• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

How to respond

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
> A gun lobbyist, traumatized by the evil in Newton, Conn., under
> pressure by reporters for an interview, asked me desperately for help.
> What is he supposed to say? How can he respond to such slaughter, how
> can he defend guns in the light of this massacre? He is at his wit's
> end, ready to give up, throw in the towel. Help me please, he
> implores. What can he say in the face of such an abomination? There
> are no words. And there aren't any.
>
> Why does the media only cover guns in the face of such tragedy? Why
> don't they discuss it when we can examine the subject coolly and
> rationally, and maybe get somewhere? Because then we might learn
> something. Because then the public could become educated, and the
> media does not really want this to happen. Because then you might
> learn that guns have social utility, and are indispensable -- that
> guns serve good purposes -- instead of being pounded with the
> hopelessly false idea that arms are bad. If the media covered guns
> without tragedy as a background, you would learn that guns save lives,
> which is why we want our police heavily armed, with high-capacity
> magazines, and high-powered rifles, and all the ammunition they can
> carry. You would learn that you need guns and ammo and full-capacity
> magazines -- for the exact same reason. You would learn that your need
> is even greater, because YOU are the first responders, and police are
> always second. You face the criminals first, in every event. Police,
> with all their deadly bullets only show up later. Police are the
> second responders. Media stories are always wrong about that. That's
> what you say.
>
> People would learn that guns are for stopping crime. Guns protect you.
> Guns
> are good. Guns keep you safe, and help you sleep quietly at night.
> Guns are why America is still free. And the media doesn't want that
> message to get out. That's why they only haul out the subject with
> horror as a backdrop.
> That's what you say.
>
> Thirteen scholarly studies show that guns are used to prevent crimes
> and save lives between 700,000 and 2.5 million times each year
> (depending on study size, time frame and other factors). You could get
> the book entitled "Armed," by Kleck and Kates, and read the studies
> yourself. Why doesn't the media ferret out those stories and put them
> on the front page? That's what you say. Even the FBI says justifiable
> homicide happens every day, and they're only counting the cases that
> go all the way through court. Most armed self defense is so clean it
> never even makes it to court -- or the gun isn't even fired. Why isn't
> that in the national news every day?
>
> Because you, Mr. and Ms. Reporter, don't want the public educated
> about guns. Because you want the public ignorant, misinformed and
> terrified of guns, just like you are. Because you are pushing an
> agenda to vilify and ban fundamental rights we hold dear, that have
> helped make America great.
> Because you want people to have a lopsided unbalanced distorted view,
> and you're doing a great job of that. That's what you say. And let
> them try to deny it.
>
> Because so-called "news" media gun stories are not news, they are
> propaganda. Showing the image of a mass murderer 100 times a day isn't
> news, it is propaganda. Because staying on the same single event for a
> week or more isn't news -- even reporters would call it old news, or
> yesterday's news, or yellow journalism, if they were being honest -- a
> trait many have long since lost the ability to exercise. It is
> propaganda by every definition of that term. It is designed to
> disgust, and cause revulsion, and motivate mob mentality. It serves no
> news purpose other than to induce fear and cause terror. In five
> minutes you have told the story, nothing new is added, yet it rolls on
> with images on endless loop. It promotes evil, encourages copycats,
> with zero redeeming news value. It violates every rule of ethical news
> behavior there is. That's what you say.
>
> Showing the grief and tears day after day as you are doing, dear
> reporter, is not news, it is manipulation of we the people. It is an
> effort to turn people against something you as a reporter personally
> detest, because you are as poorly educated on the subject as many of your
viewers and readers.
> You are so poorly informed on this subject you need counseling. That's
> what you say. Tell reporters they are acting like hoplophobes. Let
> them look it up.
>
> When eighty people died that day, with their bloodied bodies strewn
> all over the place, they didn't care. When children were torn from
> their parents, and parents never came home, they didn't care. When
> people left home and said, "See you later honey," and were never heard
> from again, they didn't care, and I didn't care, and they never even
> mentioned it, because those people died in their cars. Eighty people.
> Entire families. Moms and dads, infants, teenagers, all across this
> great land, not just in one town. That grief was every bit as tragic.
> And eighty more the next day. And today. And reporters didn't even
> mention it. Because reporters don't care about human tragedy.
> They just want to use their favorite tragedy, a maniac's evil, now
> [five] days old, to promote a terrible agenda they and their bosses
> and their political puppet masters want them to promote. And that's the
abomination.
> They should be ashamed of themselves. They are a disgrace. That's what
> you say.
>
> Even though cars are involved in virtually the same number of deaths
> as firearms, and typically used by all the murderers, we don't call
> for their elimination, because cars serve a purpose greater than the
> harm they cause.
> Doctors kill between ten- and one-hundred-thousand people every year
> through "medical misadventures," a sugarcoated term for mistakes (the
> actual number is hotly disputed). We don't call for doctors'
> elimination, because doctors serve a greater purpose than the harm
> they cause too. Guns are precisely the same, but you wouldn't know it
> watching the so-called "news." Think of all the lives guns save and
> crimes they prevent. We should call for education and training -- and
> the pro-rights side does, constantly, to the media's deaf ears. Right
> now, schools and the media are a black hole of ignorance on the
> subject. Half of all American homes have guns -- how is it possible to
> get a high-school diploma without one-credit in gun safety and
> marksmanship?
> How can you honestly argue for ignorance instead of education and live
> with yourself? That's what you say.
>
> The greater part of this great nation is on to you. We hold our rights
> dear.
> We hold the Bill of Rights in highest regard, while you spit on it
> with your unethical and vile effort to destroy it from your high and
> mighty seat.
> You
> believe you are protected by the very thing you would use to demolish it.
> Your use of propaganda, every time a tragedy occurs, to deny us our
> rights is the highest form of treason, a fifth-column effort, an enemy
> both foreign and domestic of which we are keenly aware. You will reap
> what you sow.
> That's what you say.
>
> The media says it wants more laws but we already know that everything
> about every one of these tragedies is already a gross violation of
> every law on the books, many times over. You media types would outlaw
> all guns, as many of you are calling for. We all know it would be as
> effective as the cocaine ban -- a product many of you enjoy in the
> privacy of ... Hollywood and Wall Street and Occupy rallies and your
> upscale parties and across America. And if you like the war on some
> drugs, you're going to love the war on guns.
> That's what you say.
>
> And if you think the rule of law is the solution -- like for people on
> Prozac and Ritalin suddenly going berserk -- remember that, at least
> for tomorrow, if the man next to you is going to suddenly crack, you
> really do need a gun. Ask yourself why people in greater numbers are
> suddenly cracking up and taking up the devil's cause, to speak
> metaphorically. So many reporters have obviously given up on religion
> and the morality it used to exert, the binding social effect it had on
> people. Are you a religious person? Ask them. People typically never
> ask the reporters questions.
> Reporters don't know how to handle that. Try it. That's what you say.
>
> Do films like American Psycho, where scriptwriters invent characters
> who enjoy killing and go around gleefully murdering people, and
> financiers who put millions behind such projects, and which the
> entertainment industry put in our faces on a constant basis -- does
> that have any effect? Would you argue it has no effect? Hundreds of
> films like that, filling our TV's daily
> -- doesn't that do something to people? Dexter, a mass murderer
> disguised as a cop who is the hero of the series, does that shift
> people's thinking, their sense of balance? How do you justify
> supporting such things instead of shunning and casting such perverts
> and miscreants from the industry?
> That's
> what you say.
>
> But here's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned. Here's the
> Pulitzer Prize, waiting for you if you want one. Should people who put
> scores of guns into the hands of drug lords get one-month sentences --
> like we saw the very day before this massacre -- is that right? If you
> get the laws you're shouting for, would it matter if that's what the
> Justice Dept. does with them? Why isn't THAT discussed? How did you
> let that skate by? Don't tell me you covered that story, if you simply
> reported the government handout, that Fast and Furious smugglers Avila
> and Carillo were sentenced. That's not reporting, that's reading.
>
> That's the ugly underbelly of this "gun problem" we have. There are
> the laws for real crimes, and the feckless government role, letting
> slaughter continue unabated, even abetted. There's the solution you
> say you seek, squandered. Were the hundreds murdered that way less
> important? Is it a racist thing -- because they were brown-skinned
> Mexicans and not little White children, is that it? How could Eric
> Holder's Justice Dept. -- and you
> -- let those perps off so easy? Why isn't that the headline? It was
> the biggest gun scandal in U.S. history -- your own words. One-month
> sentences?
> Not even a trial? And you bought into this? That's what you say.
>
> The ring leaders in the biggest gun-running death-dealing high-powered
> so-called "assault-weapon" scandal in U.S. history were caught
> red-handed giving guns to murderers, but they got a plea deal from the
> administration, not even a trial, and the media had nothing to say.
> The media that has so much to say about guns -- or so they would have
> us falsely believe -- are shills for the Justice Dept. that
> perpetrated this travesty, and now would use their bully pulpit to
> attack our rights, in the name of little children, day after day.
> Journalists have become a travesty, that's what you say.
>
> More than 90 of these fearsome guns were delivered by our very
> government to the worst murderers on the planet. And now, thanks to
> double-jeopardy protection, we won't have a trial so we can't even
> find out who in our government gave the orders. And now we have
> nothing to say. The event in a small Connecticut town has opened the
> gun issue again. And that's what you say.
>
> Alan Korwin, Publisher, Bloomfield Press The Uninvited Ombudsman
> GunLaws.com Reprinted by permission = Copyright C 2012 JPFO.ORG, All
> rights reserved.
> http://jpfo.org/
> P.O. Box 270143,Hartford ,WI 53027, USA
>
>
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Why does the media only cover guns in the face of such tragedy? Why
> don't they discuss it when we can examine the subject coolly and
> rationally, and maybe get somewhere? Because then we might learn
> something. Because then the public could become educated, and the
> media does not really want this to happen.

Isn't impulsivity an emotional reaction?

And aren't Liberals very skilled at "painting a picture" that causes an emotional reaction, in their base?

Then you can get into impulsivity and guilt. Why would one person feel more guilt, than another?

Steve?


Impulsivity can wreak havoc on a person's life. In recent years, binge drinking, binge eating and impulsive shopping have helped both our waistlines and our credit-card debts reach epidemic proportions—indicating that despite the hangover of remorse which often accompanies such whims, many of us continue to indulge the same impulses over and over again. "The negative feelings of guilt and regret are supposed to keep our impulses in check," says study coauthor Suresh Ramanathan, an associate professor of marketing at the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business. "In reality it doesn't work that way, and we have been at a bit of a loss as to why."


After being categorized as either impulsive or prudent by a series of personality tests, each study participant was left alone with a plate of cookies. Researchers then counted how many cookies each person took, and measured their emotions both immediately afterward and 24 hours later. (They adjusted for how hungry each participant was and how much they liked cookies. They also disguised the true objective of the study so that subjects did not know what taking a cookie would signify.)

Both groups felt predictable mixtures of pleasure and guilt right after taking a cookie or two. But a day later their emotional profiles had diverged according to personality type. While the prudent consumers still felt guilty about having eaten the cookies, the impulsive consumers felt mostly pleasure at the thought. And those participants whose guilt had vanished proved more likely to indulge a second time.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/08/13/the-impulse-buy.html
 

Steve

Well-known member
Why would one person feel more guilt, than another?

Steve?

? not sure.. Maybe a person who is willing and able to take personnel responsibility would feel guilt when his position or ideals appear to be challenged by evil in the world.. ... even when they are right..

if you do not care or take personnel responsibility,.. then you probably don't feel guilt either..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Steve said:
Why would one person feel more guilt, than another?

Steve?

? not sure.. Maybe a person who is willing and able to take personnel responsibility would feel guilt when his position or ideals appear to be challenged by evil in the world.. ... even when they are right..

if you do not care or take personnel responsibility,.. then you probably don't feel guilt either..


I was also thinking along the lines of respect for sacred law, versus secular.

Some have respect for both, some for only one and others, neither.
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Steve said:
Why would one person feel more guilt, than another?

Steve?

? not sure.. Maybe a person who is willing and able to take personnel responsibility would feel guilt when his position or ideals appear to be challenged by evil in the world.. ... even when they are right..

if you do not care or take personnel responsibility,.. then you probably don't feel guilt either..


I was also thinking along the lines of respect for sacred law, versus secular.

Some have respect for both, some for only one and others, neither.

if you have respect for sacred law.. (GOD's law and Jesus's teaching) you probably have personal responsibility. :)

with out faith you can be a good moral person.. and still take responsibility and feel guilt..

if you don't respect the beliefs or that some can be good without faith.. then I doubt you respect much else.. or ever feel much guilt..

so essentially it is how a person feels about himself and others.. those that care about themselves. .. and others would feel guilt even when it isn't their fault..
 

Latest posts

Top