Gun Control thread (merged many)

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I stopped reading after this.




This would be the mother of all false comparisons.

Seriously. That article was basically "anti-gun people are irrational and need to come around to our way of thinking." That was the author's entire point.

And the second article, he spends 98% of the piece pointing out how ridiculous the anti-gun crowd is in his eyes, and he spends two sentences saying "Gun-rights supporters need to stop characterizing all gun-control advocates as ultimately wanting to “ban guns.” Most do not."

Fair and balanced. Suurrrrre.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Fair and balanced. Suurrrrre.

Neither is CNN, as I have already pointed out. Your not going to get an unbiased news source in the United States. Period. ALL news sources pander to a demographic for ratings. Your best bet is to read multiple sources and filter out the rhetoric, instead of focusing on just the rhetoric. Admittedly, that can be hard at times.


EDIT:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I'm not sure how to put this without being offensive - you're exactly the kind of person this article is seeking. Concerned about Second Amendment rights, but want to be civil and not-a-jerk about it.

Notice that the article says there's nothing wrong with you - it's the liberals who need to get a grip. The whole thing is one-sided with a nice happy title that gives it the covering of bipartisanship the content/arguments do not warrant.

I don't think so Tchocky. Let me ask you this, Have you moved from a really large metro area in blue state to a much smaller metro area in a red state as I have done? Or have you sunk your roots in one area and haven't really lived outside of it for very long, if at all?

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I don't think so Tchocky. Let me ask you this, Have you moved from a really large metro area in blue state to a much smaller metro area in a red state as I have done? Or have you sunk your roots in one area and haven't really lived outside of it for very long, if at all?

No, I haven't. As far as the US goes, I've only lived in the bluest of blue states, MA and CA. In Europe I've lived all over. Ireland, UK, Austria, Luxembourg, now the Netherlands - so I understand what it's like changing places and encountering different lifestyles and viewpoints. My experience is not yours, that's something great about GT, you get a lot of different viewpoints in the mix.

I can see what you're getting at -the cultural divide here isn't one that I have an awful lot of experience with. And that's true.

However, articles like the ones linked above are not serious discussions for reasons myself and mookie have pointed out. They don't further understanding, they don't seek comity or common ground. That's not to say the pro-gun-rights side doesn't have good arguments. They do! It just means that none of them are present in the writing of Mr Burrus.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

No, I haven't. As far as the US goes, I've only lived in the bluest of blue states, MA and CA. In Europe I've lived all over. Ireland, UK, Austria, Luxembourg, now the Netherlands - so I understand what it's like changing places and encountering different lifestyles and viewpoints. My experience is not yours, that's something great about GT, you get a lot of different viewpoints in the mix.

I can see what you're getting at -the cultural divide here isn't one that I have an awful lot of experience with. And that's true.

Well, thank you for acknowledging my point. I could illustrate the differences I have encountered if your interested. I have to admit though If i hadn't have seen the differences in how guns are perceived myself, I probably wouldn't have believed the differences either.

However, articles like the ones linked above are not serious discussions for reasons myself and mookie have pointed out. They don't further understanding, they don't seek comity or common ground. That's not to say the pro-gun-rights side doesn't have good arguments. They do! It just means that none of them are present in the writing of Mr Burrus.

I did hesitate to link because they are on foxnews. When I first wrote my post, I had originally included the caveat "if you can stomach fox news", but for some reason removed that sentence. I guess because I have bounced back and forth between CNN and Foxnews so many times, that I'm getting past the point where the bias on either one makes any serious difference to me. Funny, last year, I ONLY read CNN, and NEVER read fox news at all. Now I read them both equally. Go figure.

I did hesitate to link because they are on foxnews.

The problem isn't that it is on fox, the problem is the writer is full of crap.
You could have been CNN, WSJ, the BBC or VNN publishing it, it wouldn't matter as the pieces are still rubbish.