Operation Opportunism: Tragedies Being Used To Undermine Your Rights!

Just who is killing who in Chicago anyways?

Chicago police Superintendent Gary McCarthy believes most of the violent crime in the city is "absolutely" gang-related. He said the problem has a lot to do with drugs, guns and gang wars.

The city's largest gang is having an internal war. Chicago has the largest gang population in the country, with approximately 100,000 members who commit 75 to 80 percent of the city's homicides.

www.cbsnews.com...

There's a huge difference between gang related killings, because they're mostly criminals that wind up in the city morgues, and some nutbar like Holmes going all WoW on a bunch of innocent people wanting to see a movie.

At least, I hope y'all see the difference.

Why is the MSM in such a dither over Holmes (et al)? Easy. Holmes's victims were not criminals... they were ordinairy citizens caught in the act of what, I'd bet, 99% of us all enjoy... seeing a show, going to church, grabbing a burger at Mickey Dees.

Why doesn't anyone care about criminals whacking criminals? I don't know. I don't care, that's for sure.

Imagine CNN covering a drug dealer shot by another drug dealer who wanted his corner? I can't.

If an innocent bystander catches a bullet though, suddely it's news, isn't it?

It's all about those people that didn't deserve to die because they're just law abiding people caught in some psycho's wet work. It's about wanting to feel safe in what are considered safe areas. That's what the MSM is all upset about. When that's threatened, it's big news.

About guns, legal or otherwise, let me ask a simple question... for how long has America been manufacturing guns and, secondly, for how long have they actually been trying to keep records of who bought what piece when?

Was there something that Daniel Boone had to fill out before he got his first rifle? How about Jessie James? Dillon?

How many guns do you think are still out there that have been around for 50 years or far more and have never required certification?

I'd bet billions.

No way is legislation banning guns going to make a major difference. The underground arms dealers will make certain of that. I'd bet you could buy a loaded Saturday Night Special for $25 if you wanted to.

Originally posted by RealSpoke

Because no one cares about people in the ghetto, their lives are viewed as disposable. If shootings were going on in the suburbs like that it'd be a crisis and all over the MSM.

Sadly, that is the truth. It is no different on the Reservations and, frankly, the ghettos are nothing but the second wave of Reservations. The third wave is coming; it's just that few want to see it and most refuse to believe it.

To my mind, the question is: how do we SAFELY get the residents of the Reservations and the ghettos to hold their own accountable? How do we protect their safety, as well as the Second Amendment rights of the upstanding, of those who, through necessity, live in those areas but who are trapped by circumstances?

Wow. That's just a whole 'nother discussion, isn't it?

reply to post by masqua


So you're "qualifying" gun crime.

If it's innocent people in a theatre, a church, it's worth complaining about.
If a gun was legally purchased, then it's worth getting laws passed.
but
If it's drug dealers, then it's not important.
If the guns were illegally purchased, then it's not important.

You're posting supports the theme the media is portraying.

An incorrect focus on legitimate sales and subsequent crimes versus the rampant crimes commited by users of weapons obtained illegally.

There IS an agenda. There IS a concerted effort to disregard the majority of deaths due to gun violence in areas where there are strict gun control laws.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by masqua

 

So you're "qualifying" gun crime.

Yup. I guess I am. Toronto, with Canada's very strict gun laws, has gang members blowing each other away in crowded public areas. Somehow, I doubt that even tighter restrictions are going to change that anytime soon.

If it's innocent people in a theatre, a church, it's worth complaining about.

Yes. Because it makes people think twice about going to a movie or even church. That threatens the status quo and also hurts business, which is what the government and most of the population really cares about.

If a gun was legally purchased, then it's worth getting laws passed.

I disagree. Gun laws don't stop people getting killed by guns. I thought I made that fairly clear.

If it's drug dealers, then it's not important.

Not to the MSM, the government and 95% of the population.

If the guns were illegally purchased, then it's not important.

Of course it's important. But how is anyone going to stop it when there are literally millions of unregistered guns out there?

You're posting supports the theme the media is portraying.

Nope. I'm explaining why the media is all in a dither. Read my post again.

An incorrect focus on legitimate sales and subsequent crimes versus the rampant crimes commited by users of weapons obtained illegally.

In Canada, our Long Gun Registry cost a bundle, did nothing, and finally was dumped. What does that say about gun control?

It. doesn't. work... because illegal gun sales are too easy and always have been. The reason for increased gang killings is a tough economy and a profitable underground.

There IS an agenda. There IS a concerted effort to disregard the majority of deaths due to gun violence in areas where there are strict gun control laws.

The MSM agenda is to focus on indiscriminate killings at places like mall food courts, churches, movie theaters and McDonalds where the intent was lacking a motive.

reply to post by masqua

Let me just say first, that I am a gun owner, have a C&C permit, and am a strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment.

My point, when bringing up Chicago gun crimes, was to illuminate the hypocricy of the gun control movement.

Restrictions do nothing to stem the crimes that occur in Chicago.

Restrictions would have not prevented the crimes commited in Aurora either.
Sadly, if people want to commit harm, they'll find a way.

The current hysteria that is being propogated by the government and MSM though, can be outed and labeled as such. People just need to recognise the intent for what it is.

reply to post by beezzer


It's the lack of a motive (Holmes) that caused the initial furor. The Aurora shooter, at least, was a Nazi-loving thug who wanted to start a 'race war' like Manson.

In my personal opinion, certain medications which have become the standard prescription for 'troubled teens' is more half the reason why Holmes 'went off'.

The MSM is in the pockets of corporations and government. There is no 'fair and balanced' news anymore and if the status quo is threatened, the talking heads are going to be drooling all over their desks and eating their ties in excitement. More viewers! More fear! More gun sales!

Woot

Originally posted by masqua
reply to post by beezzer

 

In my personal opinion, certain medications which have become the standard prescription for 'troubled teens' is more half the reason why Holmes 'went off'.

Woot

THIS is something I've been waiting to see tabled!

The association of antidepressant use and self directed violence, such as suicide, is not new. The authors note that "Some regulators, such as the Canadian regulators, have also referred to risks of treatment-induced activation leading to both self-harm and harm to others" and the "United States labels for all antidepressants as of August 2004 note that 'anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, and mania have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for other indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric'".

Source

These medications, currently aren't even being prescribed solely for mental health issues - but for other indications including fibromyalgia and common pain.

About 10% of Americans — or 27 million people — were taking antidepressants in 2005, the last year for which data were available at the time the study was written. That's about twice the number in 1996, according to the study of nearly 50,000 children and adults in today's Archives of General Psychiatry. Yet the majority weren't being treated for depression. Half of those taking antidepressants used them for back pain, nerve pain, fatigue, sleep difficulties or other problems, the study says.

Source

That source is a bit old, in searching for corroboration I found the following:

One in 10 people over age 12 in the United States is taking an antidepressant, according to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which is conducted by the Center for Disease Control.

Source

Just now many people out there could be adversely affected by these meds, right this second, and having psychotic or violent thoughts is anybodies guess...

And that's just ONE class of commonly used "depression" drugs that doctors will prescribe, these days, to just about anyone who has a general complaint that no easy diagnosis pins quickly down.

~Heff

reply to post by beezzer

Why isn't the left weeping and gnashing their teeth about the gun violence in Chicago?

They are, that is why there was a gun ban in Chicago for years

reply to post by Hefficide


My field is in developmental neurobiology. I have argued long and hard for years about the usage of neurotrophic drugs and it's impact on the developing brain.

Perhaps we're seeing the results.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by beezzer

 

Why isn't the left weeping and gnashing their teeth about the gun violence in Chicago?

They are, that is why there was a gun ban in Chicago for years

Isn't that akin to treating obesity by banning forks?

reply to post by beezzer


But, of course, you'll not hear a peep about such things from the MSM, because it's not in the interests of their corporate handlers.

Originally posted by Hefficide

Some clues to what I am getting at from a few slightly older sources ( last month )

"Maybe it's time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country," New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a gun control advocate, said early Friday morning.

Now the odd thing is that it says this

Today's shooting tragedy in Colorado is likely to renew pressure on lawmakers to pass legislation to prevent attacks like this in the future. Yet recent history suggests serious gun control legislation as a result of the tragedy is unlikely: While the Columbine, Virginia Tech and Tuscon shootings prompted the now-familiar debates that have already begun in the wake of the Aurora attack, they did not lead to serious changes in gun control laws.

Directly after saying this

That's due in part to shifting public opinion: According to Gallup, the percentage of Americans who want gun laws to be stricter fell from 78 percent in 1990 to 62 percent in 1995. By 2007, it was down to 51 percent. And last year it was just 44 percent in Gallup polling. It's also tied to the strength of the NRA, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington; lawmakers that defy the NRA know they are making a powerful enemy that could spend millions of dollars to defeat them.

CBS News Source

Did you catch that? A call for gun control directly after a statement showing that public support for gun control is waning!?!

THIS is exactly what I am talking about. This is media creating opinion instead of reporting it, IMO.

Pavlov would shake his head if he was aware that his work was being used like this...

~Heff

A perfect example with which to reinforce your "Operation Opportunism" stance. Brilliant and bravo!

In addition to what you truthfully stated about 'creating opinion instead of reporting,' what happened there is an example of how those FEW who will take time away from their reality shows, Facebooking, texting and twittering, etc. to actually watch or read the "news" will respond to such "news" (spoon fed opinion) and that is this: the general public can be counted upon to remember ONE thing only and the media knows what ONE thing they will remember: it will be the last thing said/written. Virtually never anything but the last thing said/written. Conditioning, opportunism and abuse of power at its finest - "opinion" firmly implanted. If that is not a blatant agenda, then I do not know what would count as such.

I despise mainstream media but I will occasionally watch or read some of it just to observe what they are doing. The effect of what they are doing is most apparent (to me) in the comments contained under articles on "news" websites ~ one very popular one, in particular, and always on far left leaning sites and far right leaning sites. One can observe 'fights' wherein the participants truly believe they are fighting FOR something when it is abysmally apparent they are doing nothing but rewording and repeating that which was just fed to them.

The majority of the public believes their ideas are their own and never take the time to consider what their own thoughts really might be.

Pavlov, indeed.

Now, how do we change it?

reply to post by beezzer


That wasn't the point..now you are trying to deflect from an issue you were wrong about.

You claimed that the left did not make a big deal out of gun crime in Chicago...when they did. They put a gun ban on the city. This disproves that they are in no way being opportunistic.

Originally posted by masqua
reply to post by beezzer

 

But, of course, you'll not hear a peep about such things from the MSM, because it's not in the interests of their corporate handlers.

Sounds thread-worthy. I wonder if any investigation has been conducted concerning connections to shootings and early usage of ADD, ADHD drugs.
hmmmmm. . . . . . . . .

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by beezzer

 

That wasn't the point..now you are trying to deflect from an issue you were wrong about.

You claimed that the left did not make a big deal out of gun crime in Chicago...when they did. They put a gun ban on the city. This disproves that they are in no way being opportunistic.

My point is, did the gun ban do any good?

Were they trying to correct the problem, or serve a different agenda under the guise of correcting the problem.

reply to post by beezzer


I believe they were trying to solve a problem and it didn't work out. You can go outside of Chicago extremely easy, and bring guns back to the city.

serve a different agenda under the guise of correcting the problem.

I don't think so. There are a ton of people in the USA that want to ban guns who aren't serving any other agenda but curbing the gun death problem.

Another source of information - comparing homicide rates from the wild west - where just about everybody was armed vs more recent statistics.

Seems to me that there's not a whole lot of difference - other than there are a LOT more of us now than there were back then. The per capita numbers seem fairly equal to me.

A bit aberrant to the gun control argument I would think.

~Heff

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by beezzer

 

I believe they were trying to solve a problem and it didn't work out. You can go outside of Chicago extremely easy, and bring guns back to the city.

serve a different agenda under the guise of correcting the problem.

I don't think so. There are a ton of people in the USA that want to ban guns who aren't serving any other agenda but curbing the gun death problem.

edit on 14-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

But thats the point many are missing or deliberately ignoring.

Gun bans only work for those with no intent to breaking the law.

Gun bans are endorsed to curb the violence. Yet those (the majority of gun owners) don't commit violent acts. Gun bans are ignored and laughed at by those that use guns soley for violent, law-breaking acts.

There is a larger agenda at work. What agenda (other than gun violence) could be served by controlling/reducing/inhibiting gun ownership for those whom purchase them legally?

reply to post by beezzer


Nah, countries that ban guns have a much lower gun homicide rate. If you make something extremely hard to get then even most criminals will not have access to them.

What agenda (other than gun violence) could be served by controlling/reducing/inhibiting gun ownership for those whom purchase them legally?

I don't know, because we surely could not overpower the government if we wanted to with guns. The NRA has a much larger agenda, which is that of corporate gun profit. That is why there are no gun laws that will be passed anytime soon.

reply to post by RealSpoke


There is some truth in that but if you look at homicide rates worldwide you can find examples where this doesn't really jibe. You can also see that the United States is nowhere near the top of the list.

~Heff