Posted on 02/05/2011 9:49:18 AM PST by JohnRLott
Since the tragedy in Tucson, the New York Times has started an all-out campaign for gun control, with a relentless number of pieces -- news, editorials, and op-eds. In its advocacy, even the news stories are heavily biased by selectively quoting only academics who support pro-gun control positions. These seemingly unbiased sources are then contrasted with opposing views from clearly biased people on the other side, such as an NRA spokesman or a right-wing politician. The implied conclusion: scientific evidence favors gun control, but self-interest stands in the way.
Take two recent news stories by Michael Luo (here and here). He quotes seven academics who agreed with the New York Times position, but no one on the other side was even interviewed. Talk about misrepresenting academic opinion. The overwhelming majority of studies actually supports the claim that more guns mean less crime. Among peer-reviewed studies in academic journals, criminologists and economists studying right-to-carry laws have produced 18 national studies showing that these laws reduce violent crime, 10 indicate no discernible effect and none finds a bad effect from the law. One would never guess that 294 academics from institutions as diverse as Harvard, Stanford, Northwestern, the University of Pennsylvania, and UCLA released an open letter to Congress during 1999 warning that new gun laws were “ill advised.”
A frequent claim in these recent New York Times articles has been that more guns mean more gun deaths (see also here). . .
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
No, you have it backwards! If you want to grow more bananas, increase the population of England! ;-)
*finger_snap* Of course!
He is not speaking the truth. A ban (or a restriction which is effectively a ban) on ammunition is just as unconstitutional as a ban (or a restriction which is effectively a ban) on firearms since it renders the firearm useless.
In your spare time, try reading up on the McDonald v. Chicago and D.C. v. Heller decisions instead of rotting your brain with inane stand-up routines.
. . . uh, it’s comedy, lossen your corset laces, you ain’t breathing enough . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewRdf9GWuSo&feature=related
Here's a taser testimonial for you:
"He who lives by the sword dies by the sword."
Stitch in time saves nine.
Whole ball of wax.
Hell bent for leather.
8^D
It has nothing to do with whether "the routine was funny", and everything to do with his statement that he agrees with Chakka Mandingo that bullets should cost $5,000. Bonecap.
It's called addressing the issue, not trying to change the subject... a typical liberal tactic, by the way. Bukkaki O'Bunghole does it all the time. But then you knew that, huh?
8^D
Sex is bad cause it leads to dancing.
I love you Laz, in a platonic sort of way.
No wonder Poland revolted.
Comedy is subjective, and I don’t find him funny. What do you want to debate next, what the best song or color is?
I was responding to your comment that Chris Rock “is speaking the truth” and that some people “can’t handle the truth.”
Well, the truth is that for our government to mandate charging $5000 for a bullet would be unconstitutional. You may find the idea comical, sure, but it isn’t the “truth.”
That is what I was responding to. And the danger in his statements? He gives mindless voters ideas. Not unlike Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz of the Daily Show.
If you didn’t get the message the first time, or if you did and are now disparaging it, there is no need for me to try again.
I have never experienced that. I have seen it lead to cigarettes.
:-)
"I hate Illinois Mennonites."
For example, scripture tells us not to be "unevenly yoked." Put another way, we of faith should not make a habit of consorting with those not of faith, lest we be led astray and/or pose a bad example for other, younger believers.
Yet how can one not consort with those not of faith unless one first makes such a judgement, determining who is and who is not an individual of faith? Or, how could we decide whom we should and should not vote for, lest first we judge them? Obviously, we all make judgements all the time, and it is perfectly scriptural that we do so.
So, long story short, yes, I got your intent, no, I was not mocking scriptural precept, but yes, I was making light of your admonition, as I know it to have been used in error in this instance.
;-\
Another mistake...how can they tell....the whole paper is nothing but lies and errors from the front page on....
Dead Tree Media is owned and operated by collectivists who deeply fear the armed individual.
Pity!
PS Moslim money has been heavily invested in American TV networks.
PPS Never forget the Golden Rule: “Who has the gold makes the rules!”
Sex is bad cause it leads to dancing.
I have never experienced that. I have seen it lead to cigarettes.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I remember when it used to lead to more sex, something has changed though, now it leads to exhaustion, must be global warming.
Thank you for the helpful reply. What do you make of Jesus drinking and consorting with the rowdies in the taverns. His disciples asked him why and he replied that is where the sinners are. In other words, one who desires to spread the word should go where the word is not known or embraced. Your thoughts concerning this in relation to your statement that Satan had control of certain avenues of communication? That was the purpose of my saying judge not ....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.