The details of the gun. Had she said that a magazine was found she would have been OK, but then she delved into the details of the weapon, details that as reported by her were demonstrably incorrect and simply echoed the anti-gun line of the last 20 years about “plastic guns”.
Haha, oh yeah. I forgot about what this thread was actually about. :smack:
Carry on.
I think it would have to be over 99%. I have yet to see a business or public bulding in the Twin Cities without a sign on the door.
Yeah, and as we know, Minneapolis/St. Paul is the entire state of Minnesota. Good one, Dio.
He drove it up from the Bahamas.
Every time you try to twist this argument you dig the hole a little deeper. This really isn’t too complicated.
Buildings have signs posted stating no guns allowed. Most had that policy (without a sign) for decades. The people that qualify for the permits aren’t generally the ones that are using them in the buildings.
You know who the people using them in the buildings are? Of course you do. But just a gentle reminder. They’re not the ones that are getting the permits and they sure as hell aren’t the ones that are obeying the signs.
I bet that Denny’s restaurant didn’t allow guns in the store. They maybe even had a cute little sign stating so. Concealed carry wasn’t the impetus to that shooting. It was the guy that was hell bent on breaking the law.
Banning guns from areas is up to the place that owns it. That’s not a problem and nobody is trying to radically change that. Your argument was that concealed carry would massively increasee gun crimes. It hasn’t. You were wrong.
But you just can’t admit that, can you? You’re right even when you’re wrong. And when it can be proven that you were wrong, it somehow makes you even more right, as evidenced in subsequent posts of yours.
You’ve lost the CC argument long ago. Let it go.
Just imagine what their ratings would be without Rove. Are negative numbers possible in a poll? 
Did you read the link provided by Merneith? The reason the “gun part” could be a “piece of the puzzle” is not because it was found in or near the wreckage of a car accident, which is “statistically” likely, but because it appears to have been planted in the vehicle of the good samaritan who lent their cell phone to a mysterious man named “Trevor” who sailed away on a $14million yacht and has yet to be found.
From the linked Malibu Times article:
The whole sordid story is like a damn puzzle, and finding a magazine clip planted in a witness’s vehicle is a piece of that larger puzzle. If the guy was going to escape into obscurity on a multi-million-dollar yacht, why bother planting a piece of a gun in a passer-by’s car, when you could just as easily drop it over the rail into the deep blue sea? By all accounts it most certainly is puzzling.
Nope just negative people. 
…I’m sorry, but you can’t really expect anyone to take a study from the Media Research Center seriously, do you? I mean, these were the guys who got sued by World Wrestling Entertainment for lying about advertisers pulling support, and accusing WWE of being responsible for the death of four children? To quote the lead counsel for the WWE:
…the same Media Research Center that settled with the WWE for 5 million dollars?
http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2000/2000_11_09.jsp
The same Media Research Center with headlines like these on their website over the last thirty days: CBS Drowns Iraq Talk with Negative Poll Skips Faulting of Media, . ABC & CBS Ignore Fall in Unemployment Rate to Lowest Since 9/11, and Clooney’s Speech: ABC Backs with Clips Instead of Fact-Checking.
The same Media Research Center with this Mission Statement:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/about/aboutwelcome.asp
…the same Media Research Center whose news service, CNS News, publishes such articles like SPECIAL REPORT: Murtha’s War Hero Status Called Into Question.
…which leads off with this stunning accusation:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200601/SPE20060113a.html
…boy, that sure is some great journalism… :rolleyes:
…but enough about other peoples opinions, what about the report itself? “IT HAS A METHODOLOGY!!!” You proclaim. Indeed, it does. It begins:
…hmmm, okay.
For the life of me, I can’t figure out what that means. Its your cite UncleBeer, what the hell are they saying?
…well we have two conditions stated which would lead to a statement being labeled as anti-gun. Apparently, there are other conditions that would lead to a statement being labeled “anti-gun”, but the methodoloy fails to list them. So for a statement to be anti-gun, it would either have to
*1) state violent crimes occur because of guns, not criminals, and or
2) gun control prevents crime.
3) other statements not listed, as implied by the comment “Among statements recorded as…”
*
You would agree that that is a fair summary of the definition given in the methodology? Do you think that is a fair and accurate means of determing whether or not a statement is anti-gun or not? Do you agree with how they define(however poorly) an anti-gun statement? If I said “I support gun control, and I believe that gun control can help prevent crime”, do you think that it is fair to classify that as an anti-gun statement?
I would assure you that in most places around the world with the exception of the United States an arguement in favour of gun-control is not an arguement against guns. New Zealand has firm, common-sense gun laws: they are not illegal, I can get one if I needed one, I can field strip a modified M-16 blindfolded (I learnt this at the age of 16 at college) and I have fired it on the range. Paula Zahn’s comments appear to be the mistake of some copy-writer who mistook an urban legend for truth. It wouldn’ t be the first time it something like this has happened, I get annoyed everytime a Tsunami is called a Tidal Wave. But if I was to start a pit thread about it, it wouldn’t be because I thought there was a conspiracy against the Japanese language, it would be because standards of journalism aren’t the same or at the level that I believe they should be.
If you want to prove an anti-gun bias in the media, I think you would have to do better than posting several out-of-context quotations and a link to a study published by an organization that **“aims to but also to neutralize *[the liberal media]*its impact on the American political scene,”,**The study uses incomplete and shifting definitions of what qualifies as an “anti-gun” story, has a statisticly dubious methodology, no data citations, inherent undeclared biases, and reads like a dogs breakfast. How many respected studies have you read that uses “pet” or “insulting” names for the object of their study, like calling World News Tonight **“Worst News Tonight”, **and refering to Good Morning America as "Good Morning Gun Control?"
You would have to be stupid to take that study seriously: you’re not that stupid, so you must be trying to deliberately deceive the casual readers of that study.
Quite simply, it is a mechanism by which the overall slant of a story can be quantified. Points are assigned to specific statements in a story and those points are then enumerated. If the ratio of points exceeds 1.5 in either direction, the story is categorized as one or the other depending on the ratio. It prevents a story from being labeled as one or the other in cases where there are both pro- and con- gun statements. Stories where the ratio of statements was closer to 1.0, are deemed “neutral.” That prevents marginal stories from entering the equation.
Ain’t all that difficult to understand. And seems to me to be an eminently reasonable procedure.
You can just call them “out of context” and wave 'em away if you wish, but I’d prefer that you explain just why you think that’s justified. Perhaps you could give us the full context if you think it’s necessary for a proper understanding.
Fine. Try some of these then:
http://www.davekopel.com/Media/MediaBias.htm - this one shows quite clearly that the large and most influential media entities are quite anti-gun. It mentions that smaller local press outlets are often pro-gun, but these entities clearly do not have much influence outside their home markets and generally display the attitudes of their viewers and readers.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott14.html - this one demonstrates bias in the large city newspapers and television stations by evaluating the number of stories about defensive gun use. Stories of that type are found to be woefully lacking while stories about crimes committed with guns are prevalent.
…now thats how you write an explanation in a methodology. Its a shame such writing ability was lost on the authors of your citation.
…its only reasonable if you accept that stories are assigned points according to criteria that the report leaves undefined.
Of course they are out of context. You provided just a snippet of a quotation of a much larger article, without providing the larger article to allow the “casual reader of this thread” an opportunity to see the authors intent. A casual google of the different quotations leads to a plethora of similar quotations from a series of articles making the same arguement that you do, without any of them quoting or linking to the article themselves. Did you just copy and paste from one of those sites? Have you read the original articles they were in to judge for yourself whether or not they were in an “anti-gun” context? I don’t have a credit card, nor do I live in the United States, so tracking down the original source articles is not an easy task for me.
Lets look at one of the quotes you provided:
The “…” between “country” and “to buy”, is that an edit, or is that how the article was written, or is that what he said? The second statement that he made, “The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns” is a logicaly correct statement. If there are no guns, then handguns are controled. But what point was he trying to make? In the larger context of his statement, was he actually making a point against gun control? Without the rest of the article, we cannot make this judgement.
Quite clearly shows that large media entities are anti-gun? Are you actually reading the studies? Are you just hoping the “casual readers of this thread” won’t click the link and instead just blindly follow your assesment of the study? The “study” does not show that large and influential meda entities are quite anti-gun. The “study” attempts to analyse the media’s response to two surveys conducted in 1978. Kopel’s study labels one study as anti-control, and labels the other study as pro-control, and then later labels them as anti-gun, pro-gun, without ever defining those terms. The study concludes:
…even if you were to accept the study’s conclusions, they are based on media reports that were written nearly thirty years ago. Are you seriously trying to argue that the “media” back then is the same as the “media” now? Are you claiming that by analyising the media coverage of two polls (which despite the claims of Kopel, had two very different methodologies) you can come to the conclusion that the media is biased against guns?
And as an aside, by citing Kopel after quoting me criticizing your last cite for having “undeclared biases”, are you implying that Kopel is some sort of independent figure with no bias in the gun control debate? He’s the author of " “59 deceits in Fahrenheit 911”, which was challenged by Wade in a point for point rebuttal here. His website would lead me to believe that he is anything but an independent figure.
…that cite would be fine, except for the fact, that it was written by Lott. You should know as well as I do that Lott’s findings have been disputed by many. I would cite Kleck, or Ayres and Donahue to rebut, but i’m sure you would have the same objections. To call Lott unbiased would be like calling Ann Coulter a flaming pink liberal. This is the John Lott who invented an internet persona, Mary Rosh, to defend himself online.
Some other conclusions on Lott: (Quoted with links to the primary source where possible, so that they can be seen in context:
http://www.vahv.org/oped/nejm2029.html
…now onto your cite. Lott argues that the coverage of the Appalachian School of Law shootings show clearly the media bias against guns. There is dispute over whether or not the killer put his gun down before or after Bridges pointed his gun at him:
Tim Lambert did a study of the same news articles that Lott did, and concluded:
http://timlambert.org/2003/06/0618/
http://timlambert.org/2003/09/0902/
http://timlambert.org/guns/appalachian/index.index
…forgive me for having little faith in Lott’s analysis. :rolleyes:
The “news media hates guns” is an extraordinarily broad statement to make, and if it is so apparent then proving the statement true should be quite simple using objective, measurable means. You have so far cited several out-of-context quotations, which in terms of internet debates, are no better than citing anecdotes. You have linked to three studies with demonstratably flawed methodolgies with inherent biases and dubious conclusions. I don’t really care about the gun debate in the US, I would sum up my feelings on the matter in a short sentence: “I DON’T GIVE A SHIT.” But we are on an website devoted to “fighting ignorance”, and it appears you are promoting ignorance rather than fighting it. Diogenes the Cynic dismissed your citations for “the media hates guns” out of hand, which on reflection was the correct thing to do considering the flawed nature of your cited reports and the anecdotal nature of your quotations.
To prove the “news media hates guns”, you would have to firstly come up with an authoritive definition of what encompasses the “news media,” and come up with a definition of what “hates guns” means. In all of your citations, you haven’t been able to do that simple step.
Well, I did at least ask Dio to give us a definition. Ain’t my fault if what he gave us doesn’t meet with your satisfaction.
I’m not sure how effectively you can claim it was lost on the authors; I mean, I figured it out from their writings.
Okay. I’ll agree to dismiss that one. What about the other half-dozen?
That seems kinda silly. Using your meaning, I could claim I operate the largest zoo of extinct animals. But I still wouldn’t have a zoo. How can you possible regulate something that doesn’t exist?
Do you, or do you not, believe there are far more stories in the main stream media which portray guns as associated with negative social phenomena? Or do you believe that guns are portrayed positively? When you reply, consider that there is substantial evidence of a large number of gun uses which are positive. And another large number of gun uses which are neutral. The studies and stories I link show quite conclusively that the negative far outweigh the positive - both in quantity and in scope.
In any case, the actual claim that Dio made was, “From what I’ve seen, the media LOVES guns. They’re good on TV.” There is no support for that view whatsoever. There is, however, an awful lot which demonstrates the reverse.
By the way, that was a pretty impressive post. I’m certain you spent quite a bit of time on it and I thank you for making the effort. Too bad, the actrual claimant here, Dio, hasn’t seen fit to support his own argument.
…actually, it was pkbites who made the original assertion that “the media hates guns.” Diogenes the Cynic asked for a cite, which you attempted to provide.
So you admit you had to figure it out. The statement wasn’t well written, and while I came to the same sort of conclusion that you did, it wasn’t immediately obvious, and is still open to interpretation.
Well, what about them? Do you consider the Wall Street Journal to be an anti-gun publication? Do you think a single sentence written by Gary Wills in 1981 proves your case? Do you think the words of a substitute news anchor prove systematic bias against guns? You have quotes from columnists and essayists-hardly authoritian sources, and while you could argue they show a larger pattern, I could probably google up any number of quotes from people of similar stature with opposing points of view. I don’t understand what the quotes are trying to prove, or how they help your arguement.
Silly or not, the statement was still logically correct, which is the only arguement I made.
Would you believe that I am completely indifferent? Over here in New Zealand, not even the police are normally armed. On television, we get CNN International, the BBC, Fox News, Sky International and for a while we got MSNBC. We also get programmes like 20/20, we can access all the news channels on the net, and our local papers publish the standard reuters and AP stories. My perception is that guns are not overly portrayed any more negatively than stories about beer or smoking. Should the media have a duty to portray guns positively? I’m a strong believer that the media shoud report the news, and leave their agendas at home.
But I must say, that your citations proved changed my thinking in one way that would not please you, but I found they helped disprove the notion that the “media hates guns.” The extensive reading into the Lott report that I did helped advance my opinion. The Lott study never linked to the primary sources of his study, while Lambert’s did. After reading many of the articles that Lott had determined to be “anti gun”, I came to the undeniable conclusion that Lott was talking out of his ass, and that his perception of the news stories were clouded by his attitudinal bias.
So what? There are a number of positve uses of alcohol. I enjoy the odd bottle of beer. But if I was anal enough to conduct a study of all the news organizations to weigh up positive and negative stories about beer use, and if I went into the study with a preconcieved notion of how the study would end up, odds are on the study would show that negative stories about alcohol would outweigh the positive.
Rubbish. Are you talking about Lotts study? I have shown that his figures are widely disputed. I don’t consider any of the studies that you have linked to have conclusively proved anything.
But for the purposes of debate, and lets forget about the quality of your citations, lets make the assumption that both 1) a large number of gun uses are positive, 2) negative gun stories outweigh the positive are both true statements. I put this back to you: do these two factoids prove “the media hates guns?” I would contend absolutely not. As Kopel himself says:
It is quite clear that Dio is offering his perception, while pkbites comment was stated as a fact. It would be hard to prove Dio’s perception of the media to you, just as it has been hard for you to prove your perception of the media to me.
Ummm, no there really isn’t. Not from any of the citations you have provided anyway.
Thanks, I sometimes get the impression that people don’t read my posts. 
I’d like to thank you as well for your calm and reasoned manner: venturing into a gun debate in the BBQ pit of a US message board should have seen me go down in flames. 
I’m happy to have barely been scorched, and appreciate your time and your civility. I must bow out of the discussion now, however, after a long period of unemployment due to my catering business self-destructing a year ago, I have finally gained full time employment! Which will give me so much less time to post, not that I am that prolific anyway…
Nope. You done quite well.
Happy to know you’re back on your feet. Good luck! Hope you find time to continue visiting here.
If we didn’t have guns to run amok and rob our brethen and sisters, then what in the hell would the news agencies cover?
/member of a shooting club.
//air rifles I’m such a badass.
///Slashies!
Oh, and let me be the first to say that I’m shocked ( SHOCKED!) that you all think reporters nowadays are hired for looks first then talent. Ted Koppel, I’ll have you know, was a sex kitten in his day. 
I happen to think Paula has pretty eyes, a gorgeous voice, and a killer pair of drumsticks. That said, I don’t necessarily dig her show all that much.
I return you now to the actual topic, guns.