Media Bias - Surprise

John Bush jbush at POST.CIS.SMU.EDU
Tue Aug 26 06:26:05 MDT 1997

On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Stephen A. Frye wrote:

> Date:    Mon, 25 Aug 1997 21:28:53 -0700
> From:    "Stephen A. Frye" <safrye at CONCENTRIC.NET>
> Subject: Re: Media Bias - Surprise
> >
> >They are not biased since they come not from the NRA but from the files of
> >police departments nationwide. The NRA mearly reprints them.
> Dennis - anything on the world can be proved or disproved with statistics.
You are the one who asked for the statistics.  Now you don't believe
them?  What do you want?

> >Doesn't matter. The 2nd does that for us and is clear for anyone that looks
> >at it without bias or ignorance.
> Well - I'm not ignorant - and I don't happen to agree with your
> interpretation.  Though even though I don;t agree - I still am not in favor
> of gun control.
What interpretation do you believe?  Have you read the writings of
the founding fathers on the issue--or have you just discarded their
> >
> >>
> >>The issue to me runs very deep.  Should we be free to kill an intruder?
> >
> >Absolutely.
> >
> >>Should we be free - as just legislated in either Louisiana or Mississippi -
> >>to kill someone attempting to hi-jack our automobiles?
> >
> >Absolutely
> Is your car worth a human life?  Mine isn't.
Nothing is worth a human life.  But the issue isn't about the
property.  Many people have done everything asked by a criminal...and
still been killed.  You cannot trust a criminal to keep his word.
Don't you see that being free to kill an intruder or hi-jacker isn't
about the threat to property?  It's about the threat to life.
> >
> >Why? We have a jury system to decide those issues. "Better to be judged by
> >twelve then carried by six."
> Less than three weeks ago you said juries were made up of ignorant people.
Better to be judged by twelve ignoramuses than carried by six.
> >
> >This statement implies you think they do not. The amount of money spent on
> >education and promoting responsibility of gun ownership by law abiding
> >individuals is double what is spent on legislation to protect RKBA.
> >Virtually none of which is tax dollars. That amount is exceeded by the money
> >spend on anti-RKBA legislation and almost all of which is tax dollars. How
> >much would it take to satisfy your wish?
> How about when people stop killing each other for fun and profit?  How
> about when kids quit killing themselves and each other with loaded guns
> left available to them?  Tell me - do we have a constitutional right to put
> our own children in harm's way?

I'd say yes.  Do you take your child out in your car?  Is there no
potential for harm?  Of course their is.  And if you are negligent,
you will be prosecuted for it.  Same should be true with guns.

>>Depending on how you define accidental the number is about 600
>>children annually, and declining. I don't know the overall rate but
>>I think I read where it was less then 2000.
>And what number is acceptable?

The current number is more than acceptable to me.  It has no bearing
on the Constitution.  If people want to change the Constitution, then
so be it.  Until such time, these side issues are irrelevant.  (They
are relavent to educational isues though, of which the NRA is the
loudest proponent.)

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list