes sense. B., the right to live is one that many 2nd opponents believe is endangered by unfettered access to guns...note I say they believe, before you assume I do too.
Comerade Misfit. Thank you for making my point so succinctly.
It was the anti gunners that moved the posts not the Times...
That game played a few years back. Its up there with invented
gun names and oh what a mass shooting is.
The posers with 50 and 100 round mags are a nusance and clowningly
stupid. However the real limit is what the firearm was supplied
with usually 15 or 30. What ever the number the banners would
have us down to one bullet a month and under arrest if we have two.
My general feelings toward the gun control advocates is they are
liars but in the general sense and in the delibrate sense as well.
Its not that they know it as often they just repeat the spew.
I have a copy of their gun Violence Messaging Guide and it read
like Goebbels rules for propaganda.
Made up terms:
Remember its not crime committed while possessing or using a gun, it's gun crime.
Semiautomatic rifle is bullet hose.
Assault firearm is a rifle that looks military.
AR-15 sporter is a military rifle.
(we have yet to determine what military uses it!)
If we take out the handful of big cities that have the worst
rates for crimes committed with guns and then reflect that
the same ones make gun ownership impossible or nearly so
it should be clear the problem is not guns but criminals.
They also believe the police will help you and the courts have
said the police have no commitment to protect.
I don't buy the lies.
Eck!
Let’s keep letting fools and maniacs have access to firearms that are only useful in battlefield conditions because it’s the Amurikan Way.
I generally try to stay out of arguments where I agree with the arguer on most things, but not on the topic at hand. However, this got to me:
"If I'm in a self-defense situation, why shouldn't I have a Glock 19 with 15+1 rounds or my beloved BHP, also with 15+1? Why must I be limited to ten-round magazines? "
Now really, Comrade Misfit, in real life, where and under what circumstances to you really think you'll need a Glock with 15 rounds in it to survive? Or got that matter, even 10 rounds?
Yours crankily,
The New York Crank
NYC, I'd direct you to shootings by your own city's police force who took 80 shots to tag a burglar in the leg or the time they shot a guy two dozen times without killing him.
The media always seek mass sniper motives.
Why? It's not like running amok and attempting mass slaughter are new, that's been around forever.
Going berserk, banzai charge, pograms, truck bombs, going postal. It's why we have so many terms for it. People do go ferel and deadly.
Demons? Voices in their head? They was always bad seed-born to kill?
Dimensional cross rip with soul eating alians? We don't know. We'll never know the mind of evil.
And motives don't matter after the deed anyway, nilalism making the guilty one self snuff it most times. No trial.
Modern day mass sniping is just a lot more efficient than using a sword or ax.
Look at availability, not motive.
His motive was "I want to die and takes lots with me."
Why are there so many kids getting into politics?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQr1SqB0jEo
Folks at the NY Times don't even care about all of the 1st Amendment anymore. Free speech is mean, and freedom of Religion is OK as long as you aren't allowed to act on your beliefs.
Most people don't know what the 3rd says, including the Times.
4 is dead, thanks to the War on (Some) Drugs. And Echelon. And the Patriot Act (so called) and all the rest. (And the tech companies finding new and interesting ways to spy on everyone isn't helping either.
5 is only for the guilty.
Out of 6, 7 and 8 maybe the subject of "cruel and unusual" might be brought up. And even the lawyers don't like to talk about 9 and 10.
New York Crank. The last time I was a victim of a violent crime, I was attacked by 4 miscreants. It was in a municipality where I was disarmed for my own benefit.
So. How many bullets do you think I would need to deal with 4 people? Or in other words... How many times can I miss?
Oh, and can you absolutely, positively guarantee what is the maximum number of people I will face should I ever find myself in a similar situation?
I don’t have any facts to back this next part up, I apologize afore hand. My neighbor is a police officer and recently made detective here in Westland. He and I were talking about self defense situations. He told me that on the police force, they are trained that most altercations occur within 6 feet of the officer. The assailant can cover that six feet in about one second. The officer, in that one second, has to 1) recognize a threat is happening, 2) unholster the weapon (if wasn’t already drawn), and 3) raise and fire the weapon. And all this without being able to use the iron sights.
Now my thoughts on this are that if these guys train for this, and Joe Citizen goes out once a week (I’ll even give you twice a week), plinking paper targets form 25 feet or more taking careful aim without any adrenaline pumping through their veins; Does anyone seriously think they can take on an single assailant from 6 feet away? How about adding even more targets? Does anyone think that having 10, 20, 30, 100 rounds would make a difference?
I think the best defense is to not put oneself in a situation that calls for use of the weapon. I have my CPL for self protection, yes. But if I can foresee a situation that may develop, I think my first course of action would be to try to extricate myself. My firearm is a last line of defense, not the first option.
I don’t agree with the NRAs stance that one good guy with a gun can cancel out one bad guy. Others may disagree, but I think too many folks feel that they can be invincible with a gun, something that is promoted often on television and in movies. Kind of like that video games de-sensitize violence among teenagers. Some folks think they’re James Bond, crack shot, saving the day.
I don’t have the answers, but some type of discussion has to occur if we are to attempt a solution to the gun violence in the country.
My 2 cents
Dale
A few years back, a guy in my sister's neighborhood was approached by three guys who spoke of a desire for a charitable contribution of everything the man had, a request they backed up by displaying guns. The intended donor instead gave a donation of copper and lead, dropping two of the robbers. The third took flight.
Several years ago on a morning walk, I had two large dogs approach me in a threatening manner. I was able to face them down, but my 5-shot revolver was clearly inadequate. I changed to a 16-shot 9mm.
Late response, but I've been afk:
Dale, I have read that scenario before. It is shit, and conclusions made from shit- well, ....
Do assailants randomly, in a split second, go from innocuous to full attack? No.
Most altercations happen within 6 feet? No kidding! What altercations happen from across the street? Verbal ones? Jeez. But- officers (and other people) get some warning because there is almost always something to trigger heightened awareness. Most of the time, suspicious folk end up doing nothing, maybe or maybe not because you turn your head and let them know you are aware.
And being trained ABOUT a scenario is not the same as training FOR that scenario. And you may have an inflated opinion of how much firearm training most poloce get.
Putting oneself in a position- no. It is the assailant putting you in that position. Try to extricate yourself if possible (duty to retreat) but a fallback is preferred.
And we are having a discussion. It is one side wanting to forbid firearm ownership and ignoring opposing arguments.
Post a Comment