Media Bias - Surprise

Stephen A. Frye safrye at CONCENTRIC.NET
Tue Aug 26 15:10:39 MDT 1997


>You are the one who asked for the statistics.  Now you don't believe
>them?  What do you want?

How about responsibility.  I find it quite amusing that we jump at the
accuracy of the NRA statistics - based upon FBI files when it suits our
needs.  However - when otherwise suits our needs - we find FBI accuracy in
reporting to be somewhat less than desirable.
I also find it extremely amusing that reports that agree with our position
are considered accurate, and reports that disagree with our position are
considered biased.  You tell me - whom should I believe?

>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.

This has gone beyond silly into the extremes of ridiculous.  My whole
premise has been the taking of life.  I am against it.  Whether it is
intended or accidental.  I am also sick of hearing reports about children
accidentally killed by guns - tools that were made to kill.  We demand the
freedom to have these instruments, yet we demand no responsibility in their
ownership.  I believe that is extremely irresponsible of everyone of us who
demands the right.  I believe that responsibility goes hand ain hand with
right.  That is all I am interested in seeing - yet the only thing argued
is the right.

>Better to be judged by twelve ignoramuses than carried by six.

I'll take my chances without the gun.


>
>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.

Again - a trek into total absurdity.  Becoming quite typical.

I also weigh risk.  I find a drive in a car to be far less risky than
leaving a loaded gun around the house.  I also did not let my children
drive until they demonstrated their ability to do so - and until their
ability to do so had been demonstrated to the state.  Again - I guess I'd
only like to see something similar applied to tools manufactured for the
sole purpose of killing.  Why is everyone so against that?

>
>The current number is more than acceptable to me.

Would it  be acceptable to you if it were your child - possibly injured or
killed by the irresponsible gun handling of a friend or neighbor - through
absolutely no fault of your own?

>It has no bearing
>on the Constitution.

You're right.  But it indeed has bearing on responsibility.  Something very
lacking.

>If people want to change the Constitution, then
>so be it.  Until such time, these side issues are irrelevant.

I get a real kick out of death being a side issue.

>(They
>are relavent to educational isues though, of which the NRA is the
>loudest proponent.)

Big deal.  Is sufficient education enforced?  Must competency be demonstrated?

Stephen Frye



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list