And the Zimmerman verdict is...

Post Reply New Topic

Legislation that protects people's lives by banning guns from the burbs is not stupid. It's quite a serious proposal.

Dare I ask what situation that was so earth shattering that they changed from left wing green pinkos into gun toting Clint Eastwood types?



My bad...meant to say "locked and loaded" or something to that effect....As I keep miles away from these tools of death; I'm afraid I'm not conversant with the jargon...

Ok back to Zimmerman. From what you claim the media are taking the racial angle in order to boost viewership and increase ratings and therefore advertising revenue. I wouldn't be surprised if TV or newsprint advertising rates for prime time were jacked up in price during the OJ Simpson trial or Rodney King bashing. Not to mention how much "extra" advertising revenue CNN and others made following the 9-11 terrorism attack. Of course our friends in the media aren't going to tell us how much extra revenue they got from the Tray martin murder.

On the other hand the gun lobby take the view that this was not a racial issue (they are at great pains to point this out) and instead play the tune that this was a "heroic vigilante" protecting his neighbourhood. What I find offensive about this is the blatant attempts to paint Zimmerman as a good intentioned protector of the community and concurrently "demonise" Tray Martin as a troublemaker with an alleged criminal background.

Actually, it is stupid, although I was actually talking about your seeming ignorance of video recording technology in a previous comment.. I'd elaborate, but I think I might run afoul of the ToS.

The glaring statistics speak otherwise
http://www.stophandgunviolence.com/index.asp

^
Me, expert, you, ignorant.

I don't think I can dumb it down any further, and you can take your simplistic stats with you. Try my gun control challenge if it's so obvious, no one has been able to come even close to meeting it yet, and it's been a while.

Yes, gun bans have worked wonderfully in saving the lives of murderers, rapists, armed robbers, and home invaders. Who cares about the victim?


With your kind we’ll have to wait until (or if) something happens to you before you could begin to grasp it.


My bad...meant to say "locked and loaded" or something to that effect....As I keep miles away from these tools of death; I'm afraid I'm not conversant with the jargon...[/quote]
You don’t know what “lock and load” means, either. I doubt you are miles from a gun. There are for sure at least a few in your community whether you think so or not.


How would you know what view the gun lobby takes?

I don't see how it could be denied. The media have misrepresented the case and made up "facts"; chosen to use loaded language when reporting on the case; played to their viewers' and readers' preconceptions (of both whites & blacks); interviewed & broadcast the opinions of the most polarizing figures possible; and set the record straight only when they crossed the line into libelous territory.



Kinda like during the Super Bowl.



If I remember correctly, many networks ceased (or nearly did) running commercials during the days immediately after the attacks. Ad revenue may have actually dropped for a time during the immediate aftermath.



No, they're not, and I don't expect them to. But I have no doubt that they are always in a search for ratings. Generally, controversy translates into higher viewership/readership, which in turn leads to greater ad revenue. Creating controversy is a lot easier and less expensive than in-depth investigative reporting.



I find it equally as offensive the campaign to make Zimmerman into a racist monster, based on flimsy and contradictory evidence. Death threats against him and his family are beyond offensive, they are scary. The mob mentality that motivates so many Martin partisans is anathema to American law & traditions, not to mention basic decency. Even if I accept the premise that Zimmerman was a racist lone-wolf cop-wannabe vigilante who shot Trayvon solely because he was black, that does not justify convicting and sentencing Zimmerman and his family to death without judge, jury, trial, law, or evidence.

I would love to have a video be unearthed that showed the fatal encounter in its entirety so all the speculation could be put to rest. It would have been even better had Martin survived so he could tell his side of the story - it's entirely possible that he was doing exactly what Zimmerman said he was or one of the many scenarios that Zimmerman supporters speculate about. It is possible that Martin's actions contributed to the conflict. But to the anti-Zimmerman crowd, Martin is a saint whose actions are not to be questioned. I would expect this from his family, this is normal for any family who loses a loved one. But I expect better from those who are not personally involved. (And I don't direct this last comment at you, Cyberdad, but at those who decided Zimmerman's guilt without knowing anything but the simplistic version that the mainstream media reported.)

Uh huh, and an anti-gun entity is going to report statistics that support anything other than what supports their agenda.
Right

Well, the numbers kinda speak for themselves.

Thanks Dox47, but I don't think you can "dumb down" things any further than you already have. I sense this thread is going nowhere (mental note to avoid gun related threads in future).

/\ Yes, especially when you can't hope to be on the winning side of one.

Intransigence to uphold a right that was based on colonial settlers engaging in a war of independence against the British empire in the 1770s doesn't mean we need to provide automatic rifles, flame throwers and bazookas for mums and dads in suburban households in the 21st century...sounds like the US constitution is stuck in a time warp.

If you think that’s why the constitution was written then apparently you don’t know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights or when either were written.
And what’s with this “we” thing? If you live in Australia there is no “we” when it comes to matters internal to the US.


For starters, nothing is provided. They have to be purchased and possessed in accordance with law. Automatic rifles, flame throwers, and bazookas are class 3 weapons and destructive devices that few people own and only then with special licensing.


So none of our constitution, including the origin ten amendments, should apply today is what you’re saying?

Your kind are so predictable and that makes it too easy.

In the 1770s when the British imperial army was liable to attack colonists wanting to secede the call to arms and need for protection was seen as necessary. In the 19th century the need for American colonists to protect themselves from native Americans meant they were supposed to be armed. What exactly are you protecting yourself from in the 21st century? rabid squirrels?

You and your buddy "foxy Doxy" seem to be careful to avoid addressing the fundamental issue pertaining to gun ownership
- does the benefit of owning a weapon outweigh the risks? It's blatantly obvious, more people die from guns at home than are saved by them. A gun that is (by law) supposed to be securely locked in a gun cabinet is not going to much use when you are fiddling with you keys trying to unlock them by which time the intruders would have already had you in their gun sights. I know how your "type" think because my uncle is a gun nut who enjoys nothing better than shooting kangaroos and other hapless furry animals. My uncle also thinks Zimmerman is entitled to wander his neighbourhood with a loaded weapon. I'm yet to hear any rationale argument that justifies armed vigilantes. I notice you have never made a convincing case for why Zimmerman should be allowed to wander the streets with a loaded weapon. You invoke the US constitution (thank the stars Australians don't have such crazy laws) but can't make a very good case based on ethics, morals or values.

And yet, it's still incomprehensible to you. Yes, do avoid gun control threads in the future, your "contribution" is not necessary, in the same way that say a deranged vagrant's contribution to a discussion on quantum mechanics is unnecessary.