Can you trust CNN? Would you trust an organization that gave the debate question to Hillary Clinton in advance?
CNN is not a trusted news source. The are slanted options under the guise of news.
I think CNN is about as trustworthy as most large, corporate owned news organizations (which is to say that money, advertising, ratings drive their coverage far more than anything else). Some news organizations are better than others. Fox is a joke. But I wouldn’t rely on CNN alone for news coverage.
Actually, I stopped watching TV news completely after the 2016 election. Even before that my viewing was infrequent. I prefer other sources of information.
There are a lot of “OMG” silly moments on CNN.
There is a lot of dick posturing on Fox.
While I may roll my eyes at CNN’s overcovering something with too much TV time, it’s kinda sad to watch Fox.
After the shooting, I’m convinced we as a nation have Penis Size Insecurity. I mean the amount of zeal and unlevelheadedness from watching people defend their Jesus given right to have particular guns or ammo amounts… I mean jeez. Go buy a big ass Chevy with a 454 and straight pipes out the back already.
My responses:
No, but I do defend my right to keep and bear arms pretty much always.
No, but I do see it come up in the discussions afterwards often enough to notice some correlation.
No, but I do make purchases fairly steadily and regularly. If anything, I delay after a shooting spree (and the ensuing gun control debate) because I know that demand, and thus prices, often spike.
No, but I do certainly notice that the RKBA advocates are generally more knowledgeable and factual on the subject than the gun control advocates.
Sometimes, if their mistakes are serious enough to affect the discussion in some significant way, and very occasionally just to poke a little fun at the other side’s ignorance, if I’m in a particularly foul mood. Oftentimes I try to educate.
Not particularly, as I think there are generally better arguments to be made, but it’s probably come up a few times. And yes, I can name quite a few of them.
You acknowledged that the first paragraph was hyperbole, but the last paragraph was just shitty too. Fuck that guy, having his kid being in a school shooting couldn’t have happened to a more deserving asshole.
Thank you H-D, for reminding everyone who/what you really are.
When you need to invoke HC again to make your points, you are basically like just giving up, right?
This is the main problem they have. They went mad trying to balance things that aren’t symmetrical.
Just wanted to quote this again.
Dude. Seriously.
How do you find the time to post here when you’re missing the next conspiracy theory on Faux News?
Thanks for providing the responses. There’s probably no point in further back-and-forth on this, but I’ll give you my reaction to each of your comments. To keep the conversation coherent, I’ve preceded each of your comments with the original question that it applied to:
Q: When someone kills a large number of children using a military weapon, do you rush to the Internet to defend the rights of the weapon?
The problem is that defending that right blindly and with zealous absolutism is exactly what’s led to the proliferation of guns absolutely unprecedented anywhere else in the first world, including large and deadly arsenals in the possession of people who in any sane jurisdiction would not be allowed to own a popgun. This position is nothing short of recklessly irresponsible, equivalent to habitual drunk driving.
Q: When someone kills a large number of children using a military weapon, is your first thought that you hope there will be evidence of mental illness? (credit given if its your second thought with your first thought being please let is be a Muslim)
You acknowledge the bleeding obvious, since the NRA and gun advocates hammer away at the mental health angle every time this happens, and it was the first (and only) thing that Trump proposed in the days after the shooting – i.e.- it was the thing that his handlers told him was the only acceptable solution. And of course it won’t work, because there are huge problems in identifying genuine mental health issues, in legal enforcement and effectively blocking access to guns in a country that is flooded with them, and preventing gun violence by perfectly ordinary people who have snapped due to some catastrophic life event.
Q: When someone kills a large number of children using a military weapon, do you run out to buy more military weapons?
But many do because they fear that finally, inevitably, some restrictions may be introduced that will make it harder for them to buy murderously powerful armaments that they don’t need. Though your answer seems to beg for a followon question: how many guns is too many? Can one ever have too many guns, in your view? Alternatively, how many child gun deaths is too many? In one year on average, 17,102 American children and teens (ages 0-19) are shot in murders, assaults, suicides & suicide attempts, unintentional shootings, or by police intervention. 2,737 of them die. Cite. Numbers like that just don’t appear in any other civilized country, not even close, whether or not prorated for population.
Q: When someone kills a large number of children using a military weapon, are you pre-armed with poorly sourced, easily debunked alternative facts in defense of your arsenal?
If by “knowledgeable” you mean in willful denial of shocking numbers like the ones above, or total gun deaths overall, or numbers of mass shooting, and any of these compared to civilized countries. Instead we get convoluted bullshit about how those numbers somehow don’t matter, or that nothing can be done, or some outrageously barbaric bullshit about “the price of freedom”.
Q: When someone kills a large number of children using a military weapon, do you spend time correcting the terminology people use in describing the weapon?
It’s utterly irrelevant unless we’re discussing the specific details of a proposed new law or regulation governing a specific weapon. I myself have been accused of being ridiculously unqualified to discuss the number of gun fatalities in the US because I once used the wrong terminology for a gun part. It appears that the “knowledgeable” gun advocates you mention above have to grasp at straws to support their failed arguments. We see an example of importance being attributed to utterly irrelevant gun terminology right in the OP of this thread.
Q: When someone kills a large number of children using a military weapon, do you like to bring up how the long dead founding fathers support your views? (Do you object to a standing army as strenuously as they would? Can you name any of them?)
It’s not that there are “better” arguments, it’s that the “founding fathers” argument is no argument at all, because what they were talking about has absolutely zero connection with the needs and problems of America today.
That’s a pretty nasty thing to say. One of the things I noticed after Sandy Hook and again recently among the worst of the gun crowd is a shocking lack of empathy for the dead children and their parents and survivors, and a concern only with their own gun agenda. I would hope that the above is just an unfortunate choice of words and not the same sentiment.
It was a reaction to someone saying to me, in effect ‘you don’t have a soul’. That’s a pretty nasty thing to say in its own right, and tends to make my empathy for the speaker evaporate.
On another matter, you said “There’s probably no point in further back-and-forth on this…” but then went on to pose a number of questions in your reaction to my comments (“how many guns is too many? Can one ever have too many guns, in your view? Alternatively, how many child gun deaths is too many?”). Does this mean you’d like answers to those questions, or not?
But you wished harm on his kid.
He said, in effect, “you don’t have a soul”, and your reaction was to consider him deserving of the possible murder of his son and his son’s friends?
The father’s comment wasn’t addressed to you personally but to a political contingent that you happen to identify with. A political group that he considers directly culpable in reckless policies that resulted in the deaths of 17 people, and could have killed his own child. Maybe you can cut him some slack for emotional language. I think he is owed some considerations that you are not.
I was being courteous in suggesting that I don’t consider you have an obligation to respond further, and I was doubtful that further discussion along those lines would be productive. But if you have something further to say and want to address those rhetorical questions or any others, please feel free.
WTF, that’s down right sociopathic.
I think you just proved his point.
I swear, conservatives are just not decent people or they have some sort of mental illness. I’m trying to convince myself it’s the latter to keep my hope in humanity alive.
People in OKC probably deserved it too.
Seeing a trend here in what should happen to people who don’t align with HD thoughts on guns.
Perhaps you lot should take it to the Pit
I quickly checked, and it doesn’t look like you’ve ever posted in the Pit thread about you. It doesn’t seem like a good place to discuss things with you.
You are correct. I try to not post in the Pit at all. If you want to “discuss things” with me, we can do it here, and be part of the civilized world (an allusion to a post I’m working on for wolfpup). If your objective is to sling insults at me, kindly do it over there. For the record, I wasn’t mentally including you or wolfpup in my “you lot” post, although I see I didn’t make that clear. It was directed towards Guinastasia, nate, and Chingon.