Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 83

Thread: Diane Sawyer's Sensationalist Crap

  1. #1
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Diane Sawyer's Sensationalist Crap

    So anyone who was spent any time watching ABC this past week may have noticed the ads they've been running for a 20/20 special hosted by Diane Sawyer and called "If Only I Had A Gun", which aired at 10 tonight. A few friends and I decided to watch it since we were sitting around bullshitting with not much to do. Well, it turned out to be a bunch of irresponsible fear-mongering and BS (surprise!)

    The program got off to a rocky start when it had Diane Sawyer say that there are "over 250 million rifles, pistols, and assault weapons" in the United States. Oof. I guess "assault weapons" comprise their own class of firearms, distinct from categories such as "rifle" or "pistol". Obviously she said "rifles, pistols, and assault weapons" because it sounds scarier than "rifles and pistols". Which should surprise no-one, since as we all know, the very purpose of the term "assault weapon" is to sound scary rather than to actually mean anything. Of course the reality of the situation is that all so-called "assault weapons" are actually either rifles or pistols; they are rifles or pistols that happen to fit a certain set of criteria dreamed up by gun control advocates to separate firearms into meaningless categories for the purpose of getting them banned. Anyhow, on to the meat of the program:

    The first segment of the program addressed the question of how easy or difficult it is for a regular person to defend themselves with a handgun. Okay, a fair enough question. Unfortunately, their "investigation" of this issue consisted solely of this experiment: They went onto a college campus, picked a half-dozen ditzy college students with no firearms experience (but they did take pains to point out that one of the kids "liked action movies" and was an airsofter!), let them run through a few mags of Simunition at the police range, and then had them try to defend themselves in a simulated school shooting situation. I might also add that they had them all wearing long, baggy, untucked white t-shirts that they predictably got tangled up in when they tried to draw. It should also be mentioned that their opponent in this simulated scenario was a police officer with police weapons and tactics training. Unsurprisingly, none of the college students did very well. This was the ONLY treatment that the program gave to the question of whether self-defense with a firearm is a practical proposition for the ordinary person, and then they concluded with a sort of "Well, there you have it" attitude as if they had seriously addressed the issue and reached a meaningful conclusion. No mention of the fact that their scenario is not representative of the most common sort of self-defense situations; no mention of the fact that most CCP holders aren't giggling college sophomores with essentially zero firearms experience/practice (and essentially zero serious-mindedness about the prospect of self defense), and no mention of the fact that ~2,000,000 Americans do somehow manage to defend themselves with a firearm every year, and that the use of guns to defend against a criminal is therefore roughly fifteen times more common that the use of guns to commit a crime.

    The next segment of the program focused on a low-income, crime-ridden, predominantly African-American community where the people are afraid to go out at night because of the street gangs. It discussed the weapons that the gangsters have, and had some really heart-wrenching moments with young children talking about the people they knew who had been shot. The implication that guns are to blame for this community's problems was obvious. No mention was made of the complex set of interconnected social, cultural, economic, and educational problems that actually create crime-ridden communities such as the one featured. If you were paying attention, you would have been able to surmise from the statements of one of the gangsters that all the guns were obtained through entirely illegal channels (obviously these guys aren't going to be showing two forms of ID and filling out a form 4473 when they pick up their next murder weapon), but the voiceover never acknowledged this fact. Nor did it divulge that because of this fact, in conjunction with the number of guns already in criminal circulation, the gangsters' ability to purchase weapons would be totally unaffected by even the most all-inclusive gun ban.

    The next segment of the program focused on the problem of kids finding guns. It was basically a series of scenes showing how young children tend to play with guns if they find them in their house, and showing that kids are often able to find unsecured guns in the household even if the parents think the guns are well-hidden, and showing that even teenagers often display dangerous recklessness when handling guns that they find (especially if peer pressure is involved). Throughout the entire segment, no mention--not even the slightest or most indirect mention--of secure storage was ever made. "Gun safe", "gun locker", "secured", "locked up"... None of these phrases or words was used even once. It was honestly baffling. I would have been perfectly okay with it if they ended the segment with something like "And this is why it's important to keep your gun locked up securely if you do have one in the house", but there was nothing like that... just endless montages of toddlers peering innocently down the barrels of revolvers, calculated to be terrifying to any parent and create a mental link between "gun in the house" and "danger to your kids!". It also talked about an incident at a machine gun shoot where an 8-year-old boy lost control of an Uzi and managed to shoot himself in the head. Obviously tragic.... but if you let your 8-year-old kid drive a motorcycle and he crashes it, it's your fault for being a shitty parent, not the motorcycle's fault. I don't really see how fully automatic weapons are different. This father let his son handle a piece of potentially dangerous machinery that the kid was obviously not physically capable of controlling, and that should have only been handled by a capable adult. What does the tragic result have to do with the broader issue of gun control, gun rights, or the usefulness of guns (which is what this program was supposedly examining)? But, they brought it up anyhow, to add a bit more fuel to the fire I guess.

    The last segment of the program focused on the "gun show loophole". Hoo boy. It centered around a young man whose sister was killed in the VT massacre, and who had made it his personal crusade to spread awareness of the "gun show loophole" by going around to gun shows and seeing how many guns he could buy without being subjected to a background check. He proceeded to go to a Virginia gun show and walk out with a number of firearms that he had bought from non-FFL sellers. Unfortunately, the program utterly neglected to explain that he was able to buy these firearms not because there's some "gun show loophole" that voids background check requirements at gun shows, but because non-FFL sellers NEVER have to conduct background checks, whether or not they sell at gun shows. The guy could just as easily have bought those guns, without a background check, if his neighbor or friend was getting rid of them and offered to sell them to him. Or if he had followed up a "for sale" ad posted at his local range. The program reinforced the deceptive effect of this omission by showing clips of anti-gun protesters yelling about how gun shows are places where background checks aren't required. The ultimate effect was to create, for the viewers, the completely false impression that you ordinarily have to get a background check to buy a gun, UNLESS you go to a gun show, in which case all bets are off and you can just had over cash and walk out with the gun. I also had to wonder whether this guy realized that closure of the "gun show loophole" wouldn't have prevented the VT massacre and wouldn't have saved his sister's life, because the VT shooter bought his guns at an FFL gun store and passed background checks in order to do so. He even had to abide by the 1-month waiting period that VA law requires between handgun purchases. The reason the VT shooter was able to buy guns wasn't that he could somehow evade background checks by going to a gun show, it was that insufficient mental health reporting procedures allowed his history of mental illness to be kept out of the database that it should have been in. Gun shows and non-FFL background check requirements really have absolutely nothing to do with the VT massacre, but Diane Sawyer spent 10 minutes of her show creating the utterly false impression that closing the "gun show loophole" would have prevented that massacre.

    I wouldn't generally describe myself as a conservative, and I have to roll my eyes when people of any political affiliation complain about the media is biased in favor of the opposite political affiliation, but damn... this really made the phrase "liberal media bias" sound reasonable. In conclusion, Diane Sawyer is a lying bitch who shamelessly distorts the facts in order to make effective self-defense seem infeasible, to blame violent crime on the tools used by the criminals, to make people terrified to keep a gun in their home, and to demonize gun shows and blame them for tragic crimes that they had nothing to do with.

    /rant, I just had to get it out of my system.
    Last edited by Syme; 04-19-2009 at 09:41 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member smith357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Columbus Ohio
    Posts
    179
    Credits
    798
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I wish I could say I'm surprised, but the media has been using half truths and lies to push their anti-gun agenda for decades. 99.9% of the time when I see a "report on guns" I end up screaming at the talking heads on the idiot box.
    Green is the new Red.

  3. #3
    FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU Anonymous D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,625
    Credits
    2,706
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    I didnt get to see it, but Ive already heard about it. Word travels fast when it was a stupid as Ive heard it was.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nermy2k View Post
    roses are red,
    violets are blue,
    deathmaster numbers,
    i'm gonna rape you

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. E View Post
    I had a dream

  4. #4
    Senior Member crunker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    162
    Credits
    416
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Did you see the MSNBC special on Kids and Guns? That one was bad.

  5. #5
    Senior Member John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley, CO
    Posts
    67
    Credits
    532
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    The "conspiracies" section of my brain wonders if the spate of "mass killings" that seem to pop up every other day is really a statistically significant increase in the frequency of such events, or if the media is simply reporting more of them, longer, and with greater fanfare now that there's a possibility the government may do something to get more gun control enacted.

  6. #6
    FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU Anonymous D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,625
    Credits
    2,706
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    The "conspiracies" section of my brain wonders if the spate of "mass killings" that seem to pop up every other day is really a statistically significant increase in the frequency of such events, or if the media is simply reporting more of them, longer, and with greater fanfare now that there's a possibility the government may do something to get more gun control enacted.
    I wouldnt be surprised if its the latter.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nermy2k View Post
    roses are red,
    violets are blue,
    deathmaster numbers,
    i'm gonna rape you

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. E View Post
    I had a dream

  7. #7
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    The "conspiracies" section of my brain wonders if the spate of "mass killings" that seem to pop up every other day is really a statistically significant increase in the frequency of such events, or if the media is simply reporting more of them, longer, and with greater fanfare now that there's a possibility the government may do something to get more gun control enacted.
    Well, it's definitely a fact that mass killings of this type (massacres, shooting sprees, whatever you want to call them) only account for a small percentage of gun fatalities; the overwhelming majority of shooting deaths occur one at a time, in normal old-fashioned murders, gang shootings, burglaries/robberies gone wrong, and so forth. But of course "Crazed gunman kills sixteen people and himself" makes for a much more gripping news item than "Man kills other man in drug dispute" or "Homeowner shot by burglar" or "Jealous wife kills unfaithful husband" or whatever, so yeah, the media definitely does disproportionately over-report on the mass killings, creating the false impression that they represent a significant portion of gun crime. And the resulting public fears are definitely used to justify silly crap like "assault weapon bans", limits on magazine capacity, etc., because people don't realize how irrelevant that stuff is to 99% of gun crime. The reality of the situation is that if even if stricter gun controls could prevent these occasional shooting sprees (a dubious assumption to begin with), the effect would be that the annual murder rate would fall from ~17,000 people per year to something like ~16,960 people per year. Whoop-de-doo! Not that a few dozen human lives per year are insignificant, but in comparison to the overall murder rate in the US, it really shows you how much of a gap exists between the actual scale of the "shooting spree" problem and the degree of importance that many people assign to it in terms of crime-fighting priorities. Another triumph of fear, hysteria, and emotion over facts; thanks, US media.
    Last edited by Syme; 04-11-2009 at 05:45 PM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Nick2.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,016
    Credits
    1,684
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I don't really give a crap about it simply because of those who understand that segment is all bullshit and I know they are out there also being amazed at how false the whole thing is. If you are stupid enough to believe that shit, then I feel sorry for you being so fucking dumb.

  9. #9
    FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU Anonymous D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,625
    Credits
    2,706
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick2.1 View Post
    I don't really give a crap about it simply because of those who understand that segment is all bullshit and I know they are out there also being amazed at how false the whole thing is. If you are stupid enough to believe that shit, then I feel sorry for you being so fucking dumb.
    Only problem with that is that alot of the people in power beleive that crap too.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nermy2k View Post
    roses are red,
    violets are blue,
    deathmaster numbers,
    i'm gonna rape you

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. E View Post
    I had a dream

  10. #10
    Senior Member Nick2.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,016
    Credits
    1,684
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous D View Post
    Only problem with that is that alot of the people in power beleive that crap too.
    True, but it will never come to a point where we aren't given the right to protect ourselves with firearms. It would be an act of tyranny if it did ever happen and that shit probably wouldn't go through. There are a few states(not my queer ass state) that still express the 2nd amendment to it's fullest(maybe not so much, but do you really need mini-guns and RPGs?)

  11. #11
    FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU Anonymous D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,625
    Credits
    2,706
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    I wouldnt mind having a minigun.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nermy2k View Post
    roses are red,
    violets are blue,
    deathmaster numbers,
    i'm gonna rape you

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. E View Post
    I had a dream

  12. #12
    Senior Member Nick2.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,016
    Credits
    1,684
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I think everyone wouldn't. Maybe the ones on the wrong end, but meh.

    Whoever neg rep'd me for my opinion, way to be a woman instead of typing an argument.
    Last edited by Nick2.1; 04-12-2009 at 12:30 AM.

  13. #13
    =========== KT.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    9,110
    Credits
    3,797
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    wow this is really pathetic




  14. #14
    Band simonj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Thicket of Solitude
    Posts
    9,881
    Credits
    1,940
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I honestly don't see what's so surprising about all of this.

    The right-wing press have been doing extreme stories predicated on fear like this one for as long as there has been a right-wing press. They routinely distort facts and issues to prove their point and, more importantly, sell papers/get viewers.

    And then on the occasions that someone on the left dares to do the same kind of thing for an opposite viewpoint any hint of an actual discussion on the subject is drowned by the cries of "LIBERAL-BIAS!!! LIBERAL-PANSY-WUSS-ATHEIST-UNPATRIOTIC-MEDIA!!!!".

    Grow up. In this day and age news is based on fear. Whether it's coming from the right side or the left, they want you to be outraged and angry and, above all, afraid. If you haven't realised that yet then I urge you to not pay attention to the mainstream news sources at all.

  15. #15
    Band simonj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Thicket of Solitude
    Posts
    9,881
    Credits
    1,940
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    I guess "assault weapons" comprise their own class of firearms, distinct from categories such as "rifle" or "pistol".
    Well that's because it is. I'm pretty sure it refers to a separate type of weapon, such as your AKs and your M16s and your UZIs and stuff like that. Weapons whose prime function is to kill. Not ke a rifle for hunting or sport or a generic pistol for self-defence but weapons that exist solely to kill (whether that is how they are used is a separate matter altogether).

  16. #16
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simonj View Post
    I honestly don't see what's so surprising about all of this.

    The right-wing press have been doing extreme stories predicated on fear like this one for as long as there has been a right-wing press. They routinely distort facts and issues to prove their point and, more importantly, sell papers/get viewers.

    And then on the occasions that someone on the left dares to do the same kind of thing for ,an opposite viewpoint any hint of an actual discussion on the subject is drowned by the cries of "LIBERAL-BIAS!!! LIBERAL-PANSY-WUSS-ATHEIST-UNPATRIOTIC-MEDIA!!!!".

    Grow up. In this day and age news is based on fear. Whether it's coming from the right side or the left, they want you to be outraged and angry and, above all, afraid. If you haven't realised that yet then I urge you to not pay attention to the mainstream news sources at all.
    I never said I was surprised or shocked about any of this; just annoyed. And yeah, I'd agree that right-leaning news organizations are just as prone to fearmongering as left-leaning ones. And I'm perfectly aware that the modern commercial news media is governed by a business model based on running stories that get people angry or frightened; but why does that fact mean that people shouldn't express their displeasure, and discuss the issue, when they see coverage that they feel misrepresents an issue they care about?

    And I'm perfectly open to actual discussion of the topic; you should know that. I'm certainly not trying to quash discussion by yelling about liberal bias (and I'm an atheist myself). My rather lengthy OP was spent almost entirely on explaining why I thought the coverage was misleading; only at the very end did I mention "liberal bias", and then what I actually said was that I don't believe in a systemic liberal media bias but that I do see how programs like this lead people to believe in one.

    Quote Originally Posted by simonj View Post
    Well that's because it is. I'm pretty sure it refers to a separate type of weapon, such as your AKs and your M16s and your UZIs and stuff like that. Weapons whose prime function is to kill. Not ke a rifle for hunting or sport or a generic pistol for self-defence but weapons that exist solely to kill (whether that is how they are used is a separate matter altogether).
    This doesn't make sense for a couple of reasons, though.

    Firstly, I was saying that it's ridiculous to talk about "rifles and pistols and assault weapons", because all "assault weapons" ARE either rifles or pistols; they don't constitute a separate class of weapons distinct from rifles or pistols, no matter what their prime function is. Civilian AK clones and AR15 clones (what people often call "M16s") are rifles even if we accept that their prime function is to kill (more on that in a minute). A civilian version of an Uzi is either a rifle (albeit a pistol-caliber carbine) or a pistol, depending on whether it is fitted with a shoulder stock. So it simply doesn't make any sense to say "rifles and pistols and assault weapons". It's like saying "fruits and vegetables and apples".

    Secondly, it is nonsensical to draw a distinction between "weapons whose prime function is to kill" and weapons whose prime function isn't to kill, and then claim that the former group of weapons are "assault weapons" while the latter group is not. A hunting rifle's prime function is to kill. The prime function of a self-defense handgun is certainly to kill, or to threaten/exercise lethal force. Yet you apparently exclude both hunting rifles and self-defense handguns from your definition of "assault weapon". The fact is that if you sit down and systematically classify guns according to whether or not their "prime function" is to kill (presumably meaning they were designed primarily for a role that includes killing), the resultant division is not going to line up at all with the division between so-called "assault weapons" and other weapons. You will find that there will be plenty of non-"assault weapons" that fall into the group of weapons designed primarily for killing, and plenty of "assault weapons" that fall into the group that wasn't designed primarily for killing (because the gun-control advocate's definition of "assault weapon" actually includes lots of sporting rifles that happen to look mean).

    And what does it even mean for a weapon to "exist solely to kill?" Can you explain that characterization? I can understand how you might talk about a weapon's "prime function" being killing, if the weapon was designed for military use or self-defense or hunting (even then I think it's not a very good way to phrase it, but I at least know what it's supposed to mean). But I don't at all understand what it means for a weapon to "exist solely to kill".
    Last edited by Syme; 04-14-2009 at 07:02 PM.

  17. #17
    Senior Member crunker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    162
    Credits
    416
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    There is no federal or generally-accepted definition of "assault weapon".

    What's more, all three of those general firearm types you mentioned.. are verbotten for civilians. You can purchase "clones" of them; that is, firearms that are similar in APPEARANCE to the real, full-auto deal, but that's it. Unless you want to go the illegal route.

    I contend that the only person who decides what the primary function of any given weapon is is the one in control of it.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crunker View Post
    You can purchase "clones" of them; that is, firearms that are similar in APPEARANCE to the real, full-auto deal, but that's it.
    I assumed that was what he meant; semiauto AK clones/builds, semiauto ARs and clones, semiauto Uzi carbines, and so forth. Those still fall under the gun-control advocate's definition of "assault weapons".

  19. #19
    FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU Anonymous D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,625
    Credits
    2,706
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Lol. Pitting random untrained college kids against a trained professional. The guy shooting will more than likely NOT be a pro like him, and they will usually be just as nervous as you.

    On a side note, Id love to be able to find somewhere like that where I can take high stress training like that. It would be fun and good training.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nermy2k View Post
    roses are red,
    violets are blue,
    deathmaster numbers,
    i'm gonna rape you

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. E View Post
    I had a dream

  20. #20
    kiss my sweaty balls benzss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,455
    Credits
    43,783
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Heh, you guys don't live in the UK. Anytime I suggest the gun ban in 1998 was ineffective and took power away from the lawful citizen I get shouted down and am expected to explain how a gun is effective when someone comes up behind you with one. Then they yell 'QED!', ignore everything I say about freedom of self-defence then point to the Hungerford massacre and say 'well, that hasn't happened again has it?'

    Yeah, you guys don't have it that bad.

  21. #21
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benzss View Post
    Heh, you guys don't live in the UK. Anytime I suggest the gun ban in 1998 was ineffective and took power away from the lawful citizen I get shouted down and am expected to explain how a gun is effective when someone comes up behind you with one. Then they yell 'QED!', ignore everything I say about freedom of self-defence then point to the Hungerford massacre and say 'well, that hasn't happened again has it?'

    Yeah, you guys don't have it that bad.
    Oh yeah, I definitely agree that American anti-gun bullshit is nowhere near as awful as British anti-gun bullshit. You have my sympathies. Damn I'm glad I don't live in the UK.

  22. #22
    kiss my sweaty balls benzss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,455
    Credits
    43,783
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I wouldn't mind but for the complete lack of any statistical evidence, and any realistic political justification for blocking ownership and not letting the victim choose the manner of his self defence. It's not helped by the fact that most Brits who don't serve in the forces or don't live in the countryside are totally ignorant. Not their fault I guess, Britain never really had a gun culture to speak of, but it's hardly the point.

    Anyway I'm just ranting because I just got out of a very trying argument with a bunch of people who assume that if you own a gun, you're going to kill people with it. *grumble*

  23. #23
    Senior Member John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley, CO
    Posts
    67
    Credits
    532
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crunker View Post
    You can purchase "clones" of them; that is, firearms that are similar in APPEARANCE to the real, full-auto deal, but that's it. Unless you want to go the illegal route
    Well, from what I've been able to deduce from the trigger assembly of my semi-auto RPK, all it would take is grinding off a quarter-inch of metal to make it full-auto from a legally-purchased firearm. But then I don't think that would be the "legal route." (Though I really, really, really want to try it just to see if I'm right...)

  24. #24
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Just think, that quarter-inch of metal is all that stands between you and ten years of non-sensual sodomy in the federal penitentiary system!

  25. #25
    Senior Member John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley, CO
    Posts
    67
    Credits
    532
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    Just think, that quarter-inch of metal is all that stands between you and ten years of non-sensual sodomy in the federal penitentiary system!
    I know, it's a tough call, isn't it?

  26. #26
    Journeyman Cocksmith Mr. E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,835
    Credits
    1,454
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    Oh you plebeians and your firearms.

  27. #27
    Senior Member John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley, CO
    Posts
    67
    Credits
    532
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Shouldn't you be robbing a liquor store?

  28. #28
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Rich people like guns too.

  29. #29
    Journeyman Cocksmith Mr. E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,835
    Credits
    1,454
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    I never said they didn't.

  30. #30
    Strangle Hazard thank mr skeltal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The Abyss
    Posts
    5,324
    Credits
    7,572
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    In conclusion, Diane Sawyer is a lying bitch who shamelessly distorts the facts in order to make effective self-defense seem infeasible, to blame violent crime on the tools used by the criminals, to make people terrified to keep a gun in their home, and to demonize gun shows and blame them for tragic crimes that they had nothing to do with.
    Great write-up but really Diane Sawyer has nothing to do with this, it is the producers of the segment. She just is the reporter who gets paid to report whatever her producers put together. It's her job... it's wrong and not truthful, but she didn't come up with the idea for the segment I'm sure.

    +rep though for a good write up about it, I was hoping to have time to watch it but won't bother wasting my time any more.

  31. #31
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Okay, good point. Thanks for the rep though! I'm glad my writeup was informative. To be honest, I mostly wrote it for cathartic reasons.

  32. #32
    Strangle Hazard thank mr skeltal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The Abyss
    Posts
    5,324
    Credits
    7,572
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    Okay, good point. Thanks for the rep though! I'm glad my writeup was informative. To be honest, I mostly wrote it for cathartic reasons.
    100% of all opinion pieces are written for cathartic reasons, so no need to give full disclosure on that point

  33. #33
    Strangle Hazard thank mr skeltal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The Abyss
    Posts
    5,324
    Credits
    7,572
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    I thought the OP was so well-written I submitted it to Digg, if anyone wants to digg it up: http://digg.com/political_opinion/Di...Only_Had_A_Gun

  34. #34
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Yessssssssss, publicity

    I edited the OP to make a few things a bit clearer, such as explaining why it doesn't make any sense to say "rifles and pistols and assault weapons". Wouldn't want diggers to be confused.

  35. #35
    Senior Member John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley, CO
    Posts
    67
    Credits
    532
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Scarf View Post
    Great write-up but really Diane Sawyer has nothing to do with this, it is the producers of the segment. She just is the reporter who gets paid to report whatever her producers put together. It's her job... it's wrong and not truthful, but she didn't come up with the idea for the segment I'm sure.
    I'm not sure how accurate this is. My impression was that the reporters, especially the more senior ones (like, for example, Diane Sawyer) are able to exercise a great deal of control over the stories they air. I know this was a big to-do with Dan Blather during the Clinton-Lewinsky thing and, later, with the Bush-National Guard-forged memos thing. One of the reasons there was a lot of pressure to fire him was because (at least, for the Bush memos) he had the control over what stories got to air. I'm not saying this is always the case, or that it was the case in this particular story, but it's the impression I got from how Danny did things.

  36. #36
    cowabunga
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,424
    Credits
    2,319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    Secondly, it is nonsensical to draw a distinction between "weapons whose prime function is to kill" and weapons whose prime function isn't to kill, and then claim that the former group of weapons are "assault weapons" while the latter group is not.
    no

    a weapon that's legal to own and operate on a regular basis should be designed to do one of two things

    - defend yourself (imo in a humane way, but this is arguable and i'm not going to include it)
    - hunt game

    weapons that liberals dump in the "assault rifle" category consist of weapons designed for one thing

    - military/tactical use

    anybody who claims that an "assault rifle" should be used for self defense is kidding themselves. there's no fucking reason, you aren't scarface, you're not going to get run over by a squad of cubans. you don't need a gun capable of mowing down a lot of people in a very short timespan. a handgun is more than capable of defending both your house and your person if used properly.

    that being said, i think an outright ban on "assault rifles" is the wrong way of approaching the concern that the liberals have. something along the lines of stricter licensing and tighter control on that particular category would be more than ideal.

  37. #37
    Ambulatory Blender MrShrike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    438
    Credits
    325
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Just a couple of comments.

    1. I think most of us know what is meant by assault weapons. Although in the technical sense they may be classed as rifles amongst all kinds of other rifles, the average person is generally thinking of a single shot or semi-automatic long barrelled weapon, typically designed for hunting, when you say rifle. They are generally not thinking about fully automatic weapons designed for soldiers to kill large numbers of enemy soldiers with in a short space of time - i.e assault weapons. To claim that categorising them seperately is somehow deceptive requires that one deliberately ignores a clear distinction in category based on functionality and capability that separates the common (and hence the audience's actual) understanding of the terms pistol, rifle and assault weapon.

    2. After the admittedly convincing arguments to the effect that mass killings are really actually blips on the radar when it comes to actual homocides going on, I realise that the fact that the last mass killing I can recall in Australia was twelve (12) years ago is actually irrelevant. What I should remember is that the total murder rate is roughly identical in the U.S. and Australia....for all other kinds of homocides other than firearm homocide. But the firearm homocide rate alone is roughly 8.5 times higher in the U.S than Australia, meaning you're ultimately about 4.3 times more likely to be murdered in the U.S. than you are in Australia.

    Maybe those extra murders all take place in the worst part of the cities, but hey, I've lived in the worst parts of cities for a good 15 years when I was younger. To this day I've still never seen any person with a gun anywhere in any of the major cities of Australia who wasn't a police officer. The only times other than that I've ever seen guns in my life is the odd rifle ( the single shot type, not AK47s) on the farm, police officer's sidearms and at army bases.

    And maybe that's not very exciting and sure, guns are cool. I'm happy for you guys in the U.S. to feel safer having firearms, and I'd probably even feel safer myself if I were living in the U.S. if I was armed to protect myself under those circumstances, but give me a choice, personally I'll take our restricted access to guns over here and you guys can keep your 4 and a half times the murder rate.
    Last edited by MrShrike; 04-20-2009 at 11:24 AM.

  38. #38
    Band simonj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Thicket of Solitude
    Posts
    9,881
    Credits
    1,940
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Yeah, and let's face it, Australia is full of criminals so if you don't get murdered the most there then there's something going wrong...

  39. #39
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrShrike View Post
    Just a couple of comments.

    1. I think most of us know what is meant by assault weapons. Although in the technical sense they may be classed as rifles amongst all kinds of other rifles, the average person is generally thinking of a single shot or semi-automatic long barrelled weapon, typically designed for hunting, when you say rifle. They are generally not thinking about fully automatic weapons designed for soldiers to kill large numbers of enemy soldiers with in a short space of time - i.e assault weapons. To claim that categorising them seperately is somehow deceptive requires that one deliberately ignores a clear distinction in category based on functionality and capability that separates the common (and hence the audience's actual) understanding of the terms pistol, rifle and assault weapon.
    Not to bash, but you don't seem to realize what the term "assault weapons" really refers to. So-called "assault weapons" ARE semiautomatic rifles; they are NOT fully automatic weapons. Whenever gun control advocates talk about assault weapons in the US, this is what they mean. It is this sort of weapon (certain semiautomatic rifles and pistols) that was prohibited under the 1994-2004 "assault weapon ban", and are currently prohibited by the state AWBs of places like California, and would be prohibited again under new versions of the federal AWB that many gun control advocates want to instate. The term "assault weapons" definitely does not refer to "fully automatic weapons designed for soldiers to kill large numbers of enemy soldiers within a short space of time". The gun control advocates wouldn't be making such a big deal about "assault weapons" if that meant "fully automatic weapons", because fully automatic weapons are already extremely difficult to purchase and own in the US (they require a special registration process, notification of local police, etc., and are extremely expensive--the process is so rigorous, and ownership of such weapons so rare, that many people don't even realize it's legal to own one at all and believe they are totally banned).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

    Quote Originally Posted by MrShrike
    2. After the admittedly convincing arguments to the effect that mass killings are really actually blips on the radar when it comes to actual homocides going on, I realise that the fact that the last mass killing I can recall in Australia was twelve (12) years ago is actually irrelevant. What I should remember is that the total murder rate is roughly identical in the U.S. and Australia....for all other kinds of homocides other than firearm homocide. But the firearm homocide rate alone is roughly 8.5 times higher in the U.S than Australia, meaning you're ultimately about 4.3 times more likely to be murdered in the U.S. than you are in Australia.

    Maybe those extra murders all take place in the worst part of the cities, but hey, I've lived in the worst parts of cities for a good 15 years when I was younger. To this day I've still never seen any person with a gun anywhere in any of the major cities of Australia who wasn't a police officer. The only times other than that I've ever seen guns in my life is the odd rifle ( the single shot type, not AK47s) on the farm, police officer's sidearms and at army bases.

    And maybe that's not very exciting and sure, guns are cool. I'm happy for you guys in the U.S. to feel safer having firearms, and I'd probably even feel safer myself if I were living in the U.S. if I was armed to protect myself under those circumstances, but give me a choice, personally I'll take our restricted access to guns over here and you guys can keep your 4 and a half times the murder rate.
    That's fair... I just think it's important to bear in mind that given the particulars of the US situation, restricting access to guns in the same way that Australia has done would probably not reduce the murder rate or the crime rate in general. It would make it much harder for people to defend themselves, though.

    For the record, I live in the US (obviously) and have spent time living in several major US cities, and have never seen anyone other than a cop with a gun in those cities either. The availability of guns in the US doesn't mean everyone goes around with a pistol hanging off their hip like it's the Old West. Especially not in cities. You are more likely to see someone with a gun if you are out in a rural area, but even then, 99.9% of the time it's some guy with his deer rifle (not an AK47!) or shotgun in the gun rack on his pickup truck.

    Quote Originally Posted by faesce
    no

    a weapon that's legal to own and operate on a regular basis should be designed to do one of two things

    - defend yourself (imo in a humane way, but this is arguable and i'm not going to include it)
    - hunt game

    weapons that liberals dump in the "assault rifle" category consist of weapons designed for one thing

    - military/tactical use

    anybody who claims that an "assault rifle" should be used for self defense is kidding themselves. there's no fucking reason, you aren't scarface, you're not going to get run over by a squad of cubans. you don't need a gun capable of mowing down a lot of people in a very short timespan. a handgun is more than capable of defending both your house and your person if used properly.

    that being said, i think an outright ban on "assault rifles" is the wrong way of approaching the concern that the liberals have. something along the lines of stricter licensing and tighter control on that particular category would be more than ideal.
    I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said in the post you quoted, which was that it's absurd to claim (as simonj did) that an "assault weapon" is a "weapon designed solely to kill"; because there are weapons "designed solely to kill" (various military and self-defense weapons) that couldn't possibly be called "assault weapons, and there are also weapons that get labeled as "assault weapons" but were certainly NOT designed solely to kill (various sporting rifles that happen to have pistol grips rather than old-style rifle grips, for instance). Your definition of "assault weapon" (weapons designed for "military/tactical use") doesn't make any sense either. Are you saying that an "assault weapon" is any weapon whose design is of military origin? Is that the only criteria? I assume not, since that would mean that any military rifle, including old WW2 bolt-action surplus rifles and even older stuff (single-shot Trapdoor Springfield military rifles from the 1870s?) would be "assault weapons". So other than being of military origin, what criteria can be used to describe an "assault weapon"? Also it's worth noting that a lot of the weapons that are included under "assault weapon bans" were NOT designed for military/tactical usage.

    For the record, "assault weapons" (typically semiautomatic rifles) are definitely not "capable of mowing down a lot of people in a very short timespan"; you are probably thinking of machine guns or something like that. An "assauan alt weapon" fires one shot per pull of the trigger and is capable of hitting targets only as fast as you cim and fire accurately, just like any other semiautomatic rifle. And in fact, many so-called "assault weapons" make perfectly good home defense weapons. You say handguns are okay for home defense but "assault weapons" would only be useful if you're getting attacked by a mob of Cubans or whatever; why is a semiautomatic handgun with a 16-round magazine just fine for home defense, but a semiautomatic carbine with a 20-round magazine is total overkill that no one really needs? Does that extra four rounds in the magazine push it over the limit between "perfectly okay home defense weapon" and "killing machine that only Scarface needs"? Also, many "assault weapons" are pistol-caliber carbines that fire the same rounds as normal semiautomatic pistols; the only difference is that they sometimes have a somewhat larger magazine, and, more importantly, are easier to fire accurately and controllably while under stress (definitely a useful trait for a home defense weapon, I think we can agree). Why is this sort of weapon so wildly inappropriate for home defense? Why is it okay to have a 9mm pistol but not a 9mm carbine?

    Also for the record, the 5.56mm round (which is used by many semiautomatic rifles/carbines that fall into the "assault weapon" category) is pretty close to ideal for home defense usage. With the right ammunition, it's terminal effects (i.e. wounding ability, ability to stop an intruder) are better than any handgun round, yet because of it's ballistic behavior, it's actually LESS likely to penetrate interior walls (thus endangering other people in the house, etc.) than most handgun rounds. While a 9mm hollowpoint will punch through several thicknesses of drywall before stopping, many 5.56mm rounds will break up and basically disintegrate as they passes through the first thickness, and then not penetrate a second thickness.

    And the term "assault rifle" is totally inappropriate here. "Assault rifle" is a military term with a specific meaning and definition. An assault rifle is a military rifle with the following traits: It is chambered in an intermediate-powered cartridge, and it is selective-fire (i.e. capable of fully automatic fire in addition to single shots). The weapons we are talking about here are not "assault rifles". "Assault weapon" is the phrase you are looking for. The "assault weapon" is stupid and made-up and basically meaningless, but at least it's not a total misuse of a real term that has a real meaning.
    Last edited by Syme; 04-20-2009 at 04:07 PM.

  40. #40
    Journeyman Cocksmith Mr. E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,835
    Credits
    1,454
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    If guns are outlawed than only outlaws will have guns. That works for me. Let em go to jail if they can't be decent enough to not use a gun. Government regulated daily rentals for hunting, no personal ownership. Guns are unnecessary in civilian life and have never truly helped anyone who wasn't face-to-face with someone else who had a gun. Eliminate guns, eliminate the problem.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •