Stand Your Ground in Danger

[VMI77]

WMI77,

Tell you what, how about we take a look at the ACTUAL original local news story. I don’t hear any racial tones being mentioned do you? I didn’t read anything about anyone being doused with gas either. In fact it sounds like this poor kid is being bullied at school. Nothing in this article indicates it was because he was white. Sounds like the story you provided is being embellished by those who have their own agenda don’t you think? (You don’t have to answer that)

So, the incidents occurred three days apart.

Anyway, while it would be possible to dissect just about everything you say here I'm actually too lazy to do it, so I'll just pick on a few highlights.

First off, you seem rather desperate to confirm the media narrative. A sign of that desperation is the attempt to refute my statement that there were no witnesses to the killing by saying that there are witnesses for before and after the killing --IOW, no witnesses. Like I said, Z is the only person who really knows what happened (and maybe he doesn't even know for sure).

Next, your claim above that the original news story is the last word about what happened in the incident described....it doesn't sound like that is your position with respect to the M killing. And in fact, while I didn't go back to check, I seem to recall you agreeing that later stories are likely to be more accurate. So, when it suits your purpose you pick the early report and when it doesn't you pick the later report. That's called "cherry picking." Furthermore, the first report in the gas attack is from a TV station; logically, and historically, later printed reports tend to be more accurate for the very simple reason that the print reporters have more time to determine the facts.

Finally, in addition to what I've already explained, your logic eludes me when you claim that the NY Daily News is embellishing a story to satisfy a racist anti-African American agenda, but you're prepared to accept all kinds of tall tales from people seeking the limelight in the M killing. The fact is, the MSM frequently omits information about race from stories and they have guidebooks that tell them how do do it. The media goes to great lengths to rationalize racial omissions, for instance, by making the false claim that there is no connection between crime and race. The media lie frequently about crime and race. In fact, the very source you cite has a link on the same page of the article that says:

KC youth react to Trayvon Martin's death

The shooting death of un-armed African American teenager, Trayvon Martin, has local youth concerned for their own safety.

So, this TV station is playing on emotions about race and attempting stoke fears that "youths" in KC are in danger from what happened in Florida. The story includes deliberate distortions/lies like this:

The news of a black teenager getting gunned down while walking down a sidewalk isn't sitting well with Kansas City junior Tyler Nash.

Hysterical claims:

"It could have been me," Nash said. "It could have been one of my friends."

And outrageous accusations:

"Everybody else goes about their life, but me being black, I have to live in discomfort," 19-year-old Hubbard said. "It makes me angry."

The claim is true to some extent, but the implication, that he's at risk from White guy neighborhood watch "captains" with concealed carry permits is ludicrous. He's at risk all right, from other African American youths.

So,it appears the source you cited is the one that practices embellishment.

But hey, I guess reality tosses your theory right out the window.

[gdanaher]

Well, GDANAHER, if you're interested, I responded to your assertion regarding gun tragedies=new gun laws and that most people are either neutral or anti gun......back on the bottom of page 4.

Didn't want you to miss that in the subsequent 3 pages of back and forth between VMI and Jusster.

Yes, I still have my day job and can't crawl through all this garbage on an hourly basis. The statistics can be read differently I guess so here goes: Currently, 44% of those polled nationally felt that gun laws should be strengthened. Is it ok to they are likely anti gun?? Further down in the article it stated that 29% of individuals owned guns, so I am figuring they are pro gun, not anti, right?? Now, 42% of households own guns which means that you have come couples (I'd say married, but the times have changed), who might disagree on this issue but let's shoot on the high side and say that 42% are pro gun. Your statistics. That leaves 14% of the population that apparently cares neither way. They don't support, they don't think they need new laws. So, 58% of those polled were either anti-gun or neutral on the issue. Now, isn't that pretty much what I said 3 pages ago?

The statistics you're citing are pretty much meaningless. In the first place, poll results are meaningless unless they include the exact questions asked and a description of the population polled. No, it's not OK to assume the 44% you cite as being in favor of stronger guns laws as being anti-gun. I for instance, I might favor some better system of keeping guns away from people with mental problems. Without knowing precisely what laws this group approves of no conclusion about their position on gun ownership can be drawn. Next, no, we can't assume the 29% figure tells us how many individuals own guns because people may lie about owning a gun, and the bias will probably be towards denying ownership rather than falsely claiming ownership; and we can't say anything about whether individuals are more likely to dissemble on the question of ownership than households. The 42% number for households is questionable for the same reason as the 29% number. You interpretation is also questionable because the nature of ownership is undefined. Some households may consider guns to be jointly owned, so that individuals may say they don't own a gun. Finally, the 14% who say they don't care may merely be satisfied with the status quo, and may well oppose many gun control measures from prohibitions on owning particular types of guns to confiscation (or they may not --we don't know).

Don't shoot the messenger. Novaman cited these stats as his basis for arguing his case that I was wrong when I stated that most people are either anti gun or neutral on the issue, and that bad publicity can sway the opinion of those who are neutral toward being anti gun. I believe I am correct on this matter, and his own stats tend to support my view.

[VMI77]

Well, GDANAHER, if you're interested, I responded to your assertion regarding gun tragedies=new gun laws and that most people are either neutral or anti gun......back on the bottom of page 4.

Didn't want you to miss that in the subsequent 3 pages of back and forth between VMI and Jusster.

Yes, I still have my day job and can't crawl through all this garbage on an hourly basis. The statistics can be read differently I guess so here goes: Currently, 44% of those polled nationally felt that gun laws should be strengthened. Is it ok to they are likely anti gun?? Further down in the article it stated that 29% of individuals owned guns, so I am figuring they are pro gun, not anti, right?? Now, 42% of households own guns which means that you have come couples (I'd say married, but the times have changed), who might disagree on this issue but let's shoot on the high side and say that 42% are pro gun. Your statistics. That leaves 14% of the population that apparently cares neither way. They don't support, they don't think they need new laws. So, 58% of those polled were either anti-gun or neutral on the issue. Now, isn't that pretty much what I said 3 pages ago?

The statistics you're citing are pretty much meaningless. In the first place, poll results are meaningless unless they include the exact questions asked and a description of the population polled. No, it's not OK to assume the 44% you cite as being in favor of stronger guns laws as being anti-gun. I for instance, I might favor some better system of keeping guns away from people with mental problems. Without knowing precisely what laws this group approves of no conclusion about their position on gun ownership can be drawn. Next, no, we can't assume the 29% figure tells us how many individuals own guns because people may lie about owning a gun, and the bias will probably be towards denying ownership rather than falsely claiming ownership; and we can't say anything about whether individuals are more likely to dissemble on the question of ownership than households. The 42% number for households is questionable for the same reason as the 29% number. You interpretation is also questionable because the nature of ownership is undefined. Some households may consider guns to be jointly owned, so that individuals may say they don't own a gun. Finally, the 14% who say they don't care may merely be satisfied with the status quo, and may well oppose many gun control measures from prohibitions on owning particular types of guns to confiscation (or they may not --we don't know).

Don't shoot the messenger. Novaman cited these stats as his basis for arguing his case that I was wrong when I stated that most people are either anti gun or neutral on the issue, and that bad publicity can sway the opinion of those who are neutral toward being anti gun. I believe I am correct on this matter, and his own stats tend to support my view.

I'm not trying to refute or support either one of you. For the most part I'm just explaining why most poll data published in the media is meaningless, even if there is no agenda behind it, and I think polls that aren't intended to serve an agenda are few and far between. One way of determining whether or not a poll is intended to be objective is by publishing the details of how the poll was conducted and what and how the questions were asked. Just about every time I've followed up a media poll and been able to find the details, the media version has either been a distortion of the poll results or an outright misrepresentation. Some of this is no doubt because reporters are generally ignorant of math and science and uninformed on any subject that doesn't support their biases; but some of it is also just as doubtlessly deliberate.

[Jusster]

VMI...

The only one introducing statements that were not listed in there original post is you. In my opinion you are compairing apples to oranges as I have attempted to explain to you before. You can dismiss all the witnesses statements as to what they heard and saw immediately before and after the shooting if you like. That's your choice.

In the story YOU introduced in compairison to the Z/M case the VICTOM did not say why he was attacked. The Victom did not say he was doused with gasoline nor does his injuries imply that he was.

You asked me to address your main question as to why the case you introduced didn't get the same media scrutiny and I provided that answer in my previous post which you excluded from the quote. Those are my opinions as to why, feel free to re-read them if you like.

Jusster

[VMI77]

VMI...

The only one introducing statements that were not listed in there original post is you. In my opinion you are compairing apples to oranges as I have attempted to explain to you before. You can dismiss all the witnesses statements as to what they heard and saw immediately before and after the shooting if you like. That's your choice.

In the story YOU introduced in compairison to the Z/M case the VICTOM did not say why he was attacked. The Victom did not say he was doused with gasoline nor does his injuries imply that he was.

You asked me to address your main question as to why the case you introduced didn't get the same media scrutiny and I provided that answer in my previous post which you excluded from the quote. Those are my opinions as to why, feel free to re-read them if you like.

Jusster

I'm done with you. You have an agenda, I'm only interested in discussion. Bye bye.

[VMI77]

http://www.examiner.com/charleston-cons ... von-martin

Almost all of the news items about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin contains a combination of false statements, opinions presented as facts, transparent distortions, and a complete absence of some of the most relevant details. Almost all news items are written soley from the point of view of the grieving family. The media also fills their articles with outdated baby-faced pictures of Trayvon. Very few include that he was a towering 6'2” football player. Is the media really reporting the news, or is this classic agitation/propaganda to advance a political agenda.

All the way back on February 27th, the local Orlando Fox station interviewed the witness who dialed 911. Almost none of the thousands of articles since have mentioned any of the details described by the witness. Some, however, have attributed false statements to this witness. On March 16th, the Sanford police department released new details to the Orlando Sentinel. Once again, these details have been ignored or changed by the media.

The witness reports that George Zimmerman was on the ground and Trayvon is on top of him punching him.
The witness says that George Zimmerman was screaming and yelling for help.
Police arrive and find Zimmerman bleeding on his face and the back of his head. He also has had grass stains on his back. All this confirms the story told by Zimmerman and the witness.
Police play the 911 tape for Trayvon Martin's father, who tells police that the voice screaming is not the voice of his son.

Read the article, there's more.

Whether this guy is guilty or not, this is a media and Federal government lynching --promoted by the man at the top calling Martin his would be son.

[74novaman]

The statistics can be read differently I guess so here goes: Currently, 44% of those polled nationally felt that gun laws should be strengthened. Is it ok to they are likely anti gun?? Further down in the article it stated that 29% of individuals owned guns, so I am figuring they are pro gun, not anti, right?? Now, 42% of households own guns which means that you have come couples (I'd say married, but the times have changed), who might disagree on this issue but let's shoot on the high side and say that 42% are pro gun. Your statistics. That leaves 14% of the population that apparently cares neither way. They don't support, they don't think they need new laws. So, 58% of those polled were either anti-gun or neutral on the issue. Now, isn't that pretty much what I said 3 pages ago?

Well if we're going to get to say what percentage of certain groups is anti or pro gun, here's my take on it.

To put it as simply as possible, your initial statement was this:

Most people in society are either moderately anti gun or neutral. It takes little to swing some to the anti side, and when that happens, folks contact their legislators and then those folks craft new rules that might limit our ability to cc.

Now both polls I cited asked random Americans what they thought. Considering in 2009 we were getting a lot of news about gun shows in the Southwest being responsible for the gun violence across the border in Mexico (this was before we found out that its mainly the ATF shipping guns across the borders), it should be no surprise a sampling of random Americans thought "laws covering firearm sales should be made more strict" (The question Gallup asked). I wouldn't be so quick to paint those people as strongly anti gun as merely misinformed by the main stream media. These aren't people that are writing their cogresscritters, or signing up for the Brady Campaign...they just see in the news that US guns are heading to Mexico, and when asked, say "yeah, something should be done about that." Much like those who "raise awareness" for things like Darfur, they are all talk and no action.

For reference, I cite 2 articles from 2 nationally known and read newspapers, New York Times and LA Times reproting the "fact" that lax US gun laws are responsible for Mexican violence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/us/15 ... wanted=all
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/16 ... gunshows16

In regards to your painting the entire lot of those who favor stricter gun laws and being "anti gun", what do you think about the CNN poll, which found the following:

The poll indicates that the two sides of the gun debate are evenly balanced, with one in seven Americans opposing any restrictions on guns at all and one in seven saying that all guns should be illegal except for police and other authorized personnel. Roughly a third support minor restrictions and roughly a third support major restrictions.

Basically, you've got the zealots on both sides (The 1 in 7 on guns being illegal for citizens, 1 in 7 wanting no restrictions), 1/3 who support "minor" and 1/3 who support "major" restrictions.

Considering how many here who support CHL licensing to carry, etc, just because someone supports minor restrictions does not put them into the anti gun camp. For that reason, I don't believe you can just lump the 43% that want stricter laws firmly into the anti gun camp so much as in the "I get my news from the New York times and think the gun loophole should be closed because I'm ignorant" camp.

To quote the summary of the gallup poll:

Rather, Americans as a whole may just be more accepting of gun rights now than in the past. Compared with views in 2000, each major demographic or attitudinal subgroup has shown a shift toward a more pro-gun stance on the question about whether gun laws should be more strict or less strict. (The results are similar on the question of a ban on handgun possession, with nearly every major demographic group less supportive of a ban now than at the start of the decade.)

Now the important part: After your initial statement (most people in society are either moderately anti gun or neutral), you posed the idea that legislation is GUARANTEED to be created to restrict gun rights after an event such as the Giffords shooting or this Zimmerman media circus.

Not only did the Arizona shooting fail to pass anti gun legislation, the CNN article I cited states that the shooting did NOTHING to sway people's attitudes regarding guns as their poll numbers remained the same.

The facts are as follows:
1) people in the US across every major demographic group are less likely to support new gun laws than they were 10 years ago. The trends are shifting in our favor.
2) In addition, if a US congresswoman getting shot doesn't produce anti gun legislation, I don't know if much will.

[VMI77]

The statistics can be read differently I guess so here goes: Currently, 44% of those polled nationally felt that gun laws should be strengthened. Is it ok to they are likely anti gun?? Further down in the article it stated that 29% of individuals owned guns, so I am figuring they are pro gun, not anti, right?? Now, 42% of households own guns which means that you have come couples (I'd say married, but the times have changed), who might disagree on this issue but let's shoot on the high side and say that 42% are pro gun. Your statistics. That leaves 14% of the population that apparently cares neither way. They don't support, they don't think they need new laws. So, 58% of those polled were either anti-gun or neutral on the issue. Now, isn't that pretty much what I said 3 pages ago?

Well if we're going to get to say what percentage of certain groups is anti or pro gun, here's my take on it.

To put it as simply as possible, your initial statement was this:

Most people in society are either moderately anti gun or neutral. It takes little to swing some to the anti side, and when that happens, folks contact their legislators and then those folks craft new rules that might limit our ability to cc.

Now both polls I cited asked random Americans what they thought. Considering in 2009 we were getting a lot of news about gun shows in the Southwest being responsible for the gun violence across the border in Mexico (this was before we found out that its mainly the ATF shipping guns across the borders), it should be no surprise a sampling of random Americans thought "laws covering firearm sales should be made more strict" (The question Gallup asked). I wouldn't be so quick to paint those people as strongly anti gun as merely misinformed by the main stream media. These aren't people that are writing their cogresscritters, or signing up for the Brady Campaign...they just see in the news that US guns are heading to Mexico, and when asked, say "yeah, something should be done about that." Much like those who "raise awareness" for things like Darfur, they are all talk and no action.

For reference, I cite 2 articles from 2 nationally known and read newspapers, New York Times and LA Times reproting the "fact" that lax US gun laws are responsible for Mexican violence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/us/15 ... wanted=all
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/16 ... gunshows16

In regards to your painting the entire lot of those who favor stricter gun laws and being "anti gun", what do you think about the CNN poll, which found the following:

The poll indicates that the two sides of the gun debate are evenly balanced, with one in seven Americans opposing any restrictions on guns at all and one in seven saying that all guns should be illegal except for police and other authorized personnel. Roughly a third support minor restrictions and roughly a third support major restrictions.

Basically, you've got the zealots on both sides (The 1 in 7 on guns being illegal for citizens, 1 in 7 wanting no restrictions), 1/3 who support "minor" and 1/3 who support "major" restrictions.

Considering how many here who support CHL licensing to carry, etc, just because someone supports minor restrictions does not put them into the anti gun camp. For that reason, I don't believe you can just lump the 43% that want stricter laws firmly into the anti gun camp so much as in the "I get my news from the New York times and think the gun loophole should be closed because I'm ignorant" camp.

To quote the summary of the gallup poll:

Rather, Americans as a whole may just be more accepting of gun rights now than in the past. Compared with views in 2000, each major demographic or attitudinal subgroup has shown a shift toward a more pro-gun stance on the question about whether gun laws should be more strict or less strict. (The results are similar on the question of a ban on handgun possession, with nearly every major demographic group less supportive of a ban now than at the start of the decade.)

Now the important part: After your initial statement (most people in society are either moderately anti gun or neutral), you posed the idea that legislation is GUARANTEED to be created to restrict gun rights after an event such as the Giffords shooting or this Zimmerman media circus.

Not only did the Arizona shooting fail to pass anti gun legislation, the CNN article I cited states that the shooting did NOTHING to sway people's attitudes regarding guns as their poll numbers remained the same.

The facts are as follows:
1) people in the US across every major demographic group are less likely to support new gun laws than they were 10 years ago. The trends are shifting in our favor.
2) In addition, if a US congresswoman getting shot doesn't produce anti gun legislation, I don't know if much will.

The leftists love it when there is a killing like the one in Florida and will try to use it to advance their agenda. But I think a majority of the country, perhaps a slim one, is fed up with their tactics, and are more than ever disposed to favor gun rights, because they are beginning to realize their lives may depend on it.

[Hoosier Daddy]

"When the true details of the event became public, and I hope that will be soon, everyone should be outraged by the treatment of George Zimmerman in the media."

I hope the truth does come out and it bites certain politicians squarely on their fourth point of contact in November.

[VMI77]

The real motive of the media revealed: this is an attack on concealed carry, plain and simple.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-574 ... -shooting/

Study: Holding gun increases perception of threat

[Jusster]

VMI...

The only one introducing statements that were not listed in there original post is you. In my opinion you are compairing apples to oranges as I have attempted to explain to you before. You can dismiss all the witnesses statements as to what they heard and saw immediately before and after the shooting if you like. That's your choice.

In the story YOU introduced in compairison to the Z/M case the VICTOM did not say why he was attacked. The Victom did not say he was doused with gasoline nor does his injuries imply that he was.

You asked me to address your main question as to why the case you introduced didn't get the same media scrutiny and I provided that answer in my previous post which you excluded from the quote. Those are my opinions as to why, feel free to re-read them if you like.

Jusster

I'm done with you. You have an agenda, I'm only interested in discussion. Bye bye.

That's funny. No I don't have an agenda. You on the other hand....well all of your comments and post speak for themselves. Sorry I don't live my life looking over my shoulder because I think big brother is out to get me. Nor do I believe everything is a consiracy. You're not interested in a discussion, your only interested in screaming at the top of your lungs that everyones out to get you. I realized a few post back that any meaningful discussion with you was pointless because you completely dismiss everyone's opinions that does not fit your.....ah......agenda. Best of luck with that. And on that note, I'm done with you


Jusster

[matriculated]

VMI...

The only one introducing statements that were not listed in there original post is you. In my opinion you are compairing apples to oranges as I have attempted to explain to you before. You can dismiss all the witnesses statements as to what they heard and saw immediately before and after the shooting if you like. That's your choice.

In the story YOU introduced in compairison to the Z/M case the VICTOM did not say why he was attacked. The Victom did not say he was doused with gasoline nor does his injuries imply that he was.

You asked me to address your main question as to why the case you introduced didn't get the same media scrutiny and I provided that answer in my previous post which you excluded from the quote. Those are my opinions as to why, feel free to re-read them if you like.

Jusster

I'm done with you. You have an agenda, I'm only interested in discussion. Bye bye.

That's funny. No I don't have an agenda. You on the other hand....well all of your comments and post speak for themselves. Sorry I don't live my life looking over my shoulder because I think big brother is out to get me. Nor do I believe everything is a consiracy. You're not interested in a discussion, your only interested in screaming at the top of your lungs that everyones out to get you. I realized a few post back that any meaningful discussion with you was pointless because you completely dismiss everyone's opinions that does not fit your.....ah......agenda. Best of luck with that. And on that note, I'm done with you


Jusster

Jusster, why do you think I decided to terminate my discussion with him early on? You gotta nip that in the bud. But be careful, you might have a hysterical temper tantrum coming your way.

[gdanaher]

Now the important part: After your initial statement (most people in society are either moderately anti gun or neutral), you posed the idea that legislation is GUARANTEED to be created to restrict gun rights after an event such as the Giffords shooting or this Zimmerman media circus.

I know what I said, and GUARANTEED is neither stated nor implied. You need to avoid reading your bias into other folk's comments.

Not only did the Arizona shooting fail to pass anti gun legislation, the CNN article I cited states that the shooting did NOTHING to sway people's attitudes regarding guns as their poll numbers remained the same.

That's because that guy was a nutjob, an aberration. He was off his nut and everyone around him seemed to know that. Zimmerman by all accounts was nothing like that, and the Sanford police seemed not to find his action worthy of much investigation, so either the local police in Sanford were shy about spending resources that might not bear fruit or they found his action to be within the provisions of state law. The general public looks at Zimmerman and sees the average gun owner, exercising force and little intelligence that results in the death of a minor. People generalize, so the uneducated public potentially sees all gun owners as people who might do the same thing. This does nothing to enhance the public opinion of chl owners.
The facts are as follows:
1) people in the US across every major demographic group are less likely to support new gun laws than they were 10 years ago. The trends are shifting in our favor.

I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, more support now than 10 years ago does not translate into a majority of the nation. Keep in mind that nearly everyone on this discussion board is pro gun. That does not mean that it reflects the view of the non-readers of this group.

2) In addition, if a US congresswoman getting shot doesn't produce anti gun legislation, I don't know if much will.

Well, a President was shot and nearly died. His press secretary took one to the head. If I recall, there was some legislation passed as a result of the one act that many of us did not appreciate. Gabbie was shot with a normal handgun with a large magazine by a nutjob, not with an AK. I fail to see the comparison is valid, but it seems you are bent on twisting things to your narrow view. Have a nice day.

[74novaman]

Now the important part: After your initial statement (most people in society are either moderately anti gun or neutral), you posed the idea that legislation is GUARANTEED to be created to restrict gun rights after an event such as the Giffords shooting or this Zimmerman media circus.

I know what I said, and GUARANTEED is neither stated nor implied. You need to avoid reading your bias into other folk's comments.

...... but it seems you are bent on twisting things to your narrow view. Have a nice day.[/color]

From your post on page 4:

So whenever someone with a license does something boneheaded, it reflects on everyone, and when a nutcase cuts loose in a crowd, legislation is guaranteed to be generated, and the higher the profile of the case, the more wordy is the legislation.

I'll say one thing...you're right, guaranteed was not implied. You implicitly stated it. I even used the word guaranteed because YOU used that word.

Not sure on what planet quoting someones EXACT STATEMENT becomes "twisting things to my narrow view" or "reading my bias into things".

Seriously?

[PracticalTactical]

Great, this threat finally starts making some progress toward good discussion and the personal bickering flares up.

Why?????

Please leave this thread and go read Verbal Judo before they lock it!