HiPowering Along
New member
Well written article on why "gun-free zones" are a criminal's playground.
Good take on why only criminals love "gun free zones"....
Good take on why only criminals love "gun free zones"....
FoxNews article - "Flawed laws helps stalkers victimize women"
- Thread starter HiPowering Along
- Start date
Varmint Eviscerator
New member
pheew, finally some positive media coverage
-VE
-VE
You will notice that the author is John Lott, author of More guns, less crime and not a "regular" reporter. In the eyes of anyone involved in anti-gun politics, they'll just dismiss anything Lott writes as propaganda (as they try to do with anything that disagrees with their stance).
applesanity
New member
Unfortunately, that about sums up the credibility of the article.
Why would you say that, applesanity? The theme of the article (and I daresay his facts would back it up) bears a striking resemblance to reality.
Lott may have pulled a couple of stupid stunts, but his facts are real. No one has been able to refute his research. No one.
So why is the article not credible?
Lott may have pulled a couple of stupid stunts, but his facts are real. No one has been able to refute his research. No one.
So why is the article not credible?
WeedWacker
New member
Some people look at FOX as being conservatively biased and automatically dismiss what anyone associated with them says as drivel spewed from a propagandist.
Mike P. Wagner
New member
I am with applesanity on this one - those of use who believe in 2nd Amendment rights have somehow generated a set of spokesmen who are really, really good at persuading people who already agree with them. In the south, it's called "preaching to the choir".
The journlistic standards of Fox News are not what I would call a "high bar" for conservative ranters. Getting a pro-gun or pro-Bush rant on Fox is about as challenging editorially as getting a glowing review of a handgun in American Rifleman.
I fear for our riights in the next election.
Mike
Last edited:
Yea you guys are right in your criticism of the source of this article. Let's all wait for similar stories on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc. After all they are the only unbiased sources of news, right?
Some people look at the above networks with the same opinion (only liberal).
Some people look at the above networks with the same opinion (only liberal).
I would really like to get past the argument about "bias" and all that and discuss the article.
The scenario is a girl living and/or going to campus on a daily basis is being stalked, he has progressed from just wanting to be with her and has escalted to the threats and intimidation and if I read the article correctly he had physical assualted her. My understanding of Stalkers is they will not stop, they must be stopped by an outside force (Arrests, legal action, the object of the warped love is able to never be found ever again).
So is the "gun free zone" a good or bad thing. Let us just say she would carry a gun, legally and follow all the rules. She would not have the gun on her on Campus, where she goes daily and possibly lives.
Is it a good idea to have these "gun free zones"?
The scenario is a girl living and/or going to campus on a daily basis is being stalked, he has progressed from just wanting to be with her and has escalted to the threats and intimidation and if I read the article correctly he had physical assualted her. My understanding of Stalkers is they will not stop, they must be stopped by an outside force (Arrests, legal action, the object of the warped love is able to never be found ever again).
So is the "gun free zone" a good or bad thing. Let us just say she would carry a gun, legally and follow all the rules. She would not have the gun on her on Campus, where she goes daily and possibly lives.
Is it a good idea to have these "gun free zones"?
Mike P. Wagner
New member
Complaining about "liberal bias" in the "mainstream media" will not protect our 2nd Amendment rights. If we only listen to the news sources that agree with us, we won't make much headway.
A reasonbale pro-gun disucssion on Jon Stewart's show would be newsworthy to me - a pro-gun piece on FOX by Lott doesn't mean much.
Evil
But at least there was something on fox then nothing on any network.
The point that NEEDs to be made is not that a gun would have helped or not, or if she would have carried one or not BUT if it is right to remove that option with "GUN FREE ZONES".
That said the news needs to get out there, I would rather have a good story run on fox than just the Brady bunch on NBC.
The point that NEEDs to be made is not that a gun would have helped or not, or if she would have carried one or not BUT if it is right to remove that option with "GUN FREE ZONES".
That said the news needs to get out there, I would rather have a good story run on fox than just the Brady bunch on NBC.
In post #3, BillCA said, "In the eyes of anyone involved in anti-gun politics, they'll just dismiss anything Lott writes as propaganda (as they try to do with anything that disagrees with their stance)."
In post #5, applesanity replied, "Unfortunately, that about sums up the credibility of the article."
I asked what makes the article in question, not credible.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever bias anyone chooses to see in the reporting medium, rather it directly goes to the article itself. What about the article is not credible?
Mike, your answer was a non-sequitur, as it never addressed the question I asked (and you quoted). You stood up a strawman and then knocked him down. Forget about where it was published. Forget who published it. Those are not within the parameters of my question.
What about the article is not credible?
In post #5, applesanity replied, "Unfortunately, that about sums up the credibility of the article."
I asked what makes the article in question, not credible.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever bias anyone chooses to see in the reporting medium, rather it directly goes to the article itself. What about the article is not credible?
Mike, your answer was a non-sequitur, as it never addressed the question I asked (and you quoted). You stood up a strawman and then knocked him down. Forget about where it was published. Forget who published it. Those are not within the parameters of my question.
What about the article is not credible?
Mike P. Wagner
New member
Antipitas said:
Not exactly - it was a rejection of the question as the wrong one to ask.
Of course, everyone on TFL is going to understand that "gun free zones" are a bad idea - but preaching to the choir doesn't bring the "conversions" we need to maintain our 2nd Amendment rights when the next administration rolls into town. It's like reading a pro-gun article in American Rifleman - I feel like saying "Don't waste my money on this! Everyone who subscribes to American Rifleman already supports 2nd Amendment rights! Get off you butts and out of your executive suites and figure out how to convince people who don't already agree with you!"
As an example, I think the Penn and Teller "Bull****" segment on gun control was far more effective than any Lott will ever do for FOX news. Penn and Teller were actually addressing people who might not already agree with them! That's what we need - not rehashed John Lott on a "safe" network dang near guaranteed not to be watched by the people we need to reach.
Mike
Just so I understand your criticism, you're saying that everbody that reads FOX News is a member of the 2A choir?
While everyone on TFL may agree that "gun free zones" are a bad idea, I hardly think that translates as everyone that reads FOX News. I'm not even sure one could say "most."
Hence, I'm still waiting for you or applesanity to explain why this FOX News opinion piece isn't credible. You agreed with applesanity (who has yet to clarify his view). Which begs the question I've been asking.
Or... Are you just going to reject the question... Yet again?
While everyone on TFL may agree that "gun free zones" are a bad idea, I hardly think that translates as everyone that reads FOX News. I'm not even sure one could say "most."
Hence, I'm still waiting for you or applesanity to explain why this FOX News opinion piece isn't credible. You agreed with applesanity (who has yet to clarify his view). Which begs the question I've been asking.
Or... Are you just going to reject the question... Yet again?