|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/17/2008 7:35:31 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SteveSund The fact that some of his data is correct is overshadowed by his lies.
That's pretty harsh language. I don't know if he is a liar or simply a revisionist. But my main concern is the 14% statistic: Bellesile is either correct about this, or he is not. I don't know what his sources were for this info.
quote:
Where? With the exception of some pro-gun groups, I have seen little from the MSM that isn't "guns are evil."
What are your sources? Mine are mainstream television, radio, newspapers, and the internet. I try not to pigeonhole my sources by political bias (what happened to the days when the news was simply the news?), yet I have found more criticism against D.C.'s gun ban than support for it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/17/2008 8:01:52 PM
|
|
|
cog41
Posts: 569
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: tejas
Status: offline
|
I do believe gunowners will win.
But the left won't rest.
_____________________________
Psalm 122:6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: "May they prosper who love you."
Hook'em Horns! Roll Tide!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/17/2008 9:41:54 PM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 1364
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
An article by one of the fact checkers 3 or 4 years ago discredited any statistics Mr B came up with. The sources had either been destroyed by flood or fire according to him. All too convenient. The fact checker also found some sources may never have existed.
_____________________________
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.
Hosea Project Care Net
Google
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/17/2008 10:26:49 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
An article by one of the fact checkers 3 or 4 years ago discredited any statistics Mr B came up with. The sources had either been destroyed by flood or fire according to him. All too convenient. The fact checker also found some sources may never have existed.
Then I guess that it is safe to surmise that Bellesile should not be considered a highly credible source, and I would think twice about refering to him again.
Still, it makes sense to me if guns were, in fact, far less prolific before the days of assembly line manufacture, even if Mr. Bellesile's stats are not completely acurrate. Also, can you imagine how the Civil War must have impacted the proliferation and availability of guns in America?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/18/2008 9:46:03 PM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 745
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
What are your sources? Mine are mainstream television, radio, newspapers, and the internet. I try not to pigeonhole my sources by political bias (what happened to the days when the news was simply the news?), yet I have found more criticism against D.C.'s gun ban than support for it.
I have nothing recent. John Lott has published several books on media bias against guns. Most gun coverage tends to favor stories about murders and other criminal acts. There is little coverage on lawful uses, such as hunting, target shooting, or self-defense. This includes media outlets that do stories on leisure activities and 'human interst' stories. The MSM also likes to use words such as "assault weapon," "high powered rifle," and my favorite from the 80's and 90's...."cop killer" bullets. In most cases, the terms used are just plain stupid.
quote:
That's pretty harsh language. I don't know if he is a liar or simply a revisionist.
Manufacturing evidence=lying, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/19/2008 10:07:20 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SteveSund
I have nothing recent. John Lott has published several books on media bias against guns. Most gun coverage tends to favor stories about murders and other criminal acts. There is little coverage on lawful uses, such as hunting, target shooting, or self-defense. This includes media outlets that do stories on leisure activities and 'human interst' stories. The MSM also likes to use words such as "assault weapon," "high powered rifle," and my favorite from the 80's and 90's...."cop killer" bullets. In most cases, the terms used are just plain stupid.
I know full well that there is an anti-gun lobby out there, and they do have a voice: the Brady bunch are a clear example of this (and I don't admire them, btw). But I do not see media bias playing in their favor; to the contrary, it is the NRA and their ilk that seems to speak louder in the media, and definitely in Congress (funny how that works).
quote:
Manufacturing evidence=lying, IMO.
You don't know that Bellesile "manufactured" the 14% statistic anymore than I know that he didn't.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/20/2008 1:38:47 PM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 745
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
I know full well that there is an anti-gun lobby out there, and they do have a voice: the Brady bunch are a clear example of this (and I don't admire them, btw). But I do not see media bias playing in their favor; to the contrary, it is the NRA and their ilk that seems to speak louder in the media, and definitely in Congress (funny how that works).
I have two friends that work in lobbying firms. I have asked in the past and they both agree that the NRA-ILA is not one of the lobbying groups that they consider to be even moderately powerful. Occasionally, they flex some muscle, but the 'anti' groups have some very powerful allies, such as Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Dianne Feinstein, and Hillary Clinton, just to mention a few.
quote:
Manufacturing evidence=lying, IMO.
You don't know that Bellesile "manufactured" the 14% statistic anymore than I know that he didn't.
The independent panel that was empowered to look into his work following the accusations that his award was not deserved said that there was substantial evidence that he fabricated some of his findings. I won't say that it is beyond a reasonable doubt he lied, but I would say it was better than 60%.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/20/2008 5:05:09 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SteveSund
I have two friends that work in lobbying firms. I have asked in the past and they both agree that the NRA-ILA is not one of the lobbying groups that they consider to be even moderately powerful.
I think that they are chiefly responsible for the defeat of several gun control measures in Congress. They wield more clout than your friends give them credit for.
quote:
Occasionally, they flex some muscle, but the 'anti' groups have some very powerful allies, such as Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Dianne Feinstein, and Hillary Clinton, just to mention a few.
Sure they do. But they are continuously frustrated at their apparent inability to get stronger gun legislation enacted.
And Hillary recently shot her own anti-gun reputation in the rear end (I wanted to say "face," but that honor is reserved for one man alone).
All the same, my point remains that in the media I see far more criticism against the D.C. gun ban than I see support for it. I guess I have selective attention?
quote:
The independent panel that was empowered to look into his work following the accusations that his award was not deserved said that there was substantial evidence that he fabricated some of his findings.
But this doesn't indicate which findings were fabricated. The 14% figure could still be true for all we know.
quote:
I won't say that it is beyond a reasonable doubt he lied, but I would say it was better than 60%.
I'd say that he appears to be a history revisionist: one who contorts the facts to fit one's agenda, often stretching credibility to the breaking point.
U.S. schools have revised American history like this ever since 1876, but that's another topic . . .
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 4/20/2008 5:13:25 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/20/2008 9:02:15 PM
|
|
|
Nuclear
Posts: 4
Joined: 4/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
quote:
ORIGINAL: SteveSund
an individual right to bear arms.
I'll exercise my individual right not to bear arms. You can have your guns but I want them registered so when they get stolen or misplaced and a criminal gets ahold of them there is some sort of traceability.
Our cars are registered and no one whines about that but try to make someone register their precious little gun and you have a bunch of crybabies shouting "2nd Amendment". What does a Christian person need a gun for anyway (unless they are in law enforcement or the armed forces)?
Hi, The only issue I'd have registering firearms is that one reason the founding fathers gave us that right is to keep the gov't in line. If the gov't were to abuse it's power, we could take back the gov't. God willing we'd never have to overthrow the gov't as it would be a tragedy to have to fight fellow Americans...i.e. the Civil War saw some 600,000 deaths!. But when you just overthrew the King and declared yourselves free, this seems plausable. My fear of having the gov't know I have a gun is that they would know where it was if they decided to take it. No one knows what I have for firearms nor where I keep them.
What I use it for is target practice, hunting, and home defense(should the need ever arise, God forbid....)
I WOULD support WHOLEHEARTEDLY that those who wish to buy one show evidence of taking a training course...like a Firearm safety course or something....someone who doesn't know how to use it nor have the calmness with it to use it safely has no business with one....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/21/2008 9:46:05 AM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 745
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
I think that they are chiefly responsible for the defeat of several gun control measures in Congress. They wield more clout than your friends give them credit for.
I am only reporting their opinions. They have both worked in the lobbying field for over 10 years.
quote:
Sure they do. But they are continuously frustrated at their apparent inability to get stronger gun legislation enacted.
They still have plenty of success. The expiration of the AWB is the only major success. I consider manufacturer immunity a moderate success. On the state level, there has been movement in the area of concealed carry, but there are still a myriad of complicated restrictions. There have also been some huge failures. CA banned .50's and passed a bill that requires semi auto handguns be microstamped. Some states have their own version of the AWB.
Do you own any guns? While it could be worse, I'd say that it is a far cry from what it was and what it should be. I teach a class for people that want to qualify for a concealed carry permit. The legal portion is by far the longest and it only scratches the surface. I could easily spend an entire day on looking at how gun laws impact gun owners.
quote:
All the same, my point remains that in the media I see far more criticism against the D.C. gun ban than I see support for it. I guess I have selective attention?
I don't hear anything on the DC gun ban anymore, but I still contend that the vast majority of gun stories in most news reports deal with criminals using guns.
quote:
I'd say that he appears to be a history revisionist: one who contorts the facts to fit one's agenda, often stretching credibility to the breaking point.
U.S. schools have revised American history like this ever since 1876, but that's another topic . . .
Your choice. I certainly am not saying all of his facts are bad, but enough that I would be hesitant in citing him if I were writing a paper or making a persuasive argument.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/21/2008 10:33:07 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SteveSund
Some states have their own version of the AWB.
And states have that right. Like I said before, the 2nd Amendment safeguards against gun infringement on the states by Congress, but not by the states themselves.
quote:
Do you own any guns?
No. However, I do value my right to change that situation if I so desire.
quote:
I could easily spend an entire day on looking at how gun laws impact gun owners.
That is the problem with gun legislation: it not only preaches to the choir, but it does background checks on them, too.
But what's the alternative to addressing guns and crime?: throw our hands in the air and mutter c'est la vie?
quote:
I don't hear anything on the DC gun ban anymore, but I still contend that the vast majority of gun stories in most news reports deal with criminals using guns.
If you want to broaden the scope of our discussion to guns in the media, that's a whole other issue. I was speaking specifically about the D.C. case.
And you're right-- not much is being reported at the moment.
quote:
Your choice. I certainly am not saying all of his facts are bad, but enough that I would be hesitant in citing him if I were writing a paper or making a persuasive argument.
Yes, and I will think twice before using him as a reference again.
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 4/21/2008 11:57:51 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/21/2008 1:02:16 PM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 745
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
And states have that right. Like I said before, the 2nd Amendment safeguards against gun infringement on the states by Congress, but not by the states themselves.
Unless that specific state has a provision in their own Constitution that would prohibit infringement.
quote:
But what's the alternative to addressing guns and crime?: throw our hands in the air and mutter c'est la vie?
The alternative is finding laws that are Constitutional (both state and federal) and that have evidence that they work. We should also fund programs that do lead to lower crime (such as Head Start) and defund programs that do not (D.A.R.E.). Instead, we have feel-good laws that do nothing except allow those in gov't to look like they care and are doing something.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/21/2008 2:58:19 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SteveSund
Unless that specific state has a provision in their own Constitution that would prohibit infringement.
Correct. However, I was refering to the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only.
quote:
The alternative is finding laws that are Constitutional (both state and federal) and that have evidence that they work.
The only way to gather evidence, i.e. data, is to implement some legislation and see how it goes.
quote:
We should also fund programs that do lead to lower crime (such as Head Start) and defund programs that do not (D.A.R.E.).
Headstart, yes. However, I'm not favorably impressed by D.A.R.E.
quote:
Instead, we have feel-good laws that do nothing except allow those in gov't to look like they care and are doing something.
This is true about a good many things such as the "wars" on drugs and terrorism. Politics sometimes flies like that.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
