Reality in Americas is different than reality in European country. You have a smaller and more culturally "homogenous" country and a smaller territory. If you wanna see a success of something, you should look before and after, not compare 2 entire different realities. Yes, USA is more violent than European countries BUT gun control will not make USA be safer as EU countries.
In fact will make USA violent as Chicago/Detroit. Also, how you wanna take over 300 million guns? And why compare only "gun related crimes", i don't see any difference between a knife homicide than a gun homicide except that knifes tends to inflict more pain. The best and safest European country to live is Switzerland and the best and safest cities to live in USA are the cities with less gun control.
So now you think that they're unrelated and shouldnt be compared? Didnt you just use them as an example of the effect of gun control laws? By making that example, you have already tacitly agreed we can compare Canadians, England (and wales) and Ireland to the USA for the sake of gun control. Otherwise, your charts have literally 0 bearing on the conversation at hand.
I dont know what to make of your second point. Correlation is not causation.
Chicago isn't a great example. Guns flow in from outside the city, which local gun control measures can't control. National gun control would be able to constrict that flow of firearms.
To a degree, yes. I live in Texas, though, so if I really want to get hold of an illegal gun I can drive down to Mexico and pay someone to smuggle one across the border for me. People, drugs, guns--the coyotes don't care what the cargo is as long as their price is met.
Whether his graphs are cherry picked or not is another question, but I appreciate the use of actual evidence in debate rather than pure rhetoric. And I don't think use of a right wing source is inherently suspicious anymore than the use of a left wing source (almost all domestic political media) is. Is there a reliable link between per capita firearm ownership and gun deaths that can't be explained by other factors? Actually yes, but that lies mostly in the realm of suicides which are the majority of gun related deaths. So take away the gun. You will have less suicide deaths, but not any less depressed people wanting to kill themselves. Try to solve depression, you've solved a large part of gun deaths and made people's lives better.
In science, we're taught to remove as many biases from the environment as possible. Right wing sources are obviously one source of that bias. Similarly, I wouldnt put a lot of stock in Mother Jones or another left wing source either.
Unfortunately, people are trying to move the goal posts for bias now. Conservatives know that Breitbart wont be seen as a credible source anymore, so some of them choose to try to paint with a broad brush that everyone else is biased in the opposite direction.
It doesnt lead to a more productive discussion. All it does is let people off the hook about using good sourcing and strong, unbiased evidence.
Chicago isn't a great example. Guns flow in from outside the city, which local gun control measures can't control. National gun control would be able to constrict that flow of firearms.
Has the prohibition on drug sales prevented the use and sale of drugs? Why would firearms be immune from this?
Conservatives know that Breitbart wont be seen as a credible source anymore, so some of them choose to try to paint with a broad brush that everyone else is biased in the opposite direction.
Nonsense. Journalism in America *is* biased in the other direction. This is consistent with years of evidence and is not in dispute, even by the most left wing of sources.
Reality in Americas is different than reality in European country. You have a smaller and more culturally "homogenous" country and a smaller territory. If you wanna see a success of something, you should look before and after, not compare 2 entire different realities. Yes, USA is more violent than European countries BUT gun control will not make USA be safer as EU countries.
In fact will make USA violent as Chicago/Detroit. Also, how you wanna take over 300 million guns? And why compare only "gun related crimes", i don't see any difference between a knife homicide than a gun homicide except that knifes tends to inflict more pain. The best and safest European country to live is Switzerland and the best and safest cities to live in USA are the cities with less gun control.
So now you think that they're unrelated and shouldnt be compared? Didnt you just use them as an example of the effect of gun control laws? By making that example, you have already tacitly agreed we can compare Canadians, England (and wales) and Ireland to the USA for the sake of gun control. Otherwise, your charts have literally 0 bearing on the conversation at hand.
I dont know what to make of your second point. Correlation is not causation.
Compare USA cities with and without gun laws. Compare EU countries like Switzerland with countries with strict gun laws. Compare In South America, Paraguay who is much poorer than Brazil and still much more safer because guns are more easily obtained. Or compare the same city before and after gun control
Correlation isn't causation BUT if the same law is approved in many different cities and in many different countries, always increasing the violence, is fair to assume that this law will increase violence.
Whether his graphs are cherry picked or not is another question, but I appreciate the use of actual evidence in debate rather than pure rhetoric. And I don't think use of a right wing source is inherently suspicious anymore than the use of a left wing source (almost all domestic political media) is.
Chicago isn't a great example. Guns flow in from outside the city, which local gun control measures can't control. National gun control would be able to constrict that flow of firearms.
Has the prohibition on drug sales prevented the use and sale of drugs? Why would firearms be immune from this?
I do think the war on drugs has decreased drug use, though I don't think it's quite worth the cost. I'd rather have a well-regulated drug trade or gun trade than an unregulated or black market drug or gun trade.
@Mathsorcerer: You live in Texas? Where? I'm in San Antonio.
If you think the Washington Post is the most left-wing of sources, then I have some websites to show you.
It's true that most journalists are liberals, but that doesn't make the flagships of center-left media into mirror images of Breitbart et al. Their editorial standards are much stricter (Please don't @ me with examples of mainstream media blunders. I know.) and they have an institutional desire to not be seen as partisan shills, even if you see them that way. If someone wants to reference WSJ, the Economist, or the National Review, for example, I'd take it a whole lot more seriously. Citing Breitbart is more like citing a Louise Mensch tweet.
Nonsense. Journalism in America *is* biased in the other direction. This is consistent with years of evidence and is not in dispute, even by the most left wing of sources.
I don't think that proves that journalism is biased. So 7 percent are Republicans, so what do Republicans want a participation trophy? Get in there do your job and don't be crazy. Maybe that's too much? Twitter cracked down on Russian bots and conservatives are crying about lost followers who were Russian bots. Lots of "my account was flagged but I verified it and it's fine now. But I lost a bunch of bots followers who can't verify their accounts!" there are a lot of Republicans in law enforcement, is law enforcement or the military biased?
As long as you do your job honestly it doesn't matter your biases. Breitbart and Infowars do not they lie and make stuff up. Your mainstream media may think that lying all the time about stuff is wrong, that doesn't make them biased against conservatives, they are biased against liars. They try and do their job. They may feel a certain way about something but they don't intentionally twist facts or push bias on everything like your right wing fake news sites do.
Compare USA cities with and without gun laws. Compare EU countries like Switzerland with countries with strict gun laws. Compare In South America, Paraguay who is much poorer than Brazil and still much more safer because guns are more easily obtained. Or compare the same city before and after gun control
Correlation isn't causation BUT if the same law is approved in many different cities and in many different countries, always increasing the violence, is fair to assume that this law will increase violence.
It's also bad science. I'll poke a hole in one of your points as evidence of that. Regarding switzerland:
The atlantic isnt perfect. (It's a little left leaning, but probably less biased than WaPo, CNN, MSNBC or most others. It's generally rated as a decent place to get information).
What's not included in the article is that buying ammunition in Switzerland is also heavily regulated. It is roughly just as difficult to buy ammo as the gun itself. It also has extremely restrictive personal carry permits.
OK, lets talk about this one graph and the meaning behind it with one word: Troubles.
"Three days into the UWC strike, on 17 May 1974, two UVF teams from the Belfast and Mid-Ulster brigades[71] detonated three no-warning car bombs in Dublin's city centre during the Friday evening rush hour, resulting in 26 deaths and close to 300 injuries. Ninety minutes later, a fourth car bomb exploded in Monaghan, killing seven additional people. Nobody has ever been convicted for these attacks.[49][109]"
There is the reason for your "spike" in the graph. The confiscation of guns had no bearing on this event, and the spike might have been larger if the confiscation did not happen.
If you are going to cherry pick from history, its best to learn the history involved first.
Terrorist are still going to find ways to kill people regardless of gun laws. Gun laws is a way to deter other types of murders however.
Compare USA cities with and without gun laws. Compare EU countries like Switzerland with countries with strict gun laws. Compare In South America, Paraguay who is much poorer than Brazil and still much more safer because guns are more easily obtained. Or compare the same city before and after gun control
Correlation isn't causation BUT if the same law is approved in many different cities and in many different countries, always increasing the violence, is fair to assume that this law will increase violence.
It's also bad science. I'll poke a hole in one of your points as evidence of that. Regarding switzerland:
The atlantic isnt perfect. (It's a little left leaning, but probably less biased than WaPo, CNN, MSNBC or most others. It's generally rated as a decent place to get information).
What's not included in the article is that buying ammunition in Switzerland is also heavily regulated. It is roughly just as difficult to buy ammo as the gun itself. It also has extremely restrictive personal carry permits.
I know that Switzerland isn't that "free" compared to USA but compare Switzerland with France... Also, they managed to be NEUTRAL in WW2 with Nazis on North and Fascists on South, besides a lot of territory "transgressions" from both sides because in ww2 they have almost no gun laws.
Nonsense. Journalism in America *is* biased in the other direction. This is consistent with years of evidence and is not in dispute, even by the most left wing of sources.
I don't think that proves that journalism is biased. So 7 percent are Republicans, so what do Republicans want a participation trophy? Get in there do your job and don't be crazy. Maybe that's too much? Twitter cracked down on Russian bots and conservatives are crying about lost followers who were Russian bots. Lots of "my account was flagged but I verified it and it's fine now. But I lost a bunch of bots followers who can't verify their accounts!" there are a lot of Republicans in law enforcement, is law enforcement or the military biased?
As long as you do your job honestly it doesn't matter your biases. Breitbart and Infowars do not they lie and make stuff up. Your mainstream media may think that lying all the time about stuff is wrong, that doesn't make them biased against conservatives, they are biased against liars. They try and do their job. They may feel a certain way about something but they don't intentionally twist facts or push bias on everything like your right wing fake news sites do.
Haha. I'm confused. It sounds like you disagree with the quote (which I wrote, not Zeke), but then essentially agree with it at the end : P
Their editorial standards are much stricter (Please don't @ me with examples of mainstream media blunders. I know.)
So...if we can't use examples of blatant lies by the media, and base their editorial standards on the content they produce, how are we deciding their editorial standards are much better? This sounds more like opinion.
Yes, I guess you could consider it a very firmly held opinion. I think it is so self-evident that the Washington Post has higher editorial standards that Breitbart that, realistically, I'm not going to take seriously any arguments to the contrary, so I was hoping not to take the conversation in that direction. Obviously I can't stop you from making such arguments, but I do hope you'll first think for a moment about whether you actually believe them.
LOL... Only one more point. The most "pro gun' country in Europe is Czech republic. They aren't violent even if compared to 'richer' European countries
LOL... Only one more point. The most "pro gun' country in Europe is Czech republic. They aren't violent even if compared to 'richer' European countries
This is actually a point of contention between the Czech government and the EU as a whole, which is implementing stricter legislation. The Czechs have argued that owners of automatic weapons may sell or otherwise dispose of them, which will increase the number of weapons in criminal hands. Of course the Czechs may be benefiting to some degree from the relatively low levels of gun ownership and violence across the EU, which reduces cross-border violence and crime. By contrast it has been argued that Mexican gangs benefit from the liberal US gun control regime.
I wish to visit the Beamdog HQ in Edmonton, and purchase a ticket to fly.
My real name is checked against the No-Fly list, compiled by US intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
I arrive at the airport, where my identification is checked against the name used to purchase the ticket. The ID must meet the standards as specified by the REAL ID act passed by congress.
I proceed to the TSA checkpoint for entry into the boarding area.
My ID and boarding pass are checked and verified.
I am subjected to a metal detector and/or millimeter-wave scan for weapons.
My carry-on bags are x-rayed.
Various items of electronics or clothing are examined individually.
I may be randomly selected for a more in-depth search and check.
My checked bags go through the same process.
While in the TSA line or in the concourse, law enforcement agents patrol, looking for suspicious activity. They employ dogs trained to sniff for contraband or explosives.
My boarding pass is checked as I board, again with an ID check.
The cockpit doors are locked.
There is a chance of having an armed sky marshal on board, increased since 9/11.
For every bullet point on this list you can say two things: it would not stop a determined terrorist, and is an inconvenience for a legal traveler like myself.
There is no 100% effective way to stop a terrorist attack, which is why you approach it from the stance of risk mitigation: every one of these steps adds one more place a terrorist can make a mistake, get noticed, and stopped. Since you cannot reliably prevent a terrorist attack you simply try to add additional failure nodes.
As an analogy to gun control and preventing gun deaths, it's not ideal. Air travel is, after all, a privilege and not a constitutionally-protected right. However it is exceptionally difficult to have a meaningful discussion about gun rights and gun control when every proposal gets isolated and summarily dismissed because it inconveniences legal gun owners and won't stop criminals, when we use a similar mitigation strategy for other seemingly intractable problems. We can have meaningful and constructive debate around such proposals if we instead focus on whether they're worth the trade-off, because none of them is going to an end-all, be-all solution.
I grew up on a farm in the country, where guns are tools: they put food on your plate, protect your livestock (and livelihood) from predators, and protect your family and friends because the nearest law enforcement is far away. I've since lived in cities, where guns are tools of oppression: they keep youths trapped in a cycles of gang violence, they're used to facilitate robberies and other crimes, and they're used in anger for retaliation or vengeance. This is not a problem with a simple, or timely, solution, and the gap between the sides seems to widen--I have no answers, no insight to share.
Of course I believe that*, and I would say it especially applies during the Trump era. I don't think its much of a strech to believe the political bias of individuals will affect the way they view, percieve, and cover events (not to mention what they choose to cover and sensationalize in the first place), and when the community you are in very solidly leans one particular direction that would only get worse. When they feel personally insulted by the person they are trying to cover this would again only get worse, though fault of that lies squarely on Trump. The echo chamber effect is real.
No one is immune from bias. Least of all journalists.
*and by that I mean my original statement that left wing media deserves no less skepticism and is no more trustworthy than right wing and that this describes most mainstream outlets.
As an analogy to gun control and preventing gun deaths, it's not ideal. Air travel is, after all, a privilege and not a constitutionally-protected right. However it is exceptionally difficult to have a meaningful discussion about gun rights and gun control when every proposal gets isolated and summarily dismissed because it inconveniences legal gun owners and won't stop criminals, when we use a similar mitigation strategy for other seemingly intractable problems. We can have meaningful and constructive debate around such proposals if we instead focus on whether they're worth the trade-off, because none of them is going to an end-all, be-all solution.
Just like with your airport example, there are hoops through which people must jump in order to legally own and operate a car--first you have to have the money to buy it and/or qualify for financing, then you must pass your drivers' test, receive your state-issued license, register the car, acquire insurance on it, have it inspected, etc. Although I typically err on the side of maximizing personal freedom it would not be an unreasonable set of circumstances to require prospective gun owners to pass an FBI background check, be licensed to own the firearm in your State of residence, and have taken (and passed) a thorough gun safety course.
Logically, there *must* be a middle ground between "no guns, ever" and "molon labe".
I'd say bias isn't a huge problem in and of itself.
If you start working backwards from your bias to cover stories that only fit your views that's a problem. Using your biases to intentionally spin every story or again create stories is also a problem. I don't see these issues with mainstream media but I do with fox news and further right wing media. They create stories and intentionally spin every story and feature more opinion speakers to tell their audience how to feel about an event. They might have a guest but usually it's just one asshole telling you how to feel about something.
At least on CNN, which is not perfect at all, they have a panel of nut jobs and also experts so you can get a flavor of each and the host is somewhat of neutral.
On Fox you have 1 nut job host and 1 nut job guest or counterpoint guest with most outlandish crazy opinion that that the host will ridicule to try to make you think the everyone thinks like that crazy person and you should therefore adopt an ultraconservative viewpoint in retaliation because 1 person says crazy thing xyz.
There are a great difference between gun control and "fly". How easy is to obtain a plane and how easy is to obtain a gun? How hard and expensive is to produce a "homemade" gun and a aircraft? Can someone easily disassemble, conceal a aircraft and bring a aircraft across border? Probably few "Drug Lords" can manage to get a "illegal aircraft" to do criminal activities. In your text looks like you really believe that someone who want do a massacre will not purchase a gun if he needs to commit another crime...
Gun control din't prevented a lot of terrorists attacks in countries with strict gun laws. In fact, prevented Charlie Hebdo from getting a adequate private security.
LOL... Only one more point. The most "pro gun' country in Europe is Czech republic. They aren't violent even if compared to 'richer' European countries
This is actually a point of contention between the Czech government and the EU as a whole, which is implementing stricter legislation. The Czechs have argued that owners of automatic weapons may sell or otherwise dispose of them, which will increase the number of weapons in criminal hands. Of course the Czechs may be benefiting to some degree from the relatively low levels of gun ownership and violence across the EU, which reduces cross-border violence and crime. By contrast it has been argued that Mexican gangs benefit from the liberal US gun control regime.
Mexico is violent exactly because gun control. Almost only criminals have guns in Mexico. Compare Uruguay and Paraguay(less awful latin american countries in gun control) with Brazil and Mexico(very strict gun control laws).
I'm reasonably certain the violence in Mexico is due to the massive drug trade in which drug cartels have more money than the actual government and have the resources to murder their enemies with absolute impunity.
At this point, having a gun in Mexico would not be enough to protect you from a drug cartel.
Donald Trump needed an empathy cheat sheet to even get through a short meeting with some of the victims of the Parkland Shooting. Yes, this is a real photo:
This guy can't REMEMBER to say "I hear you" (as disingenuous as that may be)?? How about feeling the emotion naturally instead of putting it on a cue card?? And his major takeaway from the meeting is.....to arm teachers. Because besides teaching and grading papers, their jobs description is now going to include being armed sentinels tasked with (ostensibly) shooting down one of their own students or former students who goes on a rampage?? And what, pray tell, happens the first time a teacher forgets to lock their desk where their firearm is stored and a kid gets ahold of it and kills people (which will absolutely happen)?? What will be the argument then?? What happens when Miss Crawford, in the midst of MAYBE taking out the shooter, also fatally wounds two of her other students in the process, because, you know, she is a frickin' social studies teacher and not an ARMED GUARD!!! In the midst of the chaos of a maniac blasting through the halls with an assault rifle, we are going to now have teachers and janitors and lunch ladies all instantaneously transforming into Doc Holiday and Wyatt Earp. It NEVER happens this way. Simulations show that without extensive training, you will freeze and panic in the moment, and you are just as likely to get another innocent person killed. This is why members of the military train RIGOROUSLY to be able to react in the proper manner to these kind of situations. Your kid's math teacher is not that person. Beyond that, there WERE armed guards at this school. Two of them as far as I can recall. Incidentally, they don't have the ability to clone themselves or teleport so they can be in every part of a 3000 kid school at once. Nor were they likely packing the firepower this 18-year old kid was able to amass with no resistance whatsoever. ALSO....teachers all over the country have to spend money every year to buy supplies for their own students who can't afford them. We don't have the money to cover that (in fact, an early version of the GOP tax bill specifically removed their ability to write these purchases off, though it was later kept in place after the outcry, pittance that it is at $250), but we are going to spend millions upon millions of dollars buying teachers guns, getting them all conceal and carry licenses, and training them for urban combat??
Comments
I dont know what to make of your second point. Correlation is not causation.
Unfortunately, people are trying to move the goal posts for bias now. Conservatives know that Breitbart wont be seen as a credible source anymore, so some of them choose to try to paint with a broad brush that everyone else is biased in the opposite direction.
It doesnt lead to a more productive discussion. All it does is let people off the hook about using good sourcing and strong, unbiased evidence.
Has the prohibition on drug sales prevented the use and sale of drugs? Why would firearms be immune from this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/just-7-percent-of-journalists-are-republicans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/?utm_term=.be522bcd2471
Correlation isn't causation BUT if the same law is approved in many different cities and in many different countries, always increasing the violence, is fair to assume that this law will increase violence. Yes, only graphics showing that gun control reduced criminality are reliable, ohh wait. There are no such graphics. Proof that homemade guns can be made
@Mathsorcerer: You live in Texas? Where? I'm in San Antonio.
It's true that most journalists are liberals, but that doesn't make the flagships of center-left media into mirror images of Breitbart et al. Their editorial standards are much stricter (Please don't @ me with examples of mainstream media blunders. I know.) and they have an institutional desire to not be seen as partisan shills, even if you see them that way. If someone wants to reference WSJ, the Economist, or the National Review, for example, I'd take it a whole lot more seriously. Citing Breitbart is more like citing a Louise Mensch tweet.
As long as you do your job honestly it doesn't matter your biases. Breitbart and Infowars do not they lie and make stuff up. Your mainstream media may think that lying all the time about stuff is wrong, that doesn't make them biased against conservatives, they are biased against liars. They try and do their job. They may feel a certain way about something but they don't intentionally twist facts or push bias on everything like your right wing fake news sites do.
It's also bad science. I'll poke a hole in one of your points as evidence of that. Regarding switzerland:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/swiss-guns/553448/
The atlantic isnt perfect. (It's a little left leaning, but probably less biased than WaPo, CNN, MSNBC or most others. It's generally rated as a decent place to get information).
What's not included in the article is that buying ammunition in Switzerland is also heavily regulated. It is roughly just as difficult to buy ammo as the gun itself. It also has extremely restrictive personal carry permits.
OK, lets talk about this one graph and the meaning behind it with one word: Troubles.
"Three days into the UWC strike, on 17 May 1974, two UVF teams from the Belfast and Mid-Ulster brigades[71] detonated three no-warning car bombs in Dublin's city centre during the Friday evening rush hour, resulting in 26 deaths and close to 300 injuries. Ninety minutes later, a fourth car bomb exploded in Monaghan, killing seven additional people. Nobody has ever been convicted for these attacks.[49][109]"
There is the reason for your "spike" in the graph. The confiscation of guns had no bearing on this event, and the spike might have been larger if the confiscation did not happen.
If you are going to cherry pick from history, its best to learn the history involved first.
Terrorist are still going to find ways to kill people regardless of gun laws. Gun laws is a way to deter other types of murders however.
Haha. I'm confused. It sounds like you disagree with the quote (which I wrote, not Zeke), but then essentially agree with it at the end : P
- My real name is checked against the No-Fly list, compiled by US intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
- I arrive at the airport, where my identification is checked against the name used to purchase the ticket. The ID must meet the standards as specified by the REAL ID act passed by congress.
- I proceed to the TSA checkpoint for entry into the boarding area.
- My ID and boarding pass are checked and verified.
- I am subjected to a metal detector and/or millimeter-wave scan for weapons.
- My carry-on bags are x-rayed.
- Various items of electronics or clothing are examined individually.
- I may be randomly selected for a more in-depth search and check.
- My checked bags go through the same process.
- While in the TSA line or in the concourse, law enforcement agents patrol, looking for suspicious activity. They employ dogs trained to sniff for contraband or explosives.
- My boarding pass is checked as I board, again with an ID check.
- The cockpit doors are locked.
- There is a chance of having an armed sky marshal on board, increased since 9/11.
For every bullet point on this list you can say two things: it would not stop a determined terrorist, and is an inconvenience for a legal traveler like myself.There is no 100% effective way to stop a terrorist attack, which is why you approach it from the stance of risk mitigation: every one of these steps adds one more place a terrorist can make a mistake, get noticed, and stopped. Since you cannot reliably prevent a terrorist attack you simply try to add additional failure nodes.
As an analogy to gun control and preventing gun deaths, it's not ideal. Air travel is, after all, a privilege and not a constitutionally-protected right. However it is exceptionally difficult to have a meaningful discussion about gun rights and gun control when every proposal gets isolated and summarily dismissed because it inconveniences legal gun owners and won't stop criminals, when we use a similar mitigation strategy for other seemingly intractable problems. We can have meaningful and constructive debate around such proposals if we instead focus on whether they're worth the trade-off, because none of them is going to an end-all, be-all solution.
I grew up on a farm in the country, where guns are tools: they put food on your plate, protect your livestock (and livelihood) from predators, and protect your family and friends because the nearest law enforcement is far away. I've since lived in cities, where guns are tools of oppression: they keep youths trapped in a cycles of gang violence, they're used to facilitate robberies and other crimes, and they're used in anger for retaliation or vengeance. This is not a problem with a simple, or timely, solution, and the gap between the sides seems to widen--I have no answers, no insight to share.
No one is immune from bias. Least of all journalists.
*and by that I mean my original statement that left wing media deserves no less skepticism and is no more trustworthy than right wing and that this describes most mainstream outlets.
Logically, there *must* be a middle ground between "no guns, ever" and "molon labe".
If you start working backwards from your bias to cover stories that only fit your views that's a problem. Using your biases to intentionally spin every story or again create stories is also a problem. I don't see these issues with mainstream media but I do with fox news and further right wing media. They create stories and intentionally spin every story and feature more opinion speakers to tell their audience how to feel about an event. They might have a guest but usually it's just one asshole telling you how to feel about something.
At least on CNN, which is not perfect at all, they have a panel of nut jobs and also experts so you can get a flavor of each and the host is somewhat of neutral.
On Fox you have 1 nut job host and 1 nut job guest or counterpoint guest with most outlandish crazy opinion that that the host will ridicule to try to make you think the everyone thinks like that crazy person and you should therefore adopt an ultraconservative viewpoint in retaliation because 1 person says crazy thing xyz.
Gun control din't prevented a lot of terrorists attacks in countries with strict gun laws. In fact, prevented Charlie Hebdo from getting a adequate private security. Mexico is violent exactly because gun control. Almost only criminals have guns in Mexico. Compare Uruguay and Paraguay(less awful latin american countries in gun control) with Brazil and Mexico(very strict gun control laws).
At this point, having a gun in Mexico would not be enough to protect you from a drug cartel.
This guy can't REMEMBER to say "I hear you" (as disingenuous as that may be)?? How about feeling the emotion naturally instead of putting it on a cue card?? And his major takeaway from the meeting is.....to arm teachers. Because besides teaching and grading papers, their jobs description is now going to include being armed sentinels tasked with (ostensibly) shooting down one of their own students or former students who goes on a rampage?? And what, pray tell, happens the first time a teacher forgets to lock their desk where their firearm is stored and a kid gets ahold of it and kills people (which will absolutely happen)?? What will be the argument then?? What happens when Miss Crawford, in the midst of MAYBE taking out the shooter, also fatally wounds two of her other students in the process, because, you know, she is a frickin' social studies teacher and not an ARMED GUARD!!! In the midst of the chaos of a maniac blasting through the halls with an assault rifle, we are going to now have teachers and janitors and lunch ladies all instantaneously transforming into Doc Holiday and Wyatt Earp. It NEVER happens this way. Simulations show that without extensive training, you will freeze and panic in the moment, and you are just as likely to get another innocent person killed. This is why members of the military train RIGOROUSLY to be able to react in the proper manner to these kind of situations. Your kid's math teacher is not that person. Beyond that, there WERE armed guards at this school. Two of them as far as I can recall. Incidentally, they don't have the ability to clone themselves or teleport so they can be in every part of a 3000 kid school at once. Nor were they likely packing the firepower this 18-year old kid was able to amass with no resistance whatsoever. ALSO....teachers all over the country have to spend money every year to buy supplies for their own students who can't afford them. We don't have the money to cover that (in fact, an early version of the GOP tax bill specifically removed their ability to write these purchases off, though it was later kept in place after the outcry, pittance that it is at $250), but we are going to spend millions upon millions of dollars buying teachers guns, getting them all conceal and carry licenses, and training them for urban combat??