Search found 4 matches

by VMI77
Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:49 pm
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: Mass Shooting in Connecticut-THREAD NAME CHANGE
Replies: 237
Views: 56843

Re: Mass Shooting in Connecticut-THREAD NAME CHANGE

SunKing wrote:Anyone who suggests the Government did this to advance gun control is almost as crazy as the shooter. I lump these type of folks into the same group as those who think the government was responsible for 9/11. I'm not a big supporter of our government right now - but I'm not crazy either.
What I think is still crazier is dismissing the notion out of hand with the Jarret/Obama/Holder regime in power. As I see it there are two decisions you have to make before doing that: 1) are Obama and some of those in his administration, like Holder, morally capable of such an act?; and 2) does the evidence support a conclusion that the rampage was a government plot? I personally don't believe there is any doubt that the answer to #1 is a big YES; and given that this administration is morally capable, you have to closely examine the evidence, because everyone needs to keep a close eye on this bunch of criminals. So, is there evidence to support a conclusion of government responsibility? Yes and No.

Yes, in the sense that the government is partially responsible because the government made it illegal for adults present in the school to defend themselves against maniacal murderers (and because of laws relating to mental health that prevent dealing with mentally disturbed individuals) and failed to properly secure the school. No, in so far as evidence that the rampage was an actual plot carried out by the government.
by VMI77
Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:33 am
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: Mass Shooting in Connecticut-THREAD NAME CHANGE
Replies: 237
Views: 56843

Re: Mass Shooting in Connecticut-THREAD NAME CHANGE

Oldgringo wrote:
VMI77 wrote:
Oldgringo wrote:
Barbi Q wrote:
TexasGal wrote:Media now shifting attention from assault weapons to going after concealed carry:

http://news.yahoo.com/carry-loaded-gun- ... 26857.html
They are shameless in their push to help the wolves kill more innocent lambs.
Actually, today's media doesn't care about who eats whom. Their sole concern is ratings and the compensation package to those with the highest ratings.

And that's the way it is. Good night.
If only it were so....but it isn't. If that were true then there would be many prime time shows seeking to get the entertainment dollars of millions of gun owners. There is no way coverage would be 99% anti-gun if it was just about the money. Homosexuals comprise a very small percentage of the population, and the constant promotion of homosexuality alienates millions of viewers, yet there is NO anti-homosexual programming. There is zero diversity of thought in the television and movie industry, which is why those in the business who have conservative leanings keep low profiles and you see lists of Hollywood "conservatives" because they're so rare.
I reckon I should have said "news" media?

You're right in that between the sensationalist and biased news and prime time TV, this viewer has been alienated with the unmitigated hogwash of so-called "reality" shows, various sitcoms and the sexually implicit "family dramas". It's a good thing that our TV's came with off-on switches.
The "news" too. Think about it....if a teen carries a gun to school in his backpack it makes the national news. The mall shooter in Oregon killed two people....made the national news (and without mentioning anything about the guy with a CHL we only heard about later on the internet). What about stories like that of the store owner in Houston who got in a gun battle with four gang bangers and though wounded himself, killed all of them, saving himself and his wife from being murdered? They were Hispanic, so it seems like political correctness alone would make that a great story, but a huge percentage of the population would find that kind of bravery and indomitable spirit inspiring. Not in the national news, nor is virtually any such story of self-defense. Those of us who don't live in Houston probably wouldn't even know about it if it wasn't for the internet and forums like this one.
by VMI77
Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:56 am
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: Mass Shooting in Connecticut-THREAD NAME CHANGE
Replies: 237
Views: 56843

Re: Mass Shooting in Connecticut-THREAD NAME CHANGE

Oldgringo wrote:
Barbi Q wrote:
TexasGal wrote:Media now shifting attention from assault weapons to going after concealed carry:

http://news.yahoo.com/carry-loaded-gun- ... 26857.html
They are shameless in their push to help the wolves kill more innocent lambs.
Actually, today's media doesn't care about who eats whom. Their sole concern is ratings and the compensation package to those with the highest ratings.

And that's the way it is. Good night.
If only it were so....but it isn't. If that were true then there would be many prime time shows seeking to get the entertainment dollars of millions of gun owners. There is no way coverage would be 99% anti-gun if it was just about the money. Homosexuals comprise a very small percentage of the population, and the constant promotion of homosexuality alienates millions of viewers, yet there is NO anti-homosexual programming. There is zero diversity of thought in the television and movie industry, which is why those in the business who have conservative leanings keep low profiles and you see lists of Hollywood "conservatives" because they're so rare.
by VMI77
Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:02 pm
Forum: The Crime Blotter
Topic: Mass Shooting in Connecticut-THREAD NAME CHANGE
Replies: 237
Views: 56843

Re: Mass Shooting in Connecticut-THREAD NAME CHANGE

benenglishtx wrote:
A-R wrote:Worst American school massacre of all time happened ...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You correctly specified "school massacre". Thanks for that. The wiki page you pointed to, however, needs editing. It says that Bath, with 38 victims, was the "fourth-deadliest massacre in U.S. history, behind the Oklahoma City bombing, the Mountain Meadows massacre and 9/11." That's clearly wrong. Offhand, the Happy Land arson murder comes to mind as having more victims. In that case, 87 people died. The killer used less than a gallon of gasoline and a couple of matches.

This is germane. Why?

Note the use of language in the media. They now refer to "mass shootings" instead of "mass murders". If they referred to "mass murders", they'd have to include Happy Land, 9/11, and a bunch of other killings. Yesterday's shooting would fall way down on the list and people would then be reminded that crazy people can find ways to kill lots of people at one time WITHOUT using guns. The nicely-alliterative phrase "mass murder" that was once common and is exactly the sort of wording that a good writer or newsreader *should* use is abandoned in favor of the more cumbersome "mass shooting" solely, in my opinion, because many folks in the media will use any excuse to push focus away from the tragedy of the loss of life and toward, however subtly, pushing a gun-control agenda.

Or maybe I'm just paranoid.
'

The same reason they quote "gun deaths" or "gun murders" or "shooting deaths" in other countries and never make comparisons that include deaths by beating, stabbing, and clubbing --all of which increase when guns are not available. In Rwanda they murdered up to one million people simply using machetes.

And there is no subtlety in their push --it's an out-and-out frenzy....they believe this is their ticket to ride and they're not going to miss the trip.

Return to “Mass Shooting in Connecticut-THREAD NAME CHANGE”