Media Bias - Surprise

Dennis Putnam dap1 at MINDSPRING.COM
Tue Aug 26 17:52:32 MDT 1997


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 02:10 PM 8/26/97 -0700, you wrote:
>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?

You have to give specifics because I don't recall ever seeing this dicotomy.
There are FBI agents that have been caught lieing along with other errors in
judgement but that is different from the raw data collected and published by
rote. What statistics of the FBI are to referencing?

>
>
>I'll take my chances without the gun.

That is you constitutional right, however, don't impose that on me (that is
a rhetorical comment not intended to imply you do or would, sheesh you're
sensitive these days).

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

Being held responsible for ones own actions is abusrd?

>
>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 sole purpose of a gun is not for killing that is anti-gun claptrap. I
have never killed anyone in my life nor do I ever expect to. However, I own
a number of guns for the purpose of the enjoyment of shooting. Self defense
is an added benefit. Why are you against that? Oops I forgot you are not
against that I guess I just don't understand you point. For one that
repeatedly states they oppose gun control you sure are working hard to
justify it. You claim about a car vs a loaded gun is not accurate. To be
equivalent you would have to say leaving you child behind the wheel of the
car with the engine running is less risky then leaving a loaded gun around
the house. Assuming the gun is in good working order you child is more at
risk of putting the car into gear then figuring out how to get a loaded gun
into condition 1 so it can be discharged.

>
>
>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?

What kind of answer do you expect to this question. Mine would be that this
is an impossible situation. My children were taught at an early age to
respect and understadn the dangers of a gun. They would have recognized the
irresponsible behavior and understood the necessit of getting the **** out
of there.

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

Baiting. You sound like you cannot defend your position.

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

You betcha. Except education cannot be enforced because liberals prevent
this type of training from infiltrating schools.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQB1AwUBNANsO/LQp6vUUyvVAQGI9wL/df34rAhLmRZhFJue7NEwEkLoVDGubFWM
dNOr4kmDv/Ksb+aL5kf7YZgB2W36Eq9c0Nb/k16Evzc1cA+VU5lSDnshuyBd37vL
e/+W1bg25JagODEEmhbb1kO2trAZRajY
=CYFQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
Dennis Putnam                   Public Key can be obtained from:
Loganville, Ga.                 <http://www.ilinks.net/~dap>



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list