Defensive Carry banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,939 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Do Not Make This Political- it is about guns and alcohol and how the news skew words to hurt honest gun owners.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/20/trumps-position-on-guns-was-too-extreme-for-the-head-of-the-nra/?client=safari#

The Washington Post twists words in this article about guns and alcohol. They took a comment from Trump (Should have guns in night clubs") and the NRAs response to that comment and made it much worse. They started comparing gun owners to people who drink multiple six packs of beers and how that could likely cause them to commit homicide, then comparing them (generally) to people in Illinois that committed a homicide while on cocaine and opiates.

Many times on DC one of us will say how you can make statistics say what you want them too, one of the ways is by compiling skewed numbers from irrelevant research. Anyone that has dealt with statistics directly knows that you try to use data from the last five years or less to get the most relevant data, the further over five years you go the more irrelevant your data is likely to be in comparison to the here and now, unless of course you are looking up data from 1980 to support something that happened in '84 for instance. Here the Post grabs stuff from studies in '99 and puts it with a study from '14 to make it fit their agenda.

I also wanted to point out their first photo which shows thousands of firearms on the counter at a gun show...we all know why that's important, because the anti's are so scared of the so called "gun show loophole", and although it has no relevance here, it sure looks scary. Many of their comments infuriated me because it was not the way they said it but the way they implied it, comparing gun owners to common criminals and like we're all just one beer in our home from killing someone, I don't even drink or like drinking and it pissed me off. I haven't drank in almost twenty years, yet I still can't go to my favorite burger joint because they serve beer, ridiculous. If I'm not drinking I should be able to carry, period.

When talking about drinking at home the article quoted, "It’s hard to divide guns from alcohol in a country that uses as much alcohol and has as many guns as the United States," said Mark Kleiman.:twak:

Anyway, read the article and see what you think. If you want to look at it another way, if everything they say in the article adds up, then if I'm around people that are drinking alcohol... I should definately be armed!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,939 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
I know for a fact that the Right to Bear Arms is covered by the Second Amendment.

I don't like drinking, but some would say that a responsible mans drink is covered somewhere under "pursuit of happiness".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,549 Posts
I spent a couple of semesters of my Masters studying statistics and research. It was very difficult to use someone else's research data to do a new study. It's very easy to skew data by the way you ask a question and who you select as your sample. One example is that I get calls from different groups doing "surveys". They ask, "Do you think criminals should be able to put your family at risk by buying guns at gun shows?" Then they use the results to report, "97% of all Americans want to abolish Gun Shows."

Both sides of the issue are guilty. Many of the 2nd amendment supporters have asked very biased questions from hand picked groups in order to provide a flawed conclusion to groups of people who don't know or care how the data was gathered.

I teach a class on basic concepts of research and one of the key ideas I try to get across is critical analysis of the source.

Why was the study done?
Who conducted it?
Why was it conducted?
Who paid for it?
How was the sample selected?
How big was the sample?
Specifically what questions were asked on the surveys?
When was it conducted?
Where was it conducted?
etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ks kid

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,305 Posts
Great Strawman by the Washington Post! If a person carrying a pistol walks into a bar, then they're automatically going to get drunk and bad things are going to happen. Have they never heard of a designated driver? This would work much the same way, not to mention the fact that many places have laws against drinking while in possession of a firearm on their person, which the vast majority of concealed carriers abide by.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,396 Posts
Washington Post Twists Words-


You think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Great Strawman by the Washington Post! If a person carrying a pistol walks into a bar, then they're automatically going to get drunk and bad things are going to happen. Have they never heard of a designated driver?
And if nobody's placed in harm's way, nobody's actually threatened or injured, then who's got standing of any sort to hold someone accountable for such non-action? I think that one has got to be a lawyer to explain that one away. Oh, right, the State has "standing" because they fear what might be in lieu of what doesn't exist, 'cause they've got nothing else to hinge the accusations of criminality on but that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,397 Posts
Have you ever seen the news media print an article 100% correct? They all have to put their own "slant" to the article, bending the true facts into completely opposite of what was the original intent.

NRA Life Member
GOA Member
USAF Retired
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Sure. I recall growing up 50-some years ago, in which the average "front page" type article was fairly devoid of slant, and instance after instance of crime reports simply reiterated the facts as they were known. Typically, only the op-ed type pages had slant, and they actually had the integrity to state the position and implied slant at the outset, as fair warning. Was refreshing. Nowadays, not so much.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,199 Posts
You have to consider the source. That is why I don't waste my time with the WAPO, NYT, or any other liberal bird cage liner. I fully expect them to twist not only the words but the facts to make their political statement. Reporting what actually happened without spinning it is simply not in their definition of "news reporting".
 
  • Like
Reactions: msgt/ret

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
You have to consider the source. That is why I don't waste my time with the WAPO, NYT, or any other liberal bird cage liner. I fully expect them to twist not only the words but the facts to make their political statement. Reporting what actually happened without spinning it is simply not in their definition of "news reporting".
Yup.

I miss when "news" was largely written that way, based on the facts.

These days, much of the time what's claimed as "news" is simply spew. Spew for ratings, no matter what's true.

America, America ... oh, where have you gone?

:sad:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,890 Posts
94% of statistics used by liberals are incorrect 68.873% of the time because 87% of them were educated in schools where 99% of the educators are blithering liberal idiots 92% of the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: msgt/ret
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top