For some reason the media has not picked up on this story but it happened just a few days ago. I'm a news junky and I have not seen it in a single major media source. I only come up with a couple of obscure links in google news. Almost a complete coverage blackout.
College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader
Apparently a group of 10 college students were in an apartment celebrating a birthday when two gunmen burst in. They robbed the kids of their wallets and cellphones and then separated the guys and girls into separate rooms. They then proceeded to have a conversation about how many bullets the robber/rapist/mass murder who was guarding the guys had. The response was "enough!". At this point one of the would be victims risked his own life and retrieved his own gun from his backpack and shot the piece of garbage that was guarding him and wounded him. The criminal jumped through a window and ran away. He then burst into the room with the women and found the other piece of garbage about to rape his girlfriend. He shot him dead. Unfortunately he wounded one of the girls but she apparently is going to be OK.
Score: One dead piece of garbage, one wounded piece of garbage on the run and one wounded victim, 10 alive victims, rapes prevented, possibly murders prevented.
Contrast this relatively happy outcome, that was only possible because one of the good guys had a weapon, with some of the other recent college tragedies where the victims were unarmed and the gunman was able to slaughter them like sheep.
I'm really not surprised that this has not been widely reported in the media. It does not fit their mime about gun violence being caused by guns rather than by criminals. I suspect that the hero in this story who was exercising his Constitutional Right to bear arms was in violation of college policy by possessing one. Fortunate for him and nine other people that he did because they were spared and we would have all been reading wall-to-wall news coverage about yet another tragedy caused by guns.
I am sure I wouldn't have heard about it otherwise.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
Since there has been practically zero news coverage it would have been just a matter of very slight chance if you had stumbled across this story.
As a person who is highly suspicious of the media and who believes it is very biased and manipulative and deliberately suppresses news they don't want us to hear, I'm pretty sure I understand why you would not have heard this story.
But there is the possibility that since it was good news, it bascially did not qualify as news at all. That seems unlikely given the intensity of the debate about whether or not armed citizens endanger us or make us safer. It is not like that story is not newsworthy as the current Administration floats trial ballons about imposing new gun controls.
Or possibly, it was just treated as another case of black on black violence that was unworthy of being considered as news. But Americans generally like a good hero story and there was a definate hero in this story even if he was black.
These kinds of stories make me all tingly inside
Finally a story of why guns are good. I am sad that the press didn't make a big deal out of it like they would have if it would have been a different circumstance.
--------
Respectfully,
Adam L. Labonoski
These stories are rare because not very many good citizens carry concealed weapons and in many places, like most college campuses, they are barred from carrying their weapons even if they have a valid concealed carry permit.
The bad guys are criminals and they don't feel compelled to follow these silly restrictions that the good guys generally feel compelled to follow. They PREFER committing their crimes in situations where their victims are unarmed. This makes college campuses and college kids attractive as victims. I doubt that those kids at the birthday party would have been bothered if the scumbags had any suspicion that one of the victims would be shooting back.
Even when these happy situations do occur, the media hates to report them because they do not fit the liberal anti-gun mime. Here are a couple more older stories that will make you tingly. These situations would have turned out completely differently if one of the intended victims did not have the good fortune of being armed.
6 Shot At New Life Church; Gunman, 2 Churchgoers Dead
NV - Mass Shooting Stopped by CCW Permit Holder
I had heard about that first story that you linked to on this comment. I heard it from Whisper awnesty. It was her boss's church I will tell her and she can talk more about it.
I thank you for informing us all about this.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
And if you're seeing lines in my writing that you feel you need to read between, they aren't there. ~N. Ledger
I certainly didn't hear about this one. And this is finally a positive story to hear!
The news stations/papers like only the bad outcomes, don't they?
If we heard about any kind of good story in the news at all... anything good that happened in the war or any kind of story against President Obama were never shown. But i did see a story about a cat that steals people's underwear.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Put your best foot forward, just watch what you step in..."
They have an agenda and they are incredibly selective about the news they choose to let the masses hear. I understand not reporting good news; that does not sell newspapers. But when they are selective and one-sided about reporting the bad news it is just wrong. It is now wonder that som many people are ill-informed. They are looking at the world through rose colored glasses.
I suspect they are trying their damnedest to deliver what their audience wants to hear, based on polls and ratings and industry experience. Going on a killing spree is evil and pathetic. Missing important news stories is just kinda lame. But we all know that the internet > television for learning about and discussing current events.
Granting that things like this happen every so often, how are we to weigh them against the harm that gun proliferation causes? In particular, accidental deaths at the hands of children who are then scarred for life. Because the reality is that most people are idiots and they have to consider the fact that they might need it at a moment's notice when hiding and securing their gun. Children are naturally curious and like to find hidden things and pull levers on them. When you encourage gun use you presumably increase the accident rates, and it is not at all obvious that this is outweighed by the lives saved. Feel free to bring in statistics to contradict me, as this is just my intuition and apparently the evil media have brainwashed me.
I suspect they are trying their damnedest to deliver what their audience wants to hear based on polls and ratings and industry experience.
The industry leader in cable news is the center right Fox. They have pretty much the same viewership as all of their left leaning competitors combined. NBC which is the farthest left pretty much brings up the back of the pack. If your suspicion was correct, they could probably gain marketshare by moving towards the center but they refuse to for other reasons. It seems there is something else in play here other than just wanting to attract an audience.
Feel free to bring in statistics to contradict me, as this is just my intuition and apparently the evil media have brainwashed me.
I live in Wyoming and we have lots and lots of guns here on a per capita basis and very little gun violence. I'm very pro-2nd Amendment. Basically my feeling is it is not the guns that the problem but the people who have the guns.
Consistent with my belief that it is the people who are the problem and not the guns, I don't think that liberals who live in urban areas and who are in favor of gun control are totally misguided and in fact, if I lived in a city I might be on their side of the debate. Most cities have horrible public school systems with drop out rates approaching 50%. If I were surrounded by a very large population of ignorant, uneducated people, I'm not at all sure I would want them to have guns either. Ignorant people are far more likely to resort to crime for a living and to settle their differences with violence. Giving these people weapons does seem like a foolish policy (leaving aside that they have a Constitutional Right).
The kid in the story I posted above who pulled a weapon out of his backpack and saved several of his friends from probable rape and mass murder has not been to my knowledge arrested for unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon. I am therefore, going to assume that he had a valid conceal weapons carry permit.
People who are permitted to carry concealed weapons are very seldom the problem and often are a force for good.
Here is an article that you might find interesting:
Permitting people to carry concealed weapons will lead to increased violent crime, and people killing each other at the slightest provocation."
Of the 204,108 licenses issued in the Florida law's
first 6 1/2 years of operation, seventeen (17, or .008%) were
revoked for unlawful conduct while the firearm was present, and many
of these violations were either technical (such as carrying into a
restricted area, like an airport or bar) or non-gun related (such
as revoking a permit due to a drunken driving arrest). In Oregon,
over 60,000 concealed carry permits have been issued, and none has
been revoked.
Here is another one:
Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers:Law-abiding Public Benefactors
* Licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public - 127 per 100,000 population versus 730 per 100,000.
* Licensees were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses than the general public - 386 per 100,000 population versus 5,212 per 100,000.
* Further, the general public is 1.4 times more likely to be arrested for murder than licensees [ see Figure I ], and no licensee had been arrested for negligent manslaughter.
In More Guns, Less Crime (1998), the University of Chicago's John Lott examined the impact of concealed carry permits. Using data from all 3,054 U.S. counties between 1977 and 1992, he found that after controlling for other factors:
* Concealed handgun laws reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent.
* Had right-to-carry prevailed throughout the country, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe assaults.
I appreciate you checkin out both sides of the debate, even if you threw in a jab at us city folk (is there really a correlation to intelligence?). As for the stats, you had two main points:
(1)concealed-carry laws are safe because the screening process weeds out crazies, and
(2)concealed-carry laws reduce violent crime.
You gave some evidence for (1) - permit holders in Texas, Oregon, Wyoming, and Florida have been well-behaved. Your pro-gun-rights links might be picking states that best illustrate your point, but its a point I agree with. Concealed-carry laws don't bother me.
I'm not convinced of (2). A quick trip to my favorite online encyclopedia reveals substantial debate among economists over Lott's methodology in "More Guns, Less Crime". Even if guns reduce crime, what about suicides and accidents? This 2004 National Research Council study is the best source I could find:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=R1
Definitely check this out - its got nice clicky links on the right side so you can skip to the concealed carry stuff (ch6) if you want to. Also skim over the dissent (appendix A) and response (appendix B) concerning Lott's research.
Even if guns reduce crime, what about suicides and accidents?
The most common suicide method of females is drug overdose. Nearly every single household has enough medicines (both over the counter and prescription) to kill at least one person. Are we going to ban medicines because someone might commit suicide with them?
Most accidents involving anything that could maim or kill a person are due to negligence on someone's part, as well as lack of knowledge of the capabilities of the item in question. Many of the accidents involving guns and kids come from kids in suburban areas, where guns are still considered a "no-no" thing, but some people still own them. It then becomes something kids want to show their friends, because they're not really supposed to touch them, but their parents didn't really teach them about them, either.
Contrast that to rural areas, where guns are a way of life, and the per capita is such that most households can single-handedly outfit a small battalion. In those areas, children are taught at a young age to respect firearms in the same way they respect the knives the in kitchen. Most families will take their children out to the shooting range starting as young as 6 or 8 years old, and by age 12, the kids have taken a firearm safety course. Because of the prominence of firearms as tools in rural households, there are far fewer accidents involving children and guns.
Regarding accidents involving firearms wielded by adults, it's been my experience that many of those either involved a) alcohol, or b) mistaken identity when hunting (and both cases typically involved suburban tourists to rural areas for hunting seasons, this goes back to the comparative firearms education and respect levels between the two groups).
Regarding concealed carry permits, specifically... As far as I know, nearly all states require a CCW applicant to take several safety courses before the permit is granted. This is similar in intent to the hunter's safety courses for a hunting license, or driver's ed for a driver's licenses. I also compare a CCW permit holder to a martial artist. They both possess the ability to injure or kill a person (and to do so easily), but their training has taught them to only use that ability as a last resort and to avoid confrontation to begin with.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Of course not, but we're not talking about banning guns either. When weighing the utility of having our cabinets full of medicine, those suicides are relevant. Same for guns.
Maybe I blurred the CCW issue with the broader 'promoting guns' issue. CCW has little effect on crime, but no effect on accidents and suicides. Gun ownership rates have little effect on crime, and are counterbalanced by accidents and suicides. I see no reason to feel strongly about either.
We may be focusing on concealed weapons, but I believe my points are still relevant. Why? Because it takes more (formal) training to get a CCW than it does to simply buy a hunting rifle and permit. Therefore, if there are going to be accidents involving firearms, it would stand to reason that the ones that don't have as much (formal) training will be more likely to have accidents. However, in places where hunting is prominent, there are very few accidents (for reasons I've already explained).
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
You're saying the additional screening process might not only filter people out, it will also get people to undergo training so they can get concealed-carry permits. Makes sense: if concealed carrying is sketchier than home defense, give it stricter requirements. I didn't think of that, but yeah it must happen. I'm fresh out of counterpoints so I guess that means you win.
CCW replaces prohibition (of concealed guns in public) with regulation. I should support that since the regulations seem to work. If concealed carry ever comes up on my campus I'll vote YES instead of turning the check boxes into smiley faces. Not to reduce crime, but to remove a useless ban.
even if you threw in a jab at us city folk (is there really a correlation to intelligence?).
I believe I used the word ignorance.
There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. Stupidity is the lack of mental capability (low IQ). Ignorance is the lack of education. A smart person can be ignorant. However, it is harder for a stupid person to be educated because they lack the mental horsepower to learn much.
Not everybody in most cities is ignorant. However, I believe it is well documented that most of the cities failing schools are located in cities and that these schools have dropout rates approaching 50%. People who drop out of schools are very likely to be ignorant (to answer your question there is a very strong correlation). Ignorant people are more likely to be poor and also more likely to be involved in criminal activities (again there are strong correlations).
There are some ignorant people people in rural areas but just because cities have lots of people there tend to be millions of ignorant people in cities. It is simple arithmatic. If I lived in a highly urbanized area filled with millions of ignorant people, I would question the wisdom of giving them guns. Sad but true.
In a separate thread in the last few days, somebody posted the average IQ quotients of various minorites compared to whites. Minorities tend to be concentrated in cities too. I was not making that argument in my previous post but I think it probably has some validity.
What? Did I just say that? Kidding, jack. I agree with you from time to time.
The point I'm (not) getting to is that everything you say about dropout rates, education levels, poverty, and crime in city centers is true. I'm writing my master's thesis on this. And while I don't love the idea that some of my uneducated neighbors have weapons, I also recognize that the conceal and carry laws don't really change the numbers of gun owners in the city, because the vast majority of inner city gun owners do not have a permit. I trust somebody who went through the process of getting a permit much more than I do the drug dealers across the street. THOSE are the people I want gun control for, but no one has been able to figure out a gun control policy that has any affect on the illegal gun owners.
As far as I'm concerned, gun control is an issue that gets the fairly affluent, college-educated mom vote.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Maybe the government wants us to believe that gun control would interfere with our basic rights and would deprive us our power as citizens to stand militarily against it, which we are legally allowed to do, so that we will ignore the issue of the fact that much of the firearms in possession of the government has been illegally manufactured and obtained.
I don't know if its a valid theory or not, but I loved that movie "Lord of War," with Nicholas Cage.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
Inner-city schools have high dropout rates, but educated people from the countryside flock to cities and suburbs because thats where high-paying jobs are. So I don't think urbanites/suburbanites are any more ignorant than people living in rural areas.
But it does not change my argument. Yes, lots of highly educated people migrate to cities and they grow a fair number locally and this drives the AVERAGE level of education up.. But for the most part, the ignorant ones who dropped out of high school don't leave and there are millions of them. It is not a question of the average level of education. It is a question of having literally millions of ignorant people and whether or not people want them to have guns.
If I lived there I might sing the gun control tune. But I would definitely also own a self-defense weapon whether it was legal or not. When danger is seconds away, the police are minutes away.
I live in a rural state and we have lots of guns and I am sure that a few of them are in the hands of ignorant people. But we only have a very FEW ignorant people. Only three school districts in the entire State of Wyoming have dropout rates over 10% and they are all located on or in close proximity to the Wind River Indian Reservation. Most school districts have dropout rates under 5%. In any case, the level of ignorance here is manageable and even most of the ignorant people are gainfully and lawfully employed. Crime in general is low.
And Dragonwolf made some excellent points about the differences in culture with respect to firearms. I was spanked for pointing a toy cap gun at my mother when I was probably about 3 and I don't believe I have ever repeated that egregious error. My father taught me to shoot a single shot .22 under very close supervision when I was 4 using the same rifle that his father had bought for him and which I used to train my daughter when she was 5. Firearms training was a regular part of my upbringing with frequent opportunities for target practice, demonstrations of extreme range (a .22 will carry 2 miles) and awesome destructive capability (a .45 caliber will disintegrate a watermelon and a .12 guage will make a huge jagged hole in 3/4" plywood) and gun cleaning. Every lesson began and ended with gun safety. For me, it is absolutely automatic to assume every gun is loaded and the first thing I do when I take one in hand is point it safely and check the load status. Starting when I was 10, I was allowed to accompany the adults and carry an empty BB Gun on pheasant hunts and I was expected to emulate the adults and treat it like it was loaded. On the drive back to town after the hunt, we discussed which adults had followed the best practices and which had made rare safety blunders. When I was 11 and 12 I was allowed to carry an empty shotgun. And on the last hunt of the year when I was 12 I was given two shotgun shells for the afternoon half of the hunt. After that, I was deemed safe and was allowed to hunt by myself, with friends or with adults and have enjoyed that privilege ever since. Firearms are a daily part of our lives and we treat them with due respect but not a lot of the irrational fear or the gross irresponsibility that comes from not being exposed and trained in their proper use, care and safety.
I think it's interesting that while Texas has some of the most liberal (as in LIBERTY) concealed carry laws, they are one of the few states that doesn't allow unconcealed carry. It's surprising, since when we thing of unconcealed carry, we think of pistols in holsters, when we think of pistols and holsters we think of the Wild West, and when we think of the Wild West we think of Texas. But they don't want to change it because it means that anybody might be carrying, making it more risky to choose a victim.
The industry leader in cable news is the center right Fox......
Feel free to bring in statistics to contradict me, as this is just my intuition and apparently the evil media have brainwashed me.
I find it hard to imagine Fox as the shinning hope for American Broadcast Journalism. The major problem with the networks is not political bias (one study conducted during the 2008 election showed that more negative stories about Obama were aired than negative stories about McCain) but rather a financial one.
If a story is going to keep people glued to the tube, it is the story that gets covered. This is why we had the death of Anna Nicole Smith getting constant media attention while NASA announced new findings related to climate change. This is why today, we have a press stirring the pot about "Swine Flu" while major scams go relatively unreported. This is not a left-right problem. This "Spanish Bomb the U.S.S. Maine," sensationalism for sensationalism's sake.
So true. If people don't like what the media is showing them, they should change the channel or make their own.
Media, like many things will change soon. More and more people are coming to the internet to get their media, and some are speaking out and gaining attention.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1898067_18980...
Have you seen the latest issue of Time magazine? http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1898024_18980... Very inspiring. We are about to see a change in everything, from the way we work to the way we live. The smart ones will know that the old ways are out and will get creative, and pay attention.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
Good post jackbenimble, and thanks for pointing this out. I'm a news junkie like you so I used the wonderful internet to find this news story on my daily news browsing. I am ashamed to say I sort of forgot about it and didn't even realize the major media's failure to report it. Like you said, if the scumbags had succeed in raping and killing the party-goers, the media would be all over it. Also, scumbag politicians (the liberal Democrat ones) would twist the tragedy into fuel for their anti-freedom fascist laws. I am kind of surprised that the one student who used his constitutional right hasn't been crucified for violating "gun-free zone" rules that more than likely existed. I could tell you why liberal anti-gun attitudes and laws are non-nonsensical and dangerous but it looks like I'd be preaching to the choir. But don't you think it's quite interesting that our leftist friends are nowhere to be found? Why aren't they here commenting and telling us how only criminals, not upstanding citizens, should be allowed to have guns? Or how college campuses should only allow psychotic murderers to bring guns on campus while prohibiting sane, law-abiding faculty and students from doing so? I guess even the lying left can't twist this one to fit their perverted political agendas. We need to have more of these situations come out with the good guys as winners and stop the senseless, tragic bloodshed that the loony left just loves to see when a madman is allowed to murder dozens of people because the victims' constitutional right to keep and bear arms has been unjustly denied. Let's put common sense before politics and perverted social agendas. But if we do that then left-wing Democrat scumbag wackos (like Teddy who uses cars rather than guns to kill people) won't be mindlessly re-elected and hailed as heroes by the stupid voters. You know how leftists say "If you don't like abortion, don't have one"? Well I say "If you don't like guns, then don't have one." Bunch of Hypocrites aren't they?
Not everyone who is pro-choice and believes in equal marriage rights has an anti-gun attitude. Not being either 100% left or 100% right doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite, it means I am able to form my own opinions. But, hey, I apologize for not fitting into your limited, black and white view of the world.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
You are definately a member of the sensible center. You may like to think of yourself as liberal but your Alaskan conservative/libertarian roots often show through.
Oh I've been labeling myself Libertarian since I discovered it existed. ;-)
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
Not everyone who is pro-choice and believes in equal marriage rights has an anti-gun attitude.
It amazes how the modern neo-conservative movement seems to have forgotten the principles of classical conservatism. A good example of a party that DOES remember is The Libertarian Party, which is farm more in tune with the classical conservative values than modern republicans.
Smaller Government * Lower Taxes * More Freedom
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Not everyone who is pro-choice and believes in equal marriage rights has an anti-gun attitude.automatic Aristo transmission.
You're telling me something I already know. First of all using the terms "pro-choice" and "equal marriage rights" gravely misrepresent the issues they represent. "Pro-choice" means you favor legalized abortion and since brutally killing infants is not a positive thing (at least not me) than a positive word like "choice" is inappropriate for those who favor legalized abortion to an extent beyond medical necessity.As for "equal marriage rights" I've explained many times why there is no marriage inequality in the first place. Everybody, gay and straight, plays by the same rules. Anyway I never said or implied that infanticide supporters always had an anti-gun attitude. Its not even necessary to look at it that way. Since this is about guns, I think its important to say that the overwhelming majority of anti-freedom leftists at ant-gun organizations are "pro-choice" and thus hypocrites.
Not being either 100% left or 100% right doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite, it means I am able to form my own opinions.
I agree with you because I am neither 100% right or 1005 left and that usually minimizes, hypocrisy much less increases it. The right wing and left wing politics (more so the left wing) are riddled with hypocrisy and the only way to avoid it is to be open minded and independent. You are preaching to the choir on this one. I am usually loathed by leftists because of the fact that I'm willing to lie, slander, and keep my mind closed in order to defend leftist (lack of) values. The right wing in this country is generally better than the left wing. Liberal Democrats have a tendency to accuse people who don't think their way as being racists and bigots, etc. They often accuse those who don't conform to their extremism of things that, only they themselves, are guilty of. Like "Republicans are close minded" or my favorite "Republicans are racist."
...because of the fact that I'm *not* willing to lie, ...
I've seen lots of whining about the liberal lefties lately. Grumpy cus we're winning?
Childish misrepresentations...
"Pro-choice" means you favor legalized abortion and since brutally killing infants is not a positive thing (at least not me) than a positive word like "choice" is inappropriate for those who favor legalized abortion to an extent beyond medical necessity.
This is a childish misrepresentation of the pro-choice position. The REASON that induced abortions are--and should be--legal is because very few people are truly comfortable with the idea that the government should be able to use deadly force (not an exaggeration...all law enforcement relies on the implicit threat of deadly force to ensure compliance) to compel a woman who does not want to carry her pregnancy to term.
The REASON that pre-borns are not considered "persons" in a legal sense is that there is NO OBJECTIVE CONSENSUS among the relevant authorities (neither legal, medical, philosophical nor religious) that would conclude that a pre-born is a "human person" (subject to ALL that implies) in any compelling sense from the moment of conception. And, in the lack of any such objective consensus, it would not be a legitimate use of the police power of the State to compel through force a private citizen to surrender his or her right of conscience in favor of the subjective opinions of other citizens.
It is quite possible for a "pro-choicer" to be against abortion (and I count myself among them) in the sense that any abortion is a tragedy. It does seem to me to be a monumental waste of one of if not the most valuable resource of the human race, i.e. children. However, I understand that my opinion lacks any objective basis, and in and of itself does not give ME (or you) the right to make that kind of decision for anyone else.
This is an a agument based on the classical conservative principles of smaller government and greater freedom from government which allows individual citizens to make their own decisions. And, contrary to your apparent assumption, this is actually the position held by 30% of the republican party (and in contrast, 35% of the democratic party is actually "pro-life").
As for "equal marriage rights" I've explained many times why there is no marriage inequality in the first place. Everybody, gay and straight, plays by the same rules.
This is an equally childish opinion, and one that has been addressed by several of our Courts. I think the Massachusetts Supreme Court said it best...
Since this is about guns, I think its important to say that the overwhelming majority of anti-freedom leftists at ant-gun organizations are "pro-choice" and thus hypocrites.
I finding it interesting that you refer to "anti-freedom leftists" in this context, when in fact both of the positions you offered above require the government to limit the freedom of individual citizens.
I am usually loathed by leftists because of the fact that I'm willing to lie, slander, and keep my mind closed in order to defend leftist (lack of) values.
I would suggest that admitting that you are willing to "willing to lie, slander, and keep my mind closed" renders your judgement of anyone else's "values" meaningless.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I would suggest that admitting that you are willing to "willing to lie, slander, and keep my mind closed" renders your judgement of anyone else's "values" meaningless.
LOL that is sure a funny mistake on my part. I think you should have exploited that a little more! As much as I may disagree with you and everything I must admit that I am still laughing over this one. NExt time I'll be sure not to let people know I like to lie, slander and keep a closed mind. LOL LOL I just can't stop laughing at myself!
Based on our previous discussion, I presumed that your statement was accurate, if not intentional. Have you ever heard of a Freudian Slip?
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Yes I have heard of a Freudian slip and with my Psychology final on Monday that's a good thing. The statement was not accurate nor intentional. I think you are going over the edge even pondering the possibility of a Freudian slip there. I meant to say I am "NOT willing to..." It's nothing more than the fact that I forgot a word. You've made grammar mistakes (not many but a few spelling) and most other people do occasionally as well including me. Besides how could I have a Freudian slip when writing on a blog that I heavily edit during the process in order to minimize word count and maximize effectiveness. I doubt I would even finish writing such a sentence before quickly deleting it had it been a Freudian slip. I don't see how a Freudian slip could occur in such a way because the only possibility of a Freudian slip for me would be in real-time verbal discussion. Even then, do you think a "slip" would result in a statement like that about myself? Don't make it into something it isn't. This is where you go wrong. It was funny before and when you addressed that statement I laughed very hard. It was a funny mistake and "not" is a very unfortunate word to accidentally leave out of my post. And by the way, I've noticed your link to Freudian slip points to a Wikipedia article. See I have high standards of research and hopping to a Wikipedia article to get info is something I avoid unless its about a TV show movie or other entertainment media. It's often tempting though because the articles are often well written and accurate but then again, if I'm reading about a subject I'm not familiar in how do I know how accurate the info is?
I meant to say I am "NOT willing to..." It's nothing more than the fact that I forgot a word.
If you say so...but I would suggest that when we examine some of your previous debates on this site, such as in this one where you misrepresented the evidence on the issue of global warming and then admitted that you were willing to misrepresent the scientific evidence if it contradicted your political goals...
...it seems that the statement you actually made is more consistent with your opinion than your revised position.
And by the way, I've noticed your link to Freudian slip points to a Wikipedia article. See I have high standards of research and hopping to a Wikipedia article to get info is something I avoid unless its about a TV show movie or other entertainment media. It's often tempting though because the articles are often well written and accurate but then again, if I'm reading about a subject I'm not familiar in how do I know how accurate the info is?
Actually, there is a peer-reviewed study published in the noted scientific journal Nature that found that Wikipedia's accuracy in the treatment of scientific articiles was on a par with that of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Like ALL online sources, wiki's should be taken with a grain of salt...especially when the subject matter is something politically controversial or current in the popular culture. But, these sources are accurate more often than they are not, and if nothing else serve as a excellent guide to lead towards further research.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
O.O You mean I'm not the only one on the planet that doesn't just dismiss Wikipedia outright "because it can be edited by anyone" (even though most of the articles are well-researched and refer to sources that would be considered "acceptable" by most people, and in some cases is the most neutral source for information on a topic)?
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I use wiki all the time and I agree that it is usually a pretty good source.
But I think blackout pegs it when he says:
Like ALL online sources, wiki's should be taken with a grain of salt...especially when the subject matter is something politically controversial or current in the popular culture.
I would add to that caution that the slant in those particular articles is most often in the liberal direction.
Do you have any object data that suggests that the "slant" in wikipedia is more biased towards the liberal end?
Have you ever heard of Conservapedia?
In my experience, there are dishonest people on all ends of the political sprectrum, and the willingness to spin, misrepresent and even out-right LIE seems equally prevalent among pundits of all stripes.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
No I don't have any data and no I had never heard of Conservapedia.
I did go look it up though and the first thing I found was an extensive list of examples of liberal bias:
Examples of liberal bias
I realize that this is not really responsive to your request for data because for all I know, there is an equally long list demonstrating the opposite.
Perhaps it is a matter of perception. I tend to know the conservative arguments and I notice when they are missing or misrepresented in a wiki article. Nevertheless, as I stated above, I continue to like wiki and use it frequently.
I think you are right that there are dishonest people across the political spectrum. My guess is that in the case of Wiki, the conservatives have been overwhelmed by numbers. There are just more liberals involved in the editing process. I'm somewhat dismayed to learn that the conservatives have now abandoned the playing field and started their own encyclopedia that is presumably deliberately slanted in the other direction. I'm not really interested in a biased encyclopedia no matter what the slant.
My mother who is somewhat of a minor but controversial conservative and academic has a wiki entry about her and she finally gave up on it. She would make corrections and additions and somebody else would almost immediately come along and take them out with the end result being that the article has a heavy focus on the controversy and very light on 40 years of my mother's academic work.
...and I will respond to it by noting Wikipedia's entry about Conservapedia.
I would be interested in reading the article about your mother, but I understand if you don't want to share that information publicly. I am curious to see how the page is treated. Wiki does have a process for tagging controversial entries, and locking pages that are subject to bias-motivated sabotage.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I'm looking to include more conservatives in the "Progressive VIews" interview segment. Allison Kilkenny was, of course, left leaning, and most of the other interviews I have lined up are men and women who support leftist causes. Can you please provide me with some more information about your mother? Email me at johnwconnellyjr@yahoo.com.
Thanks,
John
I watched one interview with her and Jay Leno, I think? She talked about being friends with Bill Maher. I found her to be very quick, intelligent, and thorough. Haven't seen or looked for anything else from her, but I do notice a banner ad for her newsletter frequently at the bottom of the ProU pages.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010914225811/http://www.nationalreview.com/...
If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.
http://www.observer.com/2007/coulter-culture
Yucky! Now I am glad I asked before I clicked on that banner. Don't need to support that.
I really would like to find a sane female Republican. I do appreciate much of what sane conservatives have to say, but it seems the women in the spotlight these days are all nuts.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
I share your frustration with the wingnuts like Coulter and Michelle Bachman (I can't explain how my state keeps electing her), but they get so much attention because they do and say ridiculous things. There are plenty of sane conservative women out there.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I think you're missing the point and goal of the website. Despite its name, it's not a Wikipedia for political conservatives as an answer to "liberal bias" in Wikipedia. It's a young-earth, fundamentalist Christian's answer to such things as the evolution entry in Wikipedia. (Feel free to look evolution up on Conservapedia. I won't link it here because I'd rather not drive more hits and spidering to it by linking to it.)
Also, as I mentioned elsewhere, the beauty of open source projects are that if you don't like something or find something wrong, you have the ability to submit changes to it yourself. There probably isn't a "conservative voice" in the articles because no conservatives are submitting information.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
When and if I ever use Wiki I will always check for external links and refer to them. Also on many occasions I have found misinformation and have inform wiki and to my knowledge it has never been changed. If there is a better link use it.
I would not say the wiki is any more or less bias then any other website on the internet. My problem about the site is that changes can be made without any proof.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
And if you're seeing lines in my writing that you feel you need to read between, they aren't there. ~N. Ledger
Also on many occasions I have found misinformation and have inform wiki and to my knowledge it has never been changed.
Then change it yourself. That's the whole point of the site.
My problem about the site is that changes can be made without any proof.
Perhaps it's the topics that I've looked up, but I've actually never run into that problem. Anything that isn't complete to the standards put forth by Wikipedia (as a website and company) is usually marked as such.
I would not say the wiki is any more or less bias then any other website on the internet.
That's why I specifically said in some cases. I'd like to see you give me a non-Wikipedia website that simply provides information about such things as incest, gun control, and abortion, without being biased and vilifying one side or the other and while still showing both sides of the issue. These and other issues are so polarizing that you pretty much can't get anything but bias otherwise.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Like ALL online sources, wiki's should be taken with a grain of salt...
Sadly, it's not just online sources that one should do that with. I've seen a number of biased, or flat-out wrong assertions in even printed publications.
That said, my point is not about using Wikipedia as the be-all-end-all of researching or resources, but rather that many people see that a link goes to Wiki and say, "well, that's just a Wikipedia article. You can't trust anything it says because it can be edited by anyone, so I'm not even going to bother looking at it," even if, had they actually looked at said article, it had a list of 50+ respected sources and the information in the Wiki article could be backed up by those resources. Or, perhaps it was the only place where the information on a particular subject could be found in one place, which would allow for a good compare-contrast of the topic (I've run into this a few times, where the Wiki article actually served as a compilation of the various sides of an argument and you couldn't get another place that offered such a side-by-side comparison because everything else was one-sided).
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
because it is usually the most *thorough* source on the internet. very few results come up that have such extensive coverage on any topic, and when i choose to not look at Wikipedia, I have to shuffle around between dozens of sites to get all of the information I want. I also like it that it seems relatively current. I find this to be true when I am looking for information about specific people. If someone dies it doesn't take long for that information to be updated on Wikipedia.
I learned a little trick though, and it goes along with what blackout said about it being a good place to start while prompting further research. Wikipedia cites dozens of other sources. I love it that it also points out where a source is needed, alerting the reader that this particular part may not be accurate. So where the sources are listed, many of them are hyperlinked and you can just go straight to that source if you want to use something you found on Wikipedia.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
Good post jackbenimble, and thanks for pointing this out.... Like you said, if the scumbags had succeed in raping and killing the party-goers, the media would be all over it.
This is a "leftist" thing? "Leftists" are pro-rape? Of course, I'm being sarcastic, I get your point, the big bad liberal media wants to take our guns. The fact that NBC is owned by a weapons manufacturer wouldn't change the company's "liberal" bias, would it? Notice, this story wasn't exactly getting air time on Fox News, either, are they part of the liberal conspiracy?
Also, scumbag politicians (the liberal Democrat ones) would twist the tragedy into fuel for their anti-freedom fascist laws.
I have hard time taking anyone serious who talks about twisting tragedy to fuel "anti-freedom fascist laws" if they sat through the Bush Administration without outrage. I'm not familiar with you; I do not know what your views are. I just find it interesting how many right-wingers had a "come to Jesus" moment on January 21st.
But don't you think it's quite interesting that our leftist friends are nowhere to be found? Why aren't they here commenting and telling us how only criminals, not upstanding citizens, should be allowed to have guns? Or how college campuses should only allow psychotic murderers to bring guns on campus while prohibiting sane, law-abiding faculty and students from doing so? I guess even the lying left can't twist this one to fit their perverted political agendas.
Word to the wise: when making points, refrain from phrases like "perverted" to describe your political opposites. It makes your own point seem just a little less serious. Also, I've yet to see one "leftist" who would promote any of the ideas you describe. Stawmen+name calling= shoddy argument.
We need to have more of these situations come out with the good guys as winners and stop the senseless, tragic bloodshed that the loony left just loves to see when a madman is allowed to murder dozens of people because the victims' constitutional right to keep and bear arms has been unjustly denied. Let's put common sense before politics and perverted social agendas. But if we do that then left-wing Democrat scumbag wackos (like Teddy who uses cars rather than guns to kill people) won't be mindlessly re-elected and hailed as heroes by the stupid voters. You know how leftists say "If you don't like abortion, don't have one"? Well I say "If you don't like guns, then don't have one." Bunch of Hypocrites aren't they?
and, I repeat... oy vey! I don't think we need "more of these situations," personally, I think that the loss of human life is not something to be cheered on, even when justified. Bloodshed is bloodshed.
Again, lay off the epitaphs. Those that disagree with you are not necessarily "scumbags" "wackos" or "perverts." They're for the most part exactly what you are, a concerned citizen who wishes for the best for his country. Lay off the hyperbole, it distracts from your message. Don't go on tangents, it makes it hard to figure out exactly what your point was.
Note: I'm not saying I disagree with you. I am from a long line of gun owners and hunters. I was a finalist in an NRA sponsored essay contest about constitutional freedom. I am only asking for a bit more civility.
As for why this story didn't make national news, my hunch is that it wasn't the pro-second amendment implications, but that both the robbers and civilian victims were black. Jackbenimble mentioned it in one of his comments and I agree. This case doesn't fit into the white people as victims of "people of color" criminals narrative that usually plays out on the news. And its true that "black on black" violence is rarely considered by the media to be of national importance, even when this particular case reflects American values of self-reliance, courage, and defense one's loved ones.
I think people are getting a little too paranoid with this whole "national government conspiracy to control news media" thing. It that were true, Fox News would somehow disappear from the airwaves since all they do is trash talk the Obama administration.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Texas Charging Women For Rape Kits
My Other Blog Posts
This case doesn't fit into the white people as victims of "people of color" criminals narrative that usually plays out on the news.
Except for black on black violence, this is the most common type of crime. Like black on black violence it is so common, that it seldom ever warrants national news.
If you want much national news coverage you need a rare example of white on black crime like a rape of poor black woman by a bunch of rich white lacrosse players. Even if a crime like that didn't even actually happens it still gets extensive coverage.
Except for black on black violence, this is the most common type of crime.
Not sure I believe that without some stats. Theoretically I guess, depending on the racial composition of an area.
If you want much national news coverage you need a rare example of white on black crime like a rape of poor black woman by a bunch of rich white lacrosse players. (emphasis mine)
You didn't specify whether you mean violent crime or crime in general. If I wanted a story of white on black crime that made the news, I'd pick any number of stories where a white cop killed or maimed a black man, like the case of Oscar Grant being shot while fully restrained on an Oakland BART platform. The Oscar Grant incident only made news because the community was in such an outrage and started riots.
I think the "rarity" of violent crime of whites on blacks (if the stats say its rare) is due in part to lack of reporting. Rates of nonviolent crimes of whites against blacks would be huge if we count illegal racial discrimination.
As for the Duke lacrosse rape case, the reason it got so much coverage was not because it was about white men gang raping a black woman, but because these white men were being "persecuted".
Even if a crime like that didn't even actually happens it still gets extensive coverage. (emphasis mine)
Wow. Didn't even happen. In what world? If you say it didn't happen because they didn't get convicted, I'd say oh yeah our criminal justice system always gets it right, especially when it comes to sexual assault.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Texas Charging Women For Rape Kits
My Other Blog Posts
Wow. Didn't even happen. In what world?
Do you honestly believe it happened?
The Governor personally apologized and absolved them of any hint of guilt. The Prosecutor was himself prosecuted of abuse of his office and particularly for concealing exculpatory evidence which established their innocence.. That was on top of video evidence that had one of the accused at an ATM machine during the minutes when the crime supposedly occurred along with the eye witness testimony of the taxi driver who drove him to the ATM.. There was absolutely no evidence that they committed the crime except for the ever changing story of a highly unreliable, drug-abusing and mentally disturbed witness.
The charges were completely bogus from the word go.
The prosecutor was just pandering to the black community to get re-elected.
Scratch my title. I don't really care whether you can prove whether they were innocent or not.
The truth is, no one besides the people who were there will ever know what happened that night. But it was evident how race played into the press coverage. I think you have no idea what usually happens when a woman tries to report a rape.
I love how you only replied to this one part of my comment.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Texas Charging Women For Rape Kits
My Other Blog Posts
OK, I am done with dinner and I even have gotten the camper loaded on the truck so I am already to head to the Miles City Bucking Horse Sale for some rodeo and mass consumption of adult beverages and street dancing :-)
Here are some racial crime statistics. It seems like I end posting up these every few months when somebody new comes along. These are for murder. If you really want to see them I can probably also find them for inter-racial rape too. For crimes beyond that, imprisonment statistics make a fairly good proxy for crime rates all though I would concede that there is probably some racial disparities between the way the criminal justice system treats races. But the imprisonment statistics are easy to find and unless you have evidence I don't believe that the criminal justice system is that unfair.
Here are the US Department of Justice statistics for murder:
Racial differences exist, with blacks disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders
In 2005, homicide victimization rates for blacks were 6 times higher than the rates for whites.
In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites
The chart at the bottom of that page pretty much was my point in the previous post.
***HTML Tag edited by Blackout - 05/14/2009.***
You said a few comments back that white victim/non-white offender violent crime was the second most common type of crime right after black victim/black offender. That's mainly what I took issue with. But your own stats seem to contradict that. It says most murders are intraracial with 86% of white murder victims murdered by white people. That's what I figured.
I realize in the scheme of things, white on black violent crime is a slim percent of all violent crime. But, as in the Oscar Grant case I mentioned above, the cop who shot the guy was never charged with a crime, so your stats don't count it. That's the case in many instances of white police abusing or shooting non-white people.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Texas Charging Women For Rape Kits
My Other Blog Posts
That's the case in many instances of white police abusing or shooting non-white people.
I don't know about the abuses but I'm pretty sure the police shootings are such trivial numbers over all that they would have no impact on the statistics. These are rare events that the selective media loves to cover. Here are some selected cop shoot statistics:
Cop involved Shootings
There were nine people killed last year by police in all of New York City. I don't know their racial composition but I bet it would be a safe guess that they were mostly minorities. Keep in mind that the VAST MAJORITY of these shootings are JUSTIFIED. Criminals have a bad habit of shooting at and sometimes killing cops and I totally applaud the situation where the cops shoot these bad guys dead. These killings are NOT crimes. In 2007 there were 12 New York Cops killed in the line of duty by criminals. Also keep in mind that a lot of cops are minorities; these were not just white cops killing non-white people.
I am not at all surprised by your numbers, there are a lot of areas where blacks and ethnic minorities are disproportionately represented.
Black children are about 50% more likely to be removed from their homes due to child abuse, neglect and abandonment, however black families are actually *less* likely to abuse their children than white families. Something is very wrong. I have decided that this whole issue is important enough for me to share my own research findings, but I won't do it here. I will post a new blog, "Social Equality in American Children's Services" feel free to stop by @ http://progressiveu.org/blog/52154-social-equality-american-children-wel...
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!