An Open Letter to Lovers of the Gun

reply to post by Galvatron


You might be right, decline of aging population might be a factor, or people just got sick of lies.

Reason I watch daily show - true - they do show it with comedy in mind, but they bash both sides, president and democrats over fail of web site, republicans over many things as well, but at least they bring quick overwview of news, something that I just could not find anywhere else. Debate between Jon Steward and Bill O'Reilly at last presidential election was well done. Come on, where else would someone ask Hannity to stay in NY? Will post answer to previous post later.




reply to post by butcherguy

Fail argument is fail argument, and from videos posted above you could see why. Compare something made just to kill people with tools, cars, airplanes, bubble gum, condoms... radicalization mostly made by NRA followers does not very well to explain why we have for example 41 times more murders per 100,000 people than for example England. If you have nothing smart to bring to discussion, please stop trolling.






reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Stewart's news is no fake news. You clearly have no idea what that even means. It is sad that his show on comedy central is actually best news source on TV. I do understand why you can't stand it, those 2 videos best shows why.

There is actually not much to comment on your post, sadly.




reply to post by thesaneone

Said someone who apparently has not read rule about replying to discussion nor has nothing to add to it... really? Who is troll here?

Galvatron
I used to like Jon Stewart. What happened was that I realized that despite presenting very important news stories, he trivializes every serious thing he brings up through comedy. If it were a serious program that didn't have the intent on making the audience laugh, then I would like the show very much. He himself has stated in no uncertain terms that his show is a comedy show.

Mostly reason why I really like Jon's show is that he points when other news channels are wrong and inconstant in their message. Simplest example is Hannity segment from last night - when in Texas they said that if someone does not like 'rule' should leave state - no big deal, but once the same is said from NY - huge deal. Of course, Fox can't be called news channel - rather Republican party media outlet.

GalvatronSo what does this do? It blunts the seriousness of the situation fairly effectively. Instead of getting people perturbed enough to actually act, they get a laugh out of it and the effect is reduced, even if in some cases only somewhat. The whole nature of that program is subversive. It disempowers people.

On contrary, I find it hard to watch all news channel to see all what's going around, where Daily Show takes care of filtering news. Sure, would be nice to have something like that, more serious, but I doubt we will see any independent channel any time soon.

Galvatron
It goes something like this:
1. Present news stories fairly unbiasedly with a hint of comedy.
2. Get the audience's trust by having a notable lack of spin in the content. (The Daily Show is one of the most trusted news sources on television).
3. The audience is now used to having very serious news without spin as a source of comedic relief in their lives when in fact many of the stories should have people assembling and making good on their position as citizen.

I am firmly convinced that The Daily Show is a piece of controlled opposition of sorts. Jon Stewart Liebowitz is a pusher of apathy. I used to really enjoy that program. But it trivializes some of the most important news and issues with laughter. I think it's an incredible disservice to the audience.

In that video, notice how serious the news is that he presents then finishes by making the audience laugh. He also doesn't address the major driver of gun crime, and that is violent crime and the situations that cause violent crime.

I think the current state of mess is the mark of both parties. Based on your writings I would bet you are a democrat, or at least vote that way. Understand this now, voting for a democrat is the same as voting for a republican. Neither party has the interests of the people or the country at its heart. It is the party and their monetary backers.

I am NOT a republican and I am NOT a democrat. Both parties disgust me.


Wanna see real news? NHK. www3.nhk.or.jp...

You will not find one adjective, averb, or aggrandizement, embellishment, or anything else that presents the news other than what actually happened. Good or bad, its up to the reader to suss the truth out, rather than having your hand held and being told what to feel about a particular piece of news.

The moment you stop reading news that has strong undertones of opinion is the moment you'll start thinking critically as to what the situation is really about.

Unfortunately, current rhythm of life is so bad, that I can only watch for example DS online, while working on 2-3 things at the same time. Another source of news for me is NPR - on the way to work and back.

I have to say that I do support many parts of agenda of democratic party, but I am just very happy at many important issues being used as leverage for something trivial or imho less important.

I still think that Robin Williams idea in his standup - that all politician should wear donor's logos (as NASCAR racer) would greatly help. Ohhh, you voted for gun rights, and NRA is your biggest donor - no wonder... etc...

At least I am trying to get some news... nice talking to you.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I am not, nor ever have, been speaking about cities. My point is only that homes with firearms are statistcally more likely to suffer gun violence.

reply to post by SuperFrog


Except i love jon stewart.

he covers real news, but he does so sarcastically. it isn't news, its oped. while i may typically agree with the bias he has, there is a definite bias.

Another member mentioned how one should get news: multiple sources to verify against each other.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Terribly off topic post.....

This evening on ATS remix (I think - so many names) a couple of people mentioned that when they were young gun control was an issue. It reminded me of Ronald Reagan and his reaction to law abiding Black Panthers carrying fireams to the statehouse.

Winkler goes on to say, "Malcolm X and the Panthers described their right to use guns in self-defense in constitutional terms." Guns became central to the Panthers' identity, as they taught their early recruits that "the gun is the only thing that will free us -- gain us our liberation."

The Panthers responded to racial violence by patrolling black neighborhoods brandishing guns -- in an effort to police the police. The fear of black people with firearms sent shockwaves across white communities, and conservative lawmakers immediately responded with gun-control legislation.

Then Gov. Ronald Reagan, now lauded as the patron saint of modern conservatism, told reporters in California that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons." Reagan claimed that the Mulford Act, as it became known, "would work no hardship on the honest citizen." The NRA actually helped craft similar legislation in states across the country.

www.theroot.com...

in fact:

In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

reformed-theology.org...

reply to post by SuperFrog


That would be obviously because YOU are a minority here.You are few and vets hunters and sportsmen DO out number you.
We also said no.
That is all.

reply to post by SuperFrog

Fail argument is fail argument, and from videos posted above you could see why. Compare something made just to kill people with tools, cars, airplanes, bubble gum, condoms...

The fail here is your failure to adequately respond.

Is your goal to save lives?

If so, why do you even differentiate between inanimate objects with regard to intent? Is the person that is killed with a blunt object less dead than one killed with a firearm?

Your argument is just as silly as certain states that ban some knives because of how they look.

If guns were made completely illegal, and (somehow) not even criminals had access to them, there would be an increase of murders using other inanimate objects. I should think that you would want to control those inanimate objects also, if saving lives is what your actual intention is.

I await your inadequate response of 'fail'. Please note that I did not stoop to calling you a troll or make a remark regarding your intelligence.

BTW, firearms are tools. They are not usually designed to hammer nails, but they still a tool.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Wait, just before this post you said it is fake news. As I see DS attack everything that is out of place, I don't take it as biased. I do whoever enjoy sarcasm and irony pointed by it. (watching last night DS on the side as I am writing this message and completing a task at work )
As for getting news from multiple sources, internet made it all possible and easy. ATS is even to some extent news source as well.





reply to post by cavtrooper7

Woow, takes genius to figure out that here on ATS I am minority. (not only in case of guns ) That is valid argument? How come? Normal people ware rare in Germany in time of nationalism rise to power as well. Should I compare it like that?

Will you throw me off the balcony?

Who is on loosing side? www.washingtonpost.com...

butcherguy
The fail here is your failure to adequately respond.

Really, your comment was supposed to produce some response?

butcherguy
Is your goal to save lives?

It should be common sense by now.

butcherguy
If so, why do you even differentiate between inanimate objects with regard to intent? Is the person that is killed with a blunt object less dead than one killed with a firearm?

That is why someone walking with bat or large knife in bar makes sense to you?! Of course, someone carrying any of those should be reported and arrested. But compare tools made clearly with one idea of killing (or hunting) and tools we use in every day life... really? And as you see, we do control cars for example, it is out of place to walk with bat or knife in hands... Sooner rather than later you will be stopped and questioned. It is just common sense...

butcherguy
Your argument is just as silly as certain states that ban some knives because of how they look.

Common sense is silly now... It is more that you are acting as some bully...

butcherguy
If guns were made completely illegal, and (somehow) not even criminals had access to them, there would be an increase of murders using other inanimate objects. I should think that you would want to control those inanimate objects also, if saving lives is what your actual intention is.

Good point, what made guns available in large quantities to criminals?? Surely is not well controlled and managed production and sale? DO you ever ask yourself how criminal gets to gun, made by the same manufacturer that sells you the same gun to protect yourself?! Who is only to profit in this situation?

butcherguy
I await your inadequate response of 'fail'. Please note that I did not stoop to calling you a troll or make a remark regarding your intelligence.

BTW, firearms are tools. They are not usually designed to hammer nails, but they still a tool.

What is purpose of those tools and while you at it, what is purpose of other tools you mentioned?

reply to post by 8675309jenny


I am not sure how long moderators will allow attacks like this. Sure, I might be an idiot just because I don't agree with you.

Firstly, to comment on guns in USA you have just to live here? Really?

I am sure that after this you will start crying out 2nd amendment and your rights... which brings me to something I was thinking about last night during ATS live. We (by we I mean you and I - folks from USA) are teaching other countries how inhuman are their laws based on 1500-2000 year old sacred texts. This include inequality of sexes, abuse and killing for minor offense etc. We are 'teaching' them that laws like that should be abolished based on common sense, yet here in our backyard we are unable to come to common sense that more guns do mean more accidents, shootings and rampage... Statistics shows that, from one I posted that compares number of guns and number of shootings, to the one that shows that kids are more likely to kill them self with handguns in houses that have guns. (nothing surprising there, is it?)

This is exactly kind of people I would love not to be able to have access to guns - bully who in absence of argument is calling me idiot, trying to discredit discussion and I am sure is easy to tick off, because he is all powerful with his guns... thank you!

reply to post by SuperFrog

Good point, what made guns available in large quantities to criminals?? Surely is not well controlled and managed production and sale? DO you ever ask yourself how criminal gets to gun, made by the same manufacturer that sells you the same gun to protect yourself?! Who is only to profit in this situation?

Well controlled.... as in heroin?
Heroin is completely controlled.... as far as it's legality is concerned. You can not buy, sell or possess it. Yet I can go a block or two from where I am at this moment and buy some.... no background checks required. Do you suppose that a criminal would not be able to lay hands on a firearm if they were made completely illegal? They can be made in a basement or garage with minimal tooling.... unlike heroin, which is made in Asia and the Middle East and has to be smuggled into the country. Not that guns couldn't be smuggled anyway.

It should be common sense by now.

Yet you don't address the point that more people are killed in malice with blunt objects (usually tools) than rifles of all types and how the anti-gun zealots focus on just one type of rifle.

That is why someone walking with bat or large knife in bar makes sense to you?!

Are you saying that no one has ever entered a bar with a blunt object or knife (concealed or otherwise)? That doesn't seem to make sense to me. Or are you saying that a knife or metal bar can't be concealed? That doesn't make any sense either.

Common sense is silly now... It is more that you are acting as some bully...

Can you be specific so that I may know how to address this huge bullying problem that I have?

What is purpose of those tools and while you at it, what is purpose of other tools you mentioned?

Rifles? Ranchers use them to shoot coyotes. Alaska residents use them for protection against grizzly, polar and brown bears. Cops use them to shoot people.
Hammers? Well as my link shows, they are used by criminals to kill people... you can drive nails with them too.

Really, your comment was supposed to produce some response?

That would be the reason that I asked a question.
At least you admit that you failed. Kudos for that!

The US has 27.3x more guns PER PERSON, than the UK (3.25 per 100 persons) yet only 10x the GUN homicide rate. Explain that.

Plus you are more than twice as likely to be stabbed in the UK than shot in the US.

SuperFrog
reply to post by 8675309jenny

 

I am not sure how long moderators will allow attacks like this. Sure, I might be an idiot just because I don't agree with you.

Firstly, to comment on guns in USA you have just to live here? Really?

I am sure that after this you will start crying out 2nd amendment and your rights... which brings me to something I was thinking about last night during ATS live. We (by we I mean you and I - folks from USA) are teaching other countries how inhuman are their laws based on 1500-2000 year old sacred texts. This include inequality of sexes, abuse and killing for minor offense etc. We are 'teaching' them that laws like that should be abolished based on common sense, yet here in our backyard we are unable to come to common sense that more guns do mean more accidents, shootings and rampage... Statistics shows that, from one I posted that compares number of guns and number of shootings, to the one that shows that kids are more likely to kill them self with handguns in houses that have guns. (nothing surprising there, is it?)

This is exactly kind of people I would love not to be able to have access to guns - bully who in absence of argument is calling me idiot, trying to discredit discussion and I am sure is easy to tick off, because he is all powerful with his guns... thank you!

YOU of all people... still harping about 'statistics shows" when both times I replied to your quoted statistics I absolutely decimated your backwards logic and inability to come to a rational conclusion based on numbers.

You clearly aren't qualified to involve yourself in this debate.

reply to post by butcherguy


You actually bring rather good point - because we are unable to prohibit or control heroin, which is largely result of bad control of guns, we should do nothing about it?? Same goes for guns? That was well covered by Jon Stewart video. So, IMHO it would be good side-product of gun control and less crime.

Guns overall, including hand guns and riffles kill more people than those other object you mentioned. Assault riffle made possible some tragical events, also showed in video.

It is all common sense, really.

Sorry about bully comment, just got tired from some insults because I don't agree that more guns means more safety, where all data points that this is not true.

You omitted to comment who made guns used by criminals, how did those large quantities of guns get into wrong hands. What we can do to prevent that?


@ 8675309jenny

There is 41 TIMES LESS gun related deaths per 100K in UK. So, yes - you got it a bit wrong. Click here to view related post.

8675309jenny
You clearly aren't qualified to involve yourself in this debate.

You really are incapable to restrain your self from provocations and outbursts? Do you really own a gun? You are best example of people who would worry me if they posses guns.

Does bad experience with people with guns make me qualified for debate? If that is case, what makes you qualified to evaluate my qualifications... again, at least this was not blunt attack like last time. Thank you!

roguetechie
Because much like today, the crown had passed laws that forced the citizenry to submit in the face of egregious overstepping by crown representatives be they soldiers, tax collectors, or even the aristocracy. If you dared to fight back and god forbid killed one of these people in the process of keeping yourself from being brutalized you would be punished not the evildoer.

Sound familiar?

Yeah, I love "Braveheart," and what they did to his first love in the movie demonstrates your comment. Yes, I know it's a movie, but it's accurate as to what could have happened in a real situation in that time. What is the quote?

"An assault on the king's soldiers is the same as an assault on the king himself."

That's from memory, so it may be a little off. Yeah, I know...it's sad I have that movie basically memorized.

reply to post by SuperFrog


all data does not point that this is not true. Some data does, yes. And the obvious point of there has to be a gun present to enable a gun to be used is duly noted and agreed upon.

I think people keep asking the same question over and over, though: why do we focus on "gun death"? Is being murdered by a gun somehow worse than being bludgeoned or stabbed? Most would argue that it is likely a less painful death if you are shot rather than beaten to death. But all that aside....is the US more likely to see people murdered on any higher degree?

I have arguments related to that, as well. Such as, "How much crime is actually encouraged by various government entities, rather than being an artifact of humanities general propensities?" Examples would include our support of various drug cartels (right down to the assertions that it was Uncle Sam who introduced crack into high crime areas, along with our "Air America" global heroin trade) and Fast and Furious (which includes the guns you are talking about).

And that is the REAL crux of the issue here for me, and many others who support the 2A: if the government is willing to utilize guns as leverage for power, why on Gods green earth would we want to give up our own leverage? Fast and Furious is a perfect display of the use of violence as leverage in areas where guns are not readily accessible. Would the same amount of leverage have already been there were gun laws in Mexico not so strict?

I am willing to tolerate the rough seas of liberty a little in order to keep an eye on Big Brother. Big Brother is a bigger psychopath than any lunatic with a gun.

lol. I love the reactions the OP incited. People got all defensive and stuff. All worked up and reaching for their guns....er wait!

reply to post by SuperFrog


Of course I would never throw anyone off a balcony ,too many witnesses( I AM trained you know)
But judging from your knowledge expressed I would guess you wouldn't know a 19D from a 007.
I'm TRAINED pal.I know EXACTLY what I'm doing with ANY weapon and firearm I have used ,having achieved EXPERT on most ranges.
I grew up with them.I DO NOT appreciate some kids saying their knee jerk "GUN BAD" without purpose or effective forethought other than to parrot the latest statistic or political position developed from a false premise that is attempting control.
We have said many times before you have zip for legal president to change the 2nd Amendment,your arguments don't hold up under fire. Gun free zones are more dangerous that gun ownership.
I will NOT order you to have one (unless YOU are are drafted for what ever upcoming war happens ,male or female (As the Liberals have said they want),by the way...how old are you?


I get it they scare you,good don't buy one.

reply to post by FyreByrd


It is a myth to think that getting rid of guns will stop violence. Some of the most violent places in America are gun free zones. All gun laws do is keep guns out of the hands of honest people. Criminals can still get black market guns. There are hundreds of millions of guns owners who committed no crimes yesterday. If, but some magic, all the guns in the world disappeared people would fight with knives and clubs. Terrible things would still happen and many times children would be caught in the middle.

You should put your efforts toward the real cause of violence and not the tools used. Remember our 2nd amendment right to bare arms is not for hunting, its for self defense and to over throw a corrupt government. To say guns kill people is like saying spoons make people fat. People kill people, and if they didn't have a gun they would use something else.