[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Let's be honest. This is about GUNS, not kids. We have elected senators and representatives who represent us. Using media to try to force an issue via over-the-top emotion instead of the legislative system is doing no one any favors, least of all our kids.

Hmm, well, hmm. Yes, it is about guns. And it is also about kids. It is about crime, violence drive by shootings, church shootings random killings, just yesterday a family of five was killed in their home, with a gun, by an escaped prisoner.

There is no one thing. No silver bullet. It is very complicated.

And, yes, we have legislators, and have had for over 20 years and what have they done? One side proposes something, the other side blocks it. Then the other side is in office and we just repeat the same process. Over and over. And then it goes silent and nothing is done at all for a while, until something happens and brings it all back to the surface - boiling over public emotions on both sides, and politicians, being the clever slime balls that are, jump in with both feet stirring that boiling pot of anger and angst. We all yell at each other our assigned dog whistles (both sides) and again nothing happens.

Once upon a time one child was Kidnapped in March 1932. In June a federal law was passed to address kidnappings. Less than 3 months. We have been arguing about this for 20 years now, no agreement, no solutions, no mitigating laws. Just a lot of arguing. While children die every couple weeks.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Thank you. That was very insightful.

I will take issue partially with the media is doing the social engineering. The media, in my opinion, is simply focused on running stories that will make them money. Sadly, they have to fill 24x7 streaming. Used to only have to fill 3 or 4 hours a day, now they have to come up with 168 hours of "news". sigh. So, they put out snippets with inflammatory headlines - all trying to get your attention to click. They get paid by the click and how long you stay to watch. They appear to have little regard for the consequences of their streaming, as long as they make money.

Keep in mind that to maximize profit, they need to focus their articles on THEIR base. Sort of like politicians. The Media picked a base to market to and have to feed that base articles the base will click to see and watch. It is a vicious cycle. I expect CNN has no business plan to try to take Fox watchers, and Fox has no plan to try and take CNN watchers. Each focuses on doing everything possible to capture their views attention.

That said, I feel it is a safe bet that some articles are "encouraged" by various outside (not part of the media company) interests. This is true of all media Fox and CNN. I am fairly sure it is a safe bet that some politicians have contacts that they "suggest" stories to, and the media runs with them so they can get "insider" stories in return.

In addition, even back in the day when Howard K Smith et al, actually had NEWS shows, that told the NEWS. politicians "played" the media - things like releasing bad news on Fridays. etc.

I get a lot of my new from BBC and other world news sources, for exactly those reasons.

Now, is social engineering being pushed. I don't know, could be. But, I doubt seriously that any of the major news outlets (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, OAN, NewsMax, et all) would put a social engineering piece over profit. But, I am also sure they will "fill" in that extra 144 hours they have to fill with social engineering that their particular audience wants to hear.

Well, as H.L. Mencken said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public". That also goes for American media. Especially for American media. The days of Howard K. Smith and Uncle Walter (the most trusted man in America) Cronkite are ancient history. News "reporting" today is more on the level of National Enquirer bilge than it is responsible reporting.

My own personal opinion is that media inevitably reflect the politics of the medium in question. You can see that in the reporting, especially in how words are used. Two mediums might be reporting the same story in virtually the same manner. Let's say that, for the sake of example, the story is about a person nearing the end of his career in the public eye. One story refers to the person as a "venerable statesman", the other as an "aging politician". Those are the ONLY two words that are different. I don't know about you but the first gives me the impression of, say, a Winston Churchill. The second? Teddy Kennedy. We both have the same information, but our emotional reaction may be decidedly different based on those words.

There are numerous other examples of how our emotions are channeled. Media is dangerously expert at it. There are a lot of obvious ones. The ones that are really scary though are the ones that we CAN'T spot. It is why, like you, I get most of my news from foreign sources.

...or just shut news out altogether.

[Woodbear]

Originally Posted by Kenswing

Next they’ll want to ban the knife and fork in order to stop obesity.

I blame the spork for my over-indulgence

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Actually, I don't think I have seen the Texas school shooters face on TV. Maybe, once, but I am not sure. I see. LOT of the children that died faces.

I guess we watch different media.

So, what do you suggest to solve it? Do we put more regulations on the media? How does that fit with the constitution?

Not arguing, I am interested in your thoughts on those.

You are advocating restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, how does that fit with the constitution? In case everyone has forgotten the right to bear arms is a "Right" just like the 1st and the others.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Agreed, lots of lies...........on the media that I don't watch.

I watch all kinds of media so I can hear/read all points of view. There are 2 sides to every story and allows an open minded person to assess all the information provided in order to come to a fact based conclusion at to what is the truth. Maybe you need to give it a try.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Australia banned a certain class of weapon....semi-autos and it worked for them. And they are a democracy much like the US

The United States government is a representative republic, not a democracy. Your civics class should have covered this. Believe me you wouldn't want to live in a pure democracy where majority rule decided everything.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Using Australia as the example is a bad idea. Their social system is different from ours, as is their culture. Americans suffer from Tall Poppy Syndrome - where we are taught that standing out in a crowd is a good thing. Attention-seeking is celebrated. In Australia, people want to just be, and not focus their energy on being noticed.

Australians are more likely to experience first-hand other parts of the globe. Americans generally don't leave their own hemisphere. Only 1/6 of Americans have ever travelled abroad. 1/3 of Australians have.

Australian culture embraces the concept of fair play, while Americans will likely "do whatever it takes" to get a jump on their competition.

These cultural differences are significant enough to have an impact on the acceptability of stricter gun control measures.

Thank you OBB! No countries are alike socially. Trying to compare the U.S. to another country is like comparing grapes and watermelons. Too many variables.

[Number 10 GI]

It is a pretty well established fact that criminals don't get their guns legally. There are criminal enterprises that provide guns to criminals in this country and in probably every other country in the world. Criminals know who these suppliers are because a gun is a tool of their trade. They have no problem obtaining a gun.

There are smugglers that routinely smuggle illegal firearms into Mexico, and Central and South America, many of which are full automatic firearms. China is one of the biggest sources for these firearms per the ATF and FBI. You can ban the AR15 or any other gun there is and criminal organizations will provide them to who ever has the money to buy them. The latest cowardly child murderer legally bought two high end AR15 rifles that retail for over $2,000 each so he could have easily paid the inflated price a smuggler would charge.
So how would a ban on certain guns or universal background checks prevent this cowardly child murderer from getting what he needed? Just like in any podunk farm town in the most remote areas of fly-over country, you can get any illegal drug your addiction desires and the junkies know where to get them. The same will be with guns.

We have a violence problem in this country that we better acknowledge and do the things necessary to change that instead of useless emotion based knee jerk reactions.

Did you notice I didn't call the murderer a "shooter" like the "if it bleeds it leads" sensationalism oriented media label them. I called him a cowardly child murderer because Shooter gives the connotation of a skilled assassin like in violent video games. The crime he committed should be called what it is, the act of a deranged coward. The medial feeds these evil people's need for recognition and in my opinion should be condemned as well as the killer.

[Number 10 GI]

Oops, double post, deleted.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Well, as H.L. Mencken said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public". That also goes for American media. Especially for American media. The days of Howard K. Smith and Uncle Walter (the most trusted man in America) Cronkite are ancient history. News "reporting" today is more on the level of National Enquirer bilge than it is responsible reporting.

My own personal opinion is that media inevitably reflect the politics of the medium in question. You can see that in the reporting, especially in how words are used. Two mediums might be reporting the same story in virtually the same manner. Let's say that, for the sake of example, the story is about a person nearing the end of his career in the public eye. One story refers to the person as a "venerable statesman", the other as an "aging politician". Those are the ONLY two words that are different. I don't know about you but the first gives me the impression of, say, a Winston Churchill. The second? Teddy Kennedy. We both have the same information, but our emotional reaction may be decidedly different based on those words.

There are numerous other examples of how our emotions are channeled. Media is dangerously expert at it. There are a lot of obvious ones. The ones that are really scary though are the ones that we CAN'T spot. It is why, like you, I get most of my news from foreign sources.

...or just shut news out altogether.

I agree with everything you said, my only possible difference is the why. I believe they do that to make money. Period.

But, I wasnt on their email list, so I can’t say for sure.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

It is a pretty well established fact that criminals don't get their guns legally. There are criminal enterprises that provide guns to criminals in this country and in probably every other country in the world. Criminals know who these suppliers are because a gun is a tool of their trade. They have no problem obtaining a gun.

There are smugglers that routinely smuggle illegal firearms into Mexico, and Central and South America, many of which are full automatic firearms. China is one of the biggest sources for these firearms per the ATF and FBI. You can ban the AR15 or any other gun there is and criminal organizations will provide them to who ever has the money to buy them. The latest cowardly child murderer legally bought two high end AR15 rifles that retail for over $2,000 each so he could have easily paid the inflated price a smuggler would charge.
So how would a ban on certain guns or universal background checks prevent this cowardly child murderer from getting what he needed? Just like in any podunk farm town in the most remote areas of fly-over country, you can get any illegal drug your addiction desires and the junkies know where to get them. The same will be with guns.

We have a violence problem in this country that we better acknowledge and do the things necessary to change that instead of useless emotion based knee jerk reactions.

Did you notice I didn't call the murderer a "shooter" like the "if it bleeds it leads" sensationalism oriented media label them. I called him a cowardly child murderer because Shooter gives the connotation of a skilled assassin like in violent video games. The crime he committed should be called what it is, the act of a deranged coward. The medial feeds these evil people's need for recognition and in my opinion should be condemned as well as the killer.

Pretty much agree with you, but most mass shootings are not by criminals… I don’t think, the one in Texas obviously wasn’t.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

The United States government is a representative republic, not a democracy. Your civics class should have covered this. Believe me you wouldn't want to live in a pure democracy where majority rule decided everything.

Uh, better check you sources. A representative republic IS a democracy.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

You are advocating restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, how does that fit with the constitution? In case everyone has forgotten the right to bear arms is a "Right" just like the 1st and the others.

Pretty easy. One of the most famous conservative justices of The SCOTUS said every right can have limits. Everyone, and he was saying that in a discussion about gun control.

Also, the division of the 2nd into two rights instead of being one right is a very modern invention (2008) and never the intent of the founders.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Uh, better check you sources. A representative republic IS a democracy.

No it isn't.

Citizensfb.com

"Key Takeaways: Republic vs. Democracy
Republics and democracies both provide a political system in which citizens are represented by elected officials who are sworn to protect their interests.
In a pure democracy, laws are made directly by the voting majority leaving the rights of the minority largely unprotected.
In a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people and must comply with a constitution that specifically protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.
The United States, while basically a republic, is best described as a “representative democracy.”

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

You are advocating restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, how does that fit with the constitution? In case everyone has forgotten the right to bear arms is a "Right" just like the 1st and the others.

Oh, and, I did not say anything about gun control in my post that you replied to, so, could you please point out where I advocated restrictions? Or are you just lumping me in with everyone else you disagree with?