Guns Figure

Robert Ostrea raostrea at IX.NETCOM.COM
Mon Sep 18 11:27:58 MDT 1995


David writes:
 
>Assuming the information is available, what sort of group is
non-biased?
 
 
This is my problem exactly, David.  I don't know which group would be
considered non-biased.  That's why I asked the question in the first
place!  I would consider the NRA to be biased in a way that would
interpret any statistics as being favorable to them, while the Clinton
Administration would obviously use and interpret stats that confirms
their beliefs.  Perhaps a bi-partisan group is the way to go here,
ensuring that BOTH sides are represented.
 
Mind you, I tend to agree with the NRA in their interpretation of the
statistics that you listed.  That doesn't mean that the lefties, who
don't really have a position as of yet, would accept the findings of
the NRA.  I would like to present them information from a more
objective source...
 
 
> It is only with the emergence of a group who wants to
>disarm us, that the NRA suddenly becomes a far-right, out of control
>group.
 
 
For the record, I never stated that the NRA was a "far-right, out of
control group."  But the fact that they are PERCIEVED as such also
poses some credibility problems among the moderate and left.  You may
think that this is unimportant, but the battle can NOT be won without
support from everyone...
 
 
>
>Your very question intimates that the NRA produces false information.
 
My question implied that the NRA's interpretation may be perceived by
many as biased.  I never stated nor "intimated" that they produced
"false" information.  Please don't put words into my mouth...
 
 
>Why? Bias is usually used to initimate an intentional misreading of
>information.
 
 
No, bias is usually a result of someone who is loyal and dedicated to
what they believe in, and they take every bit of information they have
in a positive manner.  There's nothing wrong with that, David, but that
doesn't mean they are deliberately issuing false information...
 
 
 
[snip]
>I guess I would like to know what your intent is? To somehow modify
>the NRA statements, statistics and research, or, to figure out where
>we go from here? Regarding what subject? If Bias means support for
>traditional, constitutional, patriotically correct, stuff, then I
guess
>I don't care if it is biased or not. Why do you?
 
 
I think I've explained myself pretty well in my above responses.  It's
obvious you don't care if the information is biased, but you already
agreed with them in the first place (as do I in this case).  The fact
of the matter is, we need to convince everyone else that the
"gun-grabbers" of America are not interested in reducing crime, rather
they are interested in making sure that no citizen will be armed.  They
want control.
 
You don't seem to understand that without support from the left and the
moderate, the battle will not be won!  NRA statistics will NOT convince
many of the moderate, and certainly none of the left.  However, stats
and interpretations submitted by a non or bi partisan, objective
organization would be much more effective in the fight to save the 2nd
Amendment.  It goes a LOT further than just you and I, Dave...
 
 
 
-------------------
Robert A. Ostrea, Jr.
North Hollywood, CA
RAOstrea at ix.netcom.com
 
1 Game Back!!



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list